If NATO put boots on the ground, how long would the war take to end? Do you think they would take a measured approach as they theyre fighting an already dug in enemy, or full thunder run show of force?
inb4 "hato mercenaries already on the ground xaxaxa"
>boots
Someone post the Desert Storm webm
>boots
>laughsmicroscopically.jpg
I know it's a cool show of force, but the total one-sided aspect of the war leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think the real rationale was to take out a possible threat to Israel, and ot have a post Cold War show of force that USA is the top dog. Unfortunately, I see no alternatives.
The best answer would be to back Kuwait and their military like we are doing in Ukraine, but Kuwait's military was a joke.
Though the 2nd Iraq war of course is really the point of no return. I think a better strategy would be to let Saddam die of natural causes, make a deal with the successors, and then slowly lift sanctions in trade for concessions to re-integrate Iraq back into the world system after having a time out. Though that would require Iraqi leadership not being retarded which is a step too far in MENA.
>but the total one-sided aspect of the war leaves a bad taste in my mouth
Yea, war is about honorably fighting it out on equal terms! You're not allowed to roflstomp someone, that's mean.
The real reason is that the US wasn't nearly as energy independent as it is now, and so it needed a stable Middle East to ensure the oil flowed. Saddam's slapfight with Iran was reasonably contained to just them and didn't really interrupt commerce, but setting the precedent that you're allowed to attack non-hostile nations that the US is getting important shit from would have been detrimental and Iraq decided they really needed to make an example of themselves.
>I know it's a cool show of force, but the total one-sided aspect of the war leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Anon, that's literally the best-case scenario in a war. And I'm not talking about just the Coalition forces: all those Iraqi POWs and the civilians in the region suffered far less than they would have in a longer, drawn out, more "even" conflict.
It's like pulling an infected tooth without anesthesia: yes, it's gonna hurt; so let's get it over with as quickly as possible.
it wasn't about israel it was a direct counter to a threat against our oil. israel only exists to funnel hate to one defensible point.
Anon Saddam burned a lot of bridges that he built by being the anti-Iran champion by attacking Kuwait. He played with a lot of fire, but was still tolerated enough that the gulf states intervened to keep him in power (despite Israeli protests). Then he continued to piss people off by being a bad neighbor, and worse leader (ie., murder, theft, rape). The guy was North Korea without even a thin pretext of legitimacy.
i loved his insane projects though, rebuilding ancient ruins into saddam theme park. clearly that entire country would dissolve the second he vanished.
Israel got hit by Scuds during the war. The Americans had to actively hold them back from getting involved, because it was transparently an attempt to curry favour with the Arab nations who'd throw a shitfit if the garden gnomes entered the war against Saddam, even though he struck first.
Many folks dont realize the second-largest contingent of troops to the Coalition was Egypt. It was vital to keep the Arabs from viewing Saddam with sympathy.
I think NATO would want a huge show of force to show that they mean business (as the war started because Putin thought that liberal democracies are ruled by cucks). But I think they'd spend a couple months making sure everything is in place rather than jump in half-cocked. This would be just as much a political strategy as a military one.
They would likely repeat the first wave of the Afghan war and use American air power to engage in SEAD, then hit ground targets. Ukraine's military then moves forward on the ground and mops up. 3 Weeks SEAD then 2 weeks more and the Russians are fully driven out.
>NATO
Very unlikely NATO would get involved, it would be Americans.
US would certainly do the bulk of the work to be sure, but the rest of NATO has a vested interest in showing a united front against the Russians, and not just being America's cheerleaders.
In Afghanistan the US really didn't need any NATO help so the forces sent just needed to be a token force to show that they were fulfilling the article 5 obligations (and the US didn't really need or want them to do anything more).
Like I said this campaign would be just as much political as military.
US+NL+DK+UK I can feel it
Time to fill the sky with stratotankers, AEW and SIGINT
>US+NL+DK+UK I can feel it
>Time to fill the sky with stratotankers, AEW and SIGINT
I would reaaaaaaaaaaally want to see Baltic States and Poland send air power too. I know it wouldn't be much, but it would be very powerful to have Polish or Baltic plantes equipped firing on Russian positions in Ukraine.
>I would reaaaaaaaaaaally want to see Baltic States and Poland send air power too.
>Baltic States
lol lmao even
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_Air_Policing
Speaking for the Aussies no way you get to go to war and not bring us along for the fun damnit
>repeat the first wave of the Afghan war and use American air power to engage in SEAD
>This would be just as much a political strategy as a military one.
There is no military strategy without a political one.
The masculine russian army shall crumble before the might of our tactical twink zoomers. Screenshot this post so that you may savor the tears.
the real question is, how long to occupy Moscow?
2 weeks
>If NATO put boots on the ground, how long would the war take to end?
