Is anyone that insane?

Timsup2nothin

Timsup2nothin

Deity
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Messages
46,737
On another forum there is a discussion of events in Ukraine (what, we should have a monopoly) and it has taken a very strange turn. After a little jousting between some Americans and some Europeans about NATO defense spending, someone came up with the idea that NATO can continue being as aggressive as they want because Russia "can't really do anything about it". Someone else sort of questioned this idea, which was followed up by an even stronger statement that NATO could "easily" overrun Russia, which would have "no chance" of surviving an attack by NATO.

At this point in the conversation I pointed out that no one else would likely survive it either, so that was a concept best left unexplored.

The response, which I have trouble believing was serious, was classic 'first strike' theory from the total maniac splinter groups from cold war days gone by...complete with NATO losses could be kept down to "an acceptable level". I thought the whole first strike bit was left completely and irrevocably behind...but if this guy is serious I am apparently wrong.

Does anyone here know anything about first strike crazies running loose anywhere?
 
There are probably post cold-war crazies out there but I do not believe that they are the ones (luckily) that run NATO. North Atlantic Pact is primarily a defensive pact which all of it's members focused on how to defend each-other against the probability on an Russian invasion. This probablity raised greatly as of late (because of an Russian invasion on East Ukraine) so NATO is making plans to respond and establish rotating-personell bases as well as positioning a spearhead assault groups in their eastern allies territories. In the event of a nuclear attack there is practically no chance of so called "first-strike" because launch can be detected before missiles hit which triggers nearly immediate response resulting in both participants destroying each-other at the same time.
 
What exactly was their definition of "acceptable levels" of survivors? I'm not too sure I want to be on the receiving end of that definition.

Course, MAD only works if the other guy thinks you're really willing to press the big red Staples button.

from_america_with_love.jpg
 
bhsup said:
What exactly was their definition of "acceptable levels" of survivors? I'm not too sure I want to be on the receiving end of that definition.

Course, MAD only works if the other guy thinks you're really willing to press the big red Staples button.
Click to expand...

Nuclear retaliation effectively runs on deadman switches. Betting against it requires believing that a military apparatus will not follow an 'in the event you don't hear from us...' order. Having been a part of that apparatus, take my word for it, betting they will not follow that order is a very poor risk.
 
OP seems to believe that if Russia were close to defeat in a conventional war with NATO (which, let's face it, is the likely outcome of such a war), they would then resort to nukes. I wonder: Is that true? Because if it is, I think it says more about the Russians than it does about NATO, doesn't it?
 
NATO will deploy to the Ukraine but the difference is the Russians will back off. If the Russians don't then you will see a stand-off point where neither side will advance further.
 
LoneRebel said:
OP seems to believe that if Russia were close to defeat in a conventional war with NATO (which, let's face it, is the likely outcome), they would then resort to nukes. I wonder: Is that true? Because if it is, I think it says more about the Russians than it does about NATO, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

What do you think they have nukes for?

As to what it says about NATO...we are the ones who invented nuclear deterrence. If it is somehow evil for Russia to use it perhaps we shouldn't have invented it, eh?
 
Timsup2nothin said:
What do you think they have nukes for?

As to what it says about NATO...we are the ones who invented nuclear deterrence. If it is somehow evil for Russia to use it perhaps we shouldn't have invented it, eh?
Click to expand...

So again, do you believe they would use nukes to avert defeat in a conventional war?

Needless to say, the use of nukes would not cause Russia to win, it would just cause everyone to lose. The only moral justification I can find for resorting to the nuclear deterrent would be if the very survival of the nation and its people were threatened. And despite the paranoid fantasies of Russian ultranationalists who see NATO as a new Third Reich or something, neither Russia's existence as a nation nor the existence of the Russian people are threatened by NATO. If NATO and Russia got into a conventional war and NATO won, then they would simply remove Russia's current government and install a new one. That's it. In my view, it would take a special kind of person to still resort to using nukes in that situation. Maybe an "insane" one, as your thread title says.

Apropos of the second paragraph of your comment, I believe that during the Cold War, between the two opposing factions, it was the USSR that more strongly believed that a nuclear war could be won, and designed their military doctrines and strategies accordingly. NATO leaned more towards the "nuclear wars are unwinnable by default" doctrine. Make of that what you will.

On another note, there was this short story or something (can't recall the title right now) where the Soviets had this moon base/space station for second strike capability (they could have simply used SSBNs for that). Yet, in the story, when the US finally struck and erased the USSR from the map with a nuclear first strike, the base commander received a final order from the Premier telling him to stand down. Unrealistically noble, perhaps? :lol:
 
Nuclear deterrence was invented by NATO and it is all about retaliation in the event of defeat in conventional war. So yes. Absolutely. If attacked by conventional forces Russia can be expected to retaliate with a full spread of nuclear weapons. Just like the US would. Just like France would. Just like Great Britain would. Just like China would. That's why they have them. Your premise that NATO are seen as such good guys that they would 'just' install a puppet government and commence issuing lollipops and rainbows is grievously flawed.

Other than raving lunatics no one, on any side, has ever considered nuclear weapons as anything but retaliatory. Both sides in the cold war routinely accused the other side of plotting a 'first strike', but neither side ever seriously did. Because both sides were completely aware that beyond about 1965 it would not work. Prior to 1965 it probably was seriously considered by the United States. At that point the US could have unleashed its entire arsenal on the USSR, and the Soviets only response would have been to unleash their own arsenal on Europe. Fortunately, GWBush was not elected until well past the mid sixties.
 
I thought that the main purpose of nuclear deterrence was to prevent the other side from nuking you?

Let's see, what else would NATO do if they won besides installing a friendly government? Put the old one on trial. Maybe demand reparations. Demand disarmament. Maybe even occupy the country for a few years. Certainly far better than everyone being dead.

The Russian nation and people would not cease to exist if NATO defeated them in a conventional war. So if the Russian leadership were to consider doing this if they were facing defeat, then I'd say they're more worried about saving their own hides than their people (who will die in a nuclear apocalypse thanks to their actions). Kind of like certain governments in the 1940s, who thankfully didn't have nuclear weapons.

EDIT: Just saw red_elk's post now.

red_elk said:
It's part of Russian military doctrine, so yes. USSR on the other hand, declared "no first use" policy regarding nukes.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Yes, no first use, that's the principle I was thinking of. So Russia does not subscribe to "no first use", even though the USSR did?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Klaus Hergersheimer
That Other Jimmy Carter Topic
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
caketastydelish
caketastydelish
Zardnaar
Progressives How Many?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
4K
JollyRoger
JollyRoger
GoodEnoughForMe
Deep State Thugs Raid Honest American Veteran Homes
Replies
8
Views
747
Angst
Angst
Bibor
The thing that irks me most about Sherlock Holmes screen adaptations
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
Plotinus
Plotinus
Zardnaar
The Death of the Left/FPtP
Replies
1
Views
608
Zardnaar
Zardnaar
Back
Top Bottom