Advertisement
by Purpelia » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:46 am
by Virana » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:47 am
by Gallia- » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:49 am
Tule wrote:The Kievan People wrote:
No in 1945.
Unlikely in 1955.
Maybe in 1965.
Probably in 1975.
Yes in 1985.
The turning point was probably Vietnam. There the US realized how green they had become since WWII ended and a new generation of veterans set about rebuilding the countries military competency. US conventional power started to increase enormously after this culminating in Desert Storm. The Soviets began to realize the same thing in Afghanistan, which showed how big the gap between what the Soviet army in WWII was capable of and what they were capable of today really was, but the collapse of the USSR cut short any post-afghan introspection.
Other trends, like the growing economic and technological lead of the west, only accelerated this shift.
I was under the Impression that the Soviet Union had conventional superiority in Europe during the mid 70's and until the mid 80's, considering the introduction and widespread deployment of the T-72 and T-80.
by Roski » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:49 am
Virana wrote:We're also ignoring the fact that NATO made it fairly obvious that Soviet troops moving into West Germany would mean ICBMs flying at Moscow and pretty much every other USSR city.
(and, obviously, flying the other way in response)
by Gallia- » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:51 am
Roski wrote:Virana wrote:We're also ignoring the fact that NATO made it fairly obvious that Soviet troops moving into West Germany would mean ICBMs flying at Moscow and pretty much every other USSR city.
(and, obviously, flying the other way in response)
This is a conventional war, not nuking immediately.
No one wins a nuclear war, and NATO and the USSR would leave under a major flag of genocide.
by Roski » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:51 am
Gallia- wrote:Tule wrote:
I was under the Impression that the Soviet Union had conventional superiority in Europe during the mid 70's and until the mid 80's, considering the introduction and widespread deployment of the T-72 and T-80.
It was conventional parity, if not slight superiority in NATO favour. The introduction of weapons like Pershing II and Abrams nullified any remaining Soviet advances in the technology front while NATO greatly increased its doctrinal capabilities with stuff like AirLand Battle.
Conventional superiority is pointless because any WW3 would be fought with tactical nukes in supporting fires roles, especially since AirLand Battle pretty much demanded their use to be able to conduct FOFA in concert with all the components of Assault Breaker.
by Spoder » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:54 am
Roski wrote:Gallia- wrote:
It was conventional parity, if not slight superiority in NATO favour. The introduction of weapons like Pershing II and Abrams nullified any remaining Soviet advances in the technology front while NATO greatly increased its doctrinal capabilities with stuff like AirLand Battle.
Conventional superiority is pointless because any WW3 would be fought with tactical nukes in supporting fires roles, especially since AirLand Battle pretty much demanded their use to be able to conduct FOFA in concert with all the components of Assault Breaker.
Unfortunately, you are right. Any major conflict with the United States and NATO involved will lead to nuclear escalation. This is actually why the military is protesting fighting for Ukraine at the moment. I agree wholeheartedly.
by Roski » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:54 am
Spoder wrote:Roski wrote:
Unfortunately, you are right. Any major conflict with the United States and NATO involved will lead to nuclear escalation. This is actually why the military is protesting fighting for Ukraine at the moment. I agree wholeheartedly.
"I do not know what weapons World War III will be fought with but I do know World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein.
by Gallia- » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:55 am
Roski wrote:Gallia- wrote:
It was conventional parity, if not slight superiority in NATO favour. The introduction of weapons like Pershing II and Abrams nullified any remaining Soviet advances in the technology front while NATO greatly increased its doctrinal capabilities with stuff like AirLand Battle.
Conventional superiority is pointless because any WW3 would be fought with tactical nukes in supporting fires roles, especially since AirLand Battle pretty much demanded their use to be able to conduct FOFA in concert with all the components of Assault Breaker.
Unfortunately, you are right. Any major conflict with the United States and NATO involved will lead to nuclear escalation. This is actually why the military is protesting fighting for Ukraine at the moment. I agree wholeheartedly.
by Spoder » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:56 am
Gallia- wrote:Roski wrote:
Unfortunately, you are right. Any major conflict with the United States and NATO involved will lead to nuclear escalation. This is actually why the military is protesting fighting for Ukraine at the moment. I agree wholeheartedly.
What?
Tactical nukes would be used to attack troop formations and facilities like airbases, they're too valuable to waste on cities.
by Roski » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:56 am
Gallia- wrote:Roski wrote:
Unfortunately, you are right. Any major conflict with the United States and NATO involved will lead to nuclear escalation. This is actually why the military is protesting fighting for Ukraine at the moment. I agree wholeheartedly.
What?
Tactical nukes would be used to attack troop formations and facilities like airbases, they're too valuable to waste on cities.
by Roski » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:58 am
by Immoren » Thu Apr 03, 2014 10:59 am
Spoder wrote:Gallia- wrote:
What?
Tactical nukes would be used to attack troop formations and facilities like airbases, they're too valuable to waste on cities.
mmm no. Tacticals would be on the major pop to incite terror and confusion. Tungsten rods would be used on airbases and bunkers and military facilities.
discoursedrome wrote:everyone knows that quote, "I know not what weapons World War Three will be fought, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and stones," but in a way it's optimistic and inspiring because it suggests that even after destroying civilization and returning to the stone age we'll still be sufficiently globalized and bellicose to have another world war right then and there
by Anemos Major » Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:00 am
Roski wrote:But the use of nuke would still initiate MAD
Virana wrote:We're also ignoring the fact that NATO made it fairly obvious that Soviet troops moving into West Germany would mean ICBMs flying at Moscow and pretty much every other USSR city.
