|Bob Dylan28-02-2022 18:16|
|"When you've got nothing you've got nothing to lose."|
Just a general principle of life put into words by Bob Dylan. It applies to many situations.
I'm wondering if the Russian people should start evacuating. Just saying.
Edited on 28-02-2022 18:23
Who's going to attack Russia? Don't think any country is willing to risk a nuclear retaliation. Russia has satellites, radar, and many things to keep close watch. They also have pretty good defenses. It would probably won't go as well, as a BLM protester throwing a rock or bottle, at a riot cop.
Pretty sure Russia is going to get what it wants in Ukraine, while the rest of the world cries and complains, doing little to stop it. The left really wants to see this grow. They are already shifting all the covid-economic crap, over to the Ukraine-invasion crap. Where, it's always been democrat failings.
HarveyH55 wrote:Who's going to attack Russia?
NATO ... assuming Russia attacks a NATO country.
HarveyH55 wrote: Don't think any country is willing to risk a nuclear retaliation.
... nor does Russia want to be the recipient of any nuclear retaliation ... especially since many of their nukes are questionable and will likely fizzle. Let's just say there is a level of uncertainty on Russia's end that they actually have the full nuclear capability they think everyone believes they have.
HarveyH55 wrote:Russia has satellites, radar, and many things to keep close watch. They also have pretty good defenses.
Unfortunately for Russia, due to their massive geographical size, most of their defenses can be bypassed or circumvented ... by an appropriately equipped adversary, of course. The B-2 stealth bomber, for example, was designed specifically to invade the Soviet Union undetected and to be able to drop bombs with impunity on all targets, despite a seemingly persistent and endless curtain of Russian radar surveillance. Sure, Ukraine doesn't have any stealth bombers and Ukraine is not a NATO member, for example, but Russia does not wish to invite any B-2s to be paying any visits because Russia attacked a NATO country.
HarveyH55 wrote:Pretty sure Russia is going to get what it wants in Ukraine,
I am inclined to agree with your assessment since Biden is inserted as President. I think that if Trump had been allowed to rightfully serve as President, he would have been holding additional meetings with Zelenskyy, offering visible support, and that Russia would not have bothered to invade Ukraine in the first place. As things stand today, Biden can stick it to Zelenskyy by letting Russia stick it to Ukraine.
IBdaMann wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:Who's going to attack Russia?
Would count on our Stealth technology. Been showing it off long enough for Russia to figure out how to deal with it. Also would count on Russia just leaving missiles sitting around gathering rust. Maybe they don't have quite the stockpile they once had, or even claim, but they would keep enough up to date, and functional. The couldn't afford failed launches. Might not 'nuke themselves, but could spred a few pounds of radioactive material around the launch site. Much like us, Russia has bases in other countries, a navy. Starting up with Russia is going to be just a day or two thing. Doubt they would surrender graciously either.
Think Putin is there, just to change the regime, sort of like we've done a few times. The democrats have been using Ukraine for something. Free-stuff, isn't free. We've been getting something out of the billions spent over there.
HarveyH55 wrote:Would count on our Stealth technology.
It still works for its intended purpose.
Russia still uses radar to detect incursions and the B-2's signature is indistinguishable from background noise. Sure, a B-2 can be detected via other means, but those all require processing time to separate from the millions of other "false alarms" that they would otherwise have to pursue. That processing time is all that is needed for a B-2 to get in, drop its load and head on out for Miller time.
... THEN you have the stealth cruise missiles. They don't have to head back out. They take out their targets before they are identified, although their targets have to be set in advance. The advantage with the B-2 is that it is not ballistic; it has a pilot, can go after any target and priorities can be changed on the fly.
... and those are just the first two examples. Russia knows there is so much that they just can't stop. Russia is not eager to say "Bring it on, World!"
HarveyH55 wrote:Been showing it off long enough for Russia to figure out how to deal with it.
Showing it off was the deterrent. The US wanted the Soviet Union to know that we could enter with impunity and why there was nothing they could do about it, specifically so they would capitulate rather than dive into any sort of attack mode for which we would have to use the B-2.
