Russia's "Green Men"
Jeremy Bender, Business Insider: Here are 2 problems that could sink the Russian military in a war
With a frozen frontline inside Ukrainian territory, the successful annexation of Crimea, and an ongoing intervention in Syria, Russia's military prowess appears firmly established.
But despite the Kremlin's recent successes, the Russian military faces two deep structural problems that could prove disastrous if it ever faced off against another large conventional force.
According to Dave Majumdar of The National Interest, Russia's military is facing deep manpower and hardware shortfalls.
WNU Editor: The problem with this analysis is that in any major war with the West, nuclear weapons will quickly be used .... and as a result any conventional military shortfall would be unimportant.
7 comments:
Russians can still draft millions of able men, whereas the West, especially Europe is stuck with millions of men incapable or unwilling to serve.
Having that "why bother with conventional forces" mentality is what would lead to nuclear war. Not having strong conventional forces would mean having to resort to nuclear weapons very early in such a conflict. The more conventional forces we have, the more options we have to fight an enemy without resorting to nuclear weapons like we would if we relied on a hollowed out "tripwire force" military.
Nuclear weapons would be quickly used? So if the nato engages russian plans in syria that would be reason to launch nuclear missles? If nato were to send forces into russian territory then i believe a nuclear attack may happen... US and rissians have killed eachother in battle before directly or indirectly... Korea, Vietnam, afganistan...
Unfortunately Becool0980 .... military doctrine stipulates that in a major war nuclear weapons will be used .... and quickly. That is why almost all war scenarios that are played usually end up as a nuclear confrontation. And while US and Russians have killed each other in other wars .... it is not the same when the military of both countries are directly and officially at war with each other.
Nuclear weapons would be quickly used? So if the nato engages russian plans in syria that would be reason to launch nuclear missles? If nato were to send forces into russian territory then i believe a nuclear attack may happen... US and rissians have killed eachother in battle before directly or indirectly... Korea, Vietnam, afganistan...
Nuclear weapons would be quickly used? So if the nato engages russian plans in syria that would be reason to launch nuclear missles? If nato were to send forces into russian territory then i believe a nuclear attack may happen... US and rissians have killed eachother in battle before directly or indirectly... Korea, Vietnam, afganistan...
NATO Doctrine is that in a major conflict with a Nuclear nation, Theatre Commanders are given full authorization over the use of a "package", consisting of tactical nuclear weapons of various types.
In Wargaming conflict with Russia/The Soviet Union, the "best" NATO Commanders achieved, was 22 hours before Theater Commanders used part of their "package".
The Soviet/Russian position is and has always been is that the use of Tactical Nuclear weapons is a Nuclear attack.
If NATO targets Russian aircraft in Syria, Russia will target US/NATO bases and ships in the Middle East with ballistic and cruise missiles. It would start as a tit for tat exchange, but unless one side caves, it will quickly go nuclear, as what Russia can do with masses of missiles with conventional warheads, the U.S. and NATO do with tactical nukes.
Post a Comment