Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.

That might limit the effectiveness of air supremacy but it's not going to stop stealth fighters from doing deep penetration missions to clear the air.  If NATO forces can keep Russian planes far from the fight and operate freely close to friendly forces (where those things wouldn't dare operate) then air superiority will still count for a lot.

[smjjames]

Doesn't Russia have it's own Black Sea fleet? Then again, they already scuttled a few of their ships to blockade Crimea (I wonder if they ever considered the cost of UNblocking the place later on? lol).

But yeah, any Russian ships would have to run the gauntlet in order to get to the Black Sea from elsewhere. You have two chokepoints for one, and the entire Mediterranean, and that's just the Mediterranean area.

China is more likely to just stay out of it, they have no desire for war and AFAIK, have no treaty that Russia could use to call them into war.

UR, that list may not be too reliable - just look at Bangladesh's nuclear arsenal.

Yeah, the US not having ANY patrol boats? I refuse to believe that.

[miljan]

I can imagine few reasons why China may join the war on Russian side but India? Truly, Martians are more likely. 

There are higher chances of Martians attacking us than NATO attacking russia (or other way around).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_level_of_military_equipment

That list is much better for analysys. At least there are numbers

Combined military budget of NATO is in another world, and let's not forget about corruption in Russian army, so effective budget is lower

Comparing Navies is not even funny. Not only numbers are from different realms, tech levels are too. Black Sea will see no Russian ships as soon as First NATO task force arrives. That if Turks not do the job first

Tanks? Well, on park 23 000 Russian tanks look good... But Combined NATO power is roughly the same in the size. As for tech level and condition of the tanks... I bet that NATO's are way better on average. Finally, in modern war tanks are usually destroyed not by other tanks
And from where Russia will get 23 000 tank crews who actually know how to effectively use the tanks

NATO has definitely larger air-force. And of better quality, not only by tech level but by training and actual combat experience of pilots. Russia may have  1300 fighters, but 1300 worthy pilots? I doubt it

And so on... Believing that Russia has any chance against NATO in conventional war isn't smart.

First you assume a lot of things here.
In both lists you have number, you just need to click around. But yes russia alone can not wing against NATO, no one will say that, but than again it will not fight against nato in first place, I dont know why was this type of conversation even started about it.

[miljan]

You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.

That might limit the effectiveness of air supremacy but it's not going to stop stealth fighters from doing deep penetration missions to clear the air.  If NATO forces can keep Russian planes far from the fight and operate freely close to friendly forces (where those things wouldn't dare operate) then air superiority will still count for a lot.

For over 8 years (or more) now you have radars that can detect stealth aircraft. So its not that big problem anymore.

Edit:
Actually you can detect even with "normal" older radars, but its harder, but still posible

[Sergarr]

You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.

That might limit the effectiveness of air supremacy but it's not going to stop stealth fighters from doing deep penetration missions to clear the air.  If NATO forces can keep Russian planes far from the fight and operate freely close to friendly forces (where those things wouldn't dare operate) then air superiority will still count for a lot.

For over 8 years (or more) now you have radars that can detect stealth aircraft. So its not that big problem anymore.

Edit:
Actually you can detect even with "normal" older radars, but its harder, but still posible

It's because different radars use different wavelengths. Old radars used only a single wavelength, thus it was possible to make the aircraft invisible to that wavelength. Modern radars use multiple wavelengths and thus render the stealth technology... not that superuseful.

Also, don't forget about the satellite network that Russia has.

[smjjames]

You underestimate the Russian Anti-Air Defence. Suprisingly, all Americans seems to forget the fact that the Russian Anti0Air is much, much better than the American one.

That might limit the effectiveness of air supremacy but it's not going to stop stealth fighters from doing deep penetration missions to clear the air.  If NATO forces can keep Russian planes far from the fight and operate freely close to friendly forces (where those things wouldn't dare operate) then air superiority will still count for a lot.

For over 8 years (or more) now you have radars that can detect stealth aircraft. So its not that big problem anymore.

Edit:
Actually you can detect even with "normal" older radars, but its harder, but still posible

It's because different radars use different wavelengths. Old radars used only a single wavelength, thus it was possible to make the aircraft invisible to that wavelength. Modern radars use multiple wavelengths and thus render the stealth technology... not that superuseful.

Also, don't forget about the satellite network that Russia has.

The US has a satellite network too, as well as several other countries, so it's really not an advantage that Russia has.

[GlyphGryph]

Of course if NATO would intervene we'd threaten with nukes right away. We are not stupid, you know.

Errr... the first half of this statement seems to disagree with the second.

[kaian-a-coel]

Of course if NATO would intervene we'd threaten with nukes right away. We are not stupid, you know.

Errr... the first half of this statement seems to disagree with the second.

Agreed. Threatening half the world with NUKES is not that smart.

Anyway, we can agree that Russia is massively outnumbered and outgunned by the combined forces of NATO. However, there is the problem of actually getting said forces on the theatre of operation, which is somewhat easier in the modern day, but still a logistical nightmare on the scale we're talking about.
It's all about local numerical superiority.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

True.

I also wouldn't put it past China to 'Officially' side with Russia, just to prevent the war in this scenario.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, standing nuclear policy is that they're only used when your nation is in danger of ceasing to exist. They aren't a credible threat*, even if they're a legitimate threat. By that, I mean that nobody would believe you're actually willing to use them this way, even if, by dint of brain damage or something, you really are. And I'm confident that everyone in a position to be relevant to this decision knows that. The way nukes actually function in international politics is more akin to a moat full of rattlesnakes around your castle, not as some manner of hyper-catapult.

*From a politician in a well-established nuclear power. Non-government entities are a different thing.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

Yeah, standing nuclear policy is that they're only used when your nation is in danger of ceasing to exist. They aren't a credible threat*, even if they're a legitimate threat. By that, I mean that nobody would believe you're actually willing to use them this way, even if, by dint of brain damage or something, you really are. And I'm confident that everyone in a position to be relevant to this decision knows that. The way nukes actually function in international politics is more akin to a series of magma pump stacks around your fort, not as some manner of hyper-catapult.

*From a politician in a well-established nuclear power. Non-government entities are a different thing.

FTFY

[Sergarr]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I really want to play the next version of DF.

[Sean Mirrsen]

http://www.aif.ua/politic/ukraine/1134529

* Sean Mirrsen is rolling on the floor laughing

I don't know anything about who the guy is... but the mental image is hilarious. XD

[Guardian G.I.]

http://www.aif.ua/politic/ukraine/1134529

* Sean Mirrsen is rolling on the floor laughing

I don't know anything about who the guy is... but the mental image is hilarious. XD

If I was an Ukrainian, I'd vote for him.

[ivze]

Ukrainian Ranger, come to our, Russian side (we have cookies)

Seriously, our two nations could have GREAT common future. Our cultures match, our languages are common. Do you really want to live in liberalistic West with weird traditions and distorted family social layer? Do you think that the West supports Ukraine because of anything, but trying to weaken Russia by your hands? They don't like you. The West is like Reapers from Mass Effect, engulfing lifeful cultures into their matrix of sterilised preserved beings.

Joining Europe you will be FAR away from the USA, joining Russia you will be very close to Moscow!