30 minutes
It takes atleast 30 minutes to refuel your ICBMs vatnik.
>war +5 minutes
>every Russian SAM west of the Volga gets HARM'd
This would be believable if the HARMs Ukraine got took out more than like ~5 SAMs so far
I'd say it's entirely believable considering we'd be talking about a coalition air force consisting of a mix of likely thousands of strike, EW, and SEAD aircraft, as opposed to a few leftover MiGs with HARMs jury-rigged onto them.
>HARMs moron-rigged to shitty mig 29s without targeting pods
yeah
surely there isnt a difference between
>shooting a missile from a plane that was never supposed to shot that missile
(LITERALLY the opposite)
>missile that expired before the russian federation was even a thing
and
>shooting a missile from a airframe its made for
stupid moron
Do we have any actual info on what Ukraine did to use western missiles on their Migs? Like, I can't even imagine what level of jury rigging that takes. Is it wiring some cables together? is it programming?
They are jerry rigging NATO pylons onto the Sukhois and Miggers.
The weapon systems are not fully integrated though and systems such as HARM have to rely on their own sensors and targeting systems.
>systems such as HARM have to rely on their own sensors and targeting systems
I don't think this would change. Ukraine still doesn't have enough airpower to go full SEAD so the jets will still have to fire their munitions from far behind the frontlines. So the missiles can't use the jet's radar
Yuo see Ivan, ze west does not knwo our glourious SAM is not working, so not the HATO missile can't find us
Destroying Russia's artillery superiority is the quickest way to get them to keel over, so send in the big guns and call it a day.
NATO would be unlikely to put more then a token force of boots on the ground, simply because they're not needed. If the USAF got the greenlight to do what's needed, they'd be able to clear the way for Ukrainian ground forces to do the final mile of actually holding the ground, with NATO integrating in some sort of JTACs and other people to coordinate fire support requests for the few targets that they didn't wipe out from the air before infantry get there. As for the length of the war, it's hard to predict solely because Russia has shown an unwillingness to surrender when they've already lost without NATO's involvement and the question is would they be stubborn enough to fight to the last mobnik or would they throw in the towel before TZD gets really going.
>would they be stubborn enough to fight to the last mobnik or would they throw in the towel before TZD gets really going.
I would hope that at the very least army command would order a full retreat rather than stand to the last man. But then again, thousands of officers have died in the conflict already and hundreds more will die as well and they seem no opposition from them to the war. They MIGHT delude themselves that they can fight the inferior Ukrainians but they should know they can't win against USA.
>As for the length of the war, it's hard to predict solely because Russia has shown an unwillingness to surrender when they've already lost without NATO's involvement and the question is would they be stubborn enough to fight to the last mobnik or would they throw in the towel before TZD gets really going.
True, but if the Russians really and truly had *zero* fear of NATO involvement they'd have gone after the Baltics and Poland, not Ukraine. And remember that the RuAF have already spent eighteen months fighting a grueling war and are currently suffering a bunch of materiel shortages, and that NATO would be fresh as a daisy.
Some of the leadership or the die-hards might get stubborn, but my guess is that just the news that "NATO has informed the RF they'll be entering combat directly if we're not all behind 1991 borders in the next 72 hours" is going to lead to an epidemic of refuseniks and surrenders. How do you convince the guys on the ground that even though the AFU forced them to retreat, they've got a fighting chance against everything NATO has to offer?
>How do you convince the guys on the ground that even though the AFU forced them to retreat, they've got a fighting chance against everything NATO has to offer?
By getting them to buy the propaganda that they're already at war with NATO, so how much worse can it get. Sure, leadership knows that bullshit, but as you move downward and get to dumber and more illiterate mobniks, how many of them are actually aware of the truth of things?
Russia's gone back to using political commissars that shoot at retreating troops. Convincing the troops of anything is a goal that's been abandoned.
It's one thing to get the mobiks to toe the party line that "Russia is fighting the entire decadent Wect" and another to believe that they really can go all ten rounds with the the global hegemon of Uncle Sam and all his buddies.
I suspect that after the initial Shock 'n' Awe onslaught, even the political commissars are going to be having second thoughts about how long they can hold out.
I seriously doubt the average guy thinks they're winning the war. All accounts seems to show low morale given they know how corrupt their leaders are.
I think the only real thing motivating a lot of them is the idea of Russian patriotism- that even if they're leaders are total fucks, that at least by fighting in the war Russia will end up stronger than if they didn't.
I agree with all those points, and I like to point out the parallels with the Russians under the Tsar in WWI. They kept following orders like good little serfs right up until they didn't.
I doubt they've got the morale to weather news like "oh, and NATO is coming in with their top-tier shitkicking equipment in a few days. Long range missiles and F-35 strikes will be blowing shit up all night, and then in the morning we're probably going to hear 'Fortunate Son' very briefly."