Again, the B-2 renders radar detection ineffectively; the B-2 appears as background noise. That cannot be remedied. Yes, other means of detection can be pursued but they all require too much reaction/investigation time.
By the way, that was the inspiration behind the invention of radar. Allies had to find a way to alert the UK and others of attacks by the Luftwaffe because once an attack is launched, the alert has to be immediate or else the battle is over and lost before any response can be mustered. The Soviet Union broke the bank lining its never-ending border with aircraft-detecting radar ... and then Reagan tells them that they just wasted all that money because now we have a bomber that they cannot detect.
HarveyH55 wrote:Also would count on Russia just leaving missiles sitting around gathering rust.
Then think again. Munitions are like milk: they expire and go bad. Military-grade munitions require expensive maintenance ... and expensive replacement when the shelf life expires. If you think Russia is rolling in so much money that they don't know what to do with it then you are operating under a misconception. Russia has plenty of munitions that have expired. Also, you mentioned "gathering rust." That was a great analogy because munitions require controlled storage conditions which is also expensive. It must be the right temperature, within proper humidity levels, sufficient dunnage, ... regularly inspected, it is very costly to store munitions.. If you were to inspect an old Russian munitions stockpile, you'd see oil leaking out of many of them ( a very bad sign), you'd see scratches and dings and dents from forklift drivers who were less than careful. You'd see many things that would make you wonder what percentage of those munitions will actually work if used in warfare.
So if you are Russia, what do you do? You bluff. You don't let on that there are any problems whatsoever and you let the world think that Russian munitions are all in tip-top condition.
... except that that cat is out of the bag.
HarveyH55 wrote: Maybe they don't have quite the stockpile they once had,
... but they do! It's the very same stockpile they had sitting there decades ago. It's the same stockpile no one wants to go near for fear of an errant detonation, and yet the same stockpile that no one wants to rely upon to do their job and detonate when they are supposed to.
All I'm saying is that there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding Russian weapon systems because of maintenance and storage issues caused by long-term underfunding.
HarveyH55 wrote: Starting up with Russia is going to be just a day or two thing. Doubt they would surrender graciously either.
Regarding the Russian Navy. The US and NATO follow all Russian ships and submarines. We keep an eye on every single one. If a submarine pulls out of port, we follow it wherever it goes. If the President were to order the Russian Navy sunk, the Navy would have the job done in relatively short order. If they don't get all of them, they'd get very close to all of them.
If you recall the tragedy of the Kursk, Russia was performing exercises in the
Barents sea. When the Kursk went down, we knew about it because we were following, watching. We and other countries asked Russia if they wanted some help and they were a little surprised that others knew about their problem with the Kursk. Nobody is going to just leave the Russian Navy to do whatever they want to do unsupervised.
I totally agree that nobody wants to roll in the muck with Russia, but if that were to happen, Russia is the one who would take it in the shorts, and they know it.
|I just wouldn't count on what we see, is all they've got. The cold war was mostly watching what the other was doing. Maybe they leave a lot of old crap lying out for us to watch... Stealth has been around a long time now. Don't think anybody just accept it as perfect in every way. It's a major threat, so a priority for defensive measures. |
They certainly would keep there newest, and best stuff close to home.
Yes, absolutely. I'm not doubting your main gist that nobody is going to wake up one morning and think we should pick a fight with Russia today. It would be bad, and Into the Night has already addressed the main point, i.e. "war is hell." We could add the Harvey extension "War with Russia would be a particularly deep level of hell. Not only would there be many deaths, the wartime lockdowns would make the COVID lockdowns seem like unfettered freedom.
My only point is that NATO would ultimately spank Russia and Russia knows it. There would have to be some sort of strange, unanticipated, fundamental game-changing developments for Russia to attack a NATO country.
HarveyH55 wrote:keepit wrote:
If Russia sets one foot into Poland all of NATO is required to go to war with Russia by the NATO treaty, which is why Russia needs to be stopped now