(and, obviously, flying the other way in response)
Imperial Factbook | Diplomatic Communications Channel | A Collection of Essays
Anemonian State Arms Export Authority | Aeryr IECpl | Imperial College Ismalyr
by Tule » Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:10 am
Gallia- wrote:What?
Tactical nukes would be used to attack troop formations and facilities like airbases, they're too valuable to waste on cities.
by The Akasha Colony » Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:11 am
Spoder wrote:And actually conventional superiority does make sense, because it would be like gas in WWI. It's super-effective, but everybody's scared to use it. Same for nukes.
Spoder wrote:mmm no. Tacticals would be on the major pop to incite terror and confusion. Tungsten rods would be used on airbases and bunkers and military facilities.
by Gallia- » Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:12 am
Tule wrote:Gallia- wrote:
America would have won a nuclear war in 1962 tbh.
Yeah, not in the 80's.
When both sides have tens of thousands of easily deliverable strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, any questions about the effectiveness of conventional forces in a nuclear war become pointless. Everything required to sustain a war for more than a few hours would be annihilated, everything. The only thing that would escape would be the occasional tank and soldier who would only be able to rely on the supplies they carry with them.Gallia- wrote:What?
Tactical nukes would be used to attack troop formations and facilities like airbases, they're too valuable to waste on cities.
Unless said cities have valuable strategic targets, and many do.
Warsaw has bridges over the Vistula river essential to logistics? Better nuke em.
Biggest tank factory in the world is in Nizhny Tagil? Better nuke it.
by Anemos Major » Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:17 am
Roski wrote:Unfortunately, you are right. Any major conflict with the United States and NATO involved will lead to nuclear escalation. This is actually why the military is protesting fighting for Ukraine at the moment. I agree wholeheartedly.
Imperial Factbook | Diplomatic Communications Channel | A Collection of Essays
Anemonian State Arms Export Authority | Aeryr IECpl | Imperial College Ismalyr
by Roski » Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:19 am
Anemos Major wrote:Roski wrote:Unfortunately, you are right. Any major conflict with the United States and NATO involved will lead to nuclear escalation. This is actually why the military is protesting fighting for Ukraine at the moment. I agree wholeheartedly.
I'm fairly sure this wasn't really the, or even a, major factor in the US decision not to intervene militarily in Ukraine. The debate had ended quite a while before nuclear escalation was even brought to the table - neither the military or the political leadership wanted to fight Russia in Ukraine, and most certainly not because of the potential for nuclear annihilation.
by Spoder » Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:23 am
Roski wrote:Anemos Major wrote:
I'm fairly sure this wasn't really the, or even a, major factor in the US decision not to intervene militarily in Ukraine. The debate had ended quite a while before nuclear escalation was even brought to the table - neither the military or the political leadership wanted to fight Russia in Ukraine, and most certainly not because of the potential for nuclear annihilation.
I meant it was a reason.
But NATO is still terrified of the Russians, even though they are weak.
Also, how does everyone feel about CoD Ghosts? Or does anyone even know. I think the story is kinda bullshit.
by Connori Pilgrims » Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:24 am
Roski wrote:Anemos Major wrote:
I'm fairly sure this wasn't really the, or even a, major factor in the US decision not to intervene militarily in Ukraine. The debate had ended quite a while before nuclear escalation was even brought to the table - neither the military or the political leadership wanted to fight Russia in Ukraine, and most certainly not because of the potential for nuclear annihilation.
I meant it was a reason.
But NATO is still terrified of the Russians, even though they are weak.
Also, how does everyone feel about CoD Ghosts? Or does anyone even know. I think the story is kinda bullshit.
by Spoder » Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:25 am
Tule wrote:Gallia- wrote:
America would have won a nuclear war in 1962 tbh.
Yeah, not in the 80's.
When both sides have tens of thousands of easily deliverable strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, any questions about the effectiveness of conventional forces in a nuclear war become pointless. Everything required to sustain a war for more than a few hours would be annihilated, everything. The only thing that would escape would be the occasional tank and soldier who would only be able to rely on the supplies they carry with them.
by United states of brazilian nations » Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:26 am
Roski wrote:Anemos Major wrote:
I'm fairly sure this wasn't really the, or even a, major factor in the US decision not to intervene militarily in Ukraine. The debate had ended quite a while before nuclear escalation was even brought to the table - neither the military or the political leadership wanted to fight Russia in Ukraine, and most certainly not because of the potential for nuclear annihilation.
I meant it was a reason.
But NATO is still terrified of the Russians, even though they are weak.
Also, how does everyone feel about CoD Ghosts? Or does anyone even know. I think the story is kinda bullshit.
Black Hand wrote:New plan is to just make thousands of disposable firearms and dump them out of cargo planes with tiny drag chutes attached.
Kouralia wrote:AKA FiSH and CHiPS(Fighting in Someone's House and Causing Havoc in Public Spaces):p
Fordorsia wrote:Breaking news: The estimated leading cause of death is dying.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Well what it is, is an 18.5mm piece of hollow metal that, through witchcraft and evil, becomes significantly larger than 18.5mm.
Puzikas wrote:fuck you for drawing a good looking bulpup AK.
Puzikas wrote:USBN has a sensor that triggers after anything vaguely Brazilian is mentioned.
by Kouralia » Thu Apr 03, 2014 11:27 am
Spoder wrote:I think it's bullshit that they use tungsten rods on cities (which is a waste of them and it wouldn't be very effective) and that those rods explode with the force of a cruise missile.
Spoder wrote:Yep. Fallout was pretty accurate.
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Narland
Advertisement