>Verification not required.
>"Blyat, do you hear that, Ivan?"
"Some folks were born made to wave the flag..."
>Ivan's face goes pale
If America went to war mode
I'd say 50 milliseconds it's over judging by latency speeds.
Everything with any sensitive ferrous metal in Russia would be ruined and everything from water, to oil production to food refrigeration would stop.
50 milliseconds maybe 3 seconds tops. We rule space man. It's just a flick of a switch.
They would gain air-superiority and then through massive shock and awe fire-power break the Russian Military's will to fight
>nobody:
>poltard: TRANNIES
>If NATO put boots on the ground, how long would the war take to end?
Just long enough for both sides ICBMs to hit. Then sweet nothing for everybody lucky enough to die at the begging of the end of humanity
>he still believes in russias nuclear capibility
I absolutely do. It's unbelievably reckless to assume Russia doesn't have a few hundred, if not a few thousand nukes to drop on American cities.
I don't know why you guys all think a conventional war is even possible. If Russia really thought it was facing a worldwide coalition it would go nuclear immediately. The war fever is causing you guys to become stupid.
>I absolutely do. It's unbelievably reckless to assume Russia doesn't have a few hundred, if not a few thousand nukes to drop on American cities
They're predominantly either dual citizens or from the buttburt belt, that's why they don't care if America gets nuked.
>yes, relatively when everything else is shit. Can't compare to USA's air power though.
Try reading the paper. RAND explicitly compared it to US air power and said a standalone SEAD campaign would fail. It would need to be supported by a simultaneous ground effort, which means the ground effort couldn't take advantage of prior air strikes like in desert storm, so we'd get Ukrainian level casualties.
>Lying vatnik. Cardboard drones are only some of them. The others are Byakatar's bombing runs, and the other larger suicide drones.
Yes, and they're having enough problems with those that they thought the otherwise inferior cardboard option was worth it to avoid air defense.
>Are those the same serious think tanks that said Russia can capture the baltic states and Poland in an invasion?
It's the same think tank that predicted Russian reforms would fail due to chronic corruption
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR3000/RR3099/RAND_RR3099z1.appendixes.pdf
>To date, Russia's approach to bolstering its defense-industrial base has involved more financial support in the form of budget programs and credit than genuine reform. As such, the endemic corruption and efficiency problems of the defense-industrial complex have not been resolved
I don’t understand how they can argue that a nation that’s incapable of planning motorized troop movements can develop functioning high tech / high speed surface to air missiles.
PANTSIR hasn’t done anything noteworthy this war, S-300 hasn’t done anything noteworthy except for shooting down airliners.
How could they target F-22s and B-2 AND hit them??
someone post the webm of that Russian SAM that just flies back to its launcher
actually someone post the 3 different webms of that shit happening
>I don’t understand how they can argue that a nation that’s incapable of planning motorized troop movements can develop functioning high tech / high speed surface to air missiles
Anon, that's the entirety of post-WW2 Russian history. They have a few islands of competence in a sea of corruption.
>According to evil Westoid capitalist pigdogs the Russian AD does the job of shooting telephone pole SAMs but it's really not the fortress wall that closes the skies.
Obviously neither of the propaganda claims are true. But smart western analysts didn't put out bullshit propaganda like that. They just said that Russia has formidable air defense capable of dealing with modern threats, but not achieving perfect interception. They've been spot on.
>Already circling back to Iraq
Again, we know from comparing desert storm armor battle casualties to armor casualties in Robotnik that Russia is head and shoulders above Iraq. There are multiple pictures of more Bradleys in a single pileup in Ukraine than we lost in the entire gulf war if you don't count friendly fire.
>muh military experts that couldn't even predict how easily america would steamroll iraq
They got that one wrong by equating the military capabilities of Slavs and Arabs, the exact same mistake you're making now.
>nothing could have changed in the past 7 years
In 2016 they probably could have. Every one of those countries except Poland had an army worse-equipped than pic related.
>going from "resounding yes" to "could have"
>except poland
Kek. Why are you still arguing when you don't even believe in his research. Anon if you think somehow NATO will have the same amount of casualties as some ukis with a few months of training based on a short soft science research paper, you're retarded.
Do we have any actual predictions on the war? not some crap how corruption would hinder their war efforts because any retard could say that.
>americans will lose more than three bradleys if they fight against the russians
>this is considered a victory to russia supporters
they fought against wagner and exploded 200 of them without losing anything.
>muh military experts that couldn't even predict how easily america would steamroll iraq or how badly russia would fail to invade ukraine and collapse 3 times during the course of the invasion.
lmao
>ukrainian level casualties
Nah, I'm pretty sure NATO would do better. But even then that's still 3 times less than Russian casualties. Even at parity, there's a greater loss in valuable assets like AA, MLRS, SPGS, and radars.
https://warontherocks.com/2021/11/feeding-the-bear-a-closer-look-at-russian-army-logistics/
from the same researcher as your paper
>David A. Shlapak
>Moscow might want to undermine security in the Baltic states or Poland, for instance, but could the Russian government successfully carry out a large-scale invasion of those countries? If recent wargames are any indication, then the answer is a resounding yes — and it could do so pretty easily. In a 2016 War on the Rocks article, David A. Shlapak and Michael W. Johnson projected that the Russian army would overrun the Baltic states in three days.
LMAO
The paragraph immediately following that sentence:
>Most of these wargames, such as RAND’s Baltic study, focus on fait accompli, an attack by the Russian government aimed at seizing terrain — then quickly digging in. This creates a dilemma for NATO: launch a costly counter-attack and risk heavy casualties and possibly a nuclear crisis or accept a Russian fait accompli and undermine faith in the credibility of the alliance. Some analysts have argued that these seizures are much more likely to be small in size, limited to one or two towns. While that scenario should, of course, be studied, the concern about the feasibility of a fait accompli in the form of a major invasion still stands.
What I got from the article is that the author believes that a Russian sneak attack could be speedy enough to *seize* a little territory in the Baltics, but their logistics just aren't enough to *hold* the territory long enough to use it as leverage to get further demands fulfilled. It would be a huge gamble for the Russians, with potentially disastrous consequences if they miscalculated the response.
So they tried a variation against Ukraine to test-drive it, miscalculated on their huge gamble, and are now experiencing those disastrous consequences, lmao.
It wasn't quite about testing that micro-escalation theory, but about seizing Ukrainian industry since Russia has very little of their own that isn't dependent on them. The Ukrainians even do their ICBM maintenance, Russians can't do it themselves.
The reason they just marched in there like Ukrainians weren't going to shoot them was that they were expecting the bribed traitors in government to start a coup. But that was basically the plot from an episode of Servant Of The People; they just took the bribes and put it into their budget to buy more missiles and other supplies.
>few thousand nukes to drop on American citie
Absolutely brainlet take.
>implying russia has more than 10 working nukes and 2 delivery systems.
2011+12
ISHYGDDT.
Boots on the ground would be important, but they would probably be preceded by an intense air campaign designed to winnow down Russian air defenses and command and control. Once those have been sufficiently degraded you would probably see ground attacks designed at breaking the Russian lines in at least two separate areas using corps-sized elements. Not really sure what the Russians would be able to do other than form a nice highway of death on the Kerch Bridge.
Stupid discussion
NATO would seize the skies long before putting boots on the ground
Silly anon you misinterpret picture see when tank upside down stupid oinkranians cannot steal it
It would just be another aerial campaign like in Libya, NATO air missions are unknown technology to Russians
They've lost more quality tanks in Robotnik alone than in the entire Gulf War, and air defense, unlike tank-killing, is one of the few things Russia is good at. It's delusional to claim it would be a desert storm style cakewalk
>They've lost more quality tanks in Robotnik alone than in the entire Gulf War, and air defense, unlike tank-killing, is one of the few things Russia is good at. It's delusional to claim it would be a desert storm style cakewalk
Ukraine has already hammered Russian air defense pretty hard in a year and a half, plus the Persian Gulf was USA versus Soviet air defenses. USA's airforce has made leaps and bounds in 30 years while Russian has largely stagnated.
USA's led SEAD would be very cautious, very slow, and very systematic lasting 2-4 weeks. USA would be unlucky and lose a single plane, but it's unlikely. USA would not just blindly start flying over Russian positions.
>Ukraine has already hammered Russian air defense pretty hard in a year and a half, plus the Persian Gulf was USA versus Soviet air defenses
It was also US tanks and Bradleys vs Soviet tanks, with only 3 Bradleys lost to enemy fire, a wildly different outcome than Robotnik. This shows that the Iraqis simply aren't comparable to the Russians, and a SEAD campaign would also be much more difficult.
There would be bo nato tanks anon, there would be an overwhelming swarm of missiles and bombs of every kind, seriously
just look at the lybia campaign
no Russian could leave his trench without getting bombed, no Russian asset could move without getting bombed, no Russian huh could exist without getting bombed
>”air defense is one of-
>bridge gets DRONE’d again
>-the few-
>irreplaceable strategic bombers burst into flames
>-things that-
>Moscow receives its now-weekly high ex delivery
>-Russia is-
>wagmorons gun down several attack craft on their joyride
>good at”
Thanks for the input ranjeet, about as valuable as your currency.
Serious think tanks have said Russian air defense is one of their strengths for years
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep19902.pdf
It's also one of the few things that matched prewar expectations, and kept them from ending up like Armenia even when they had a 40 mile stalled convoy.
Some drones get through sometimes, but it's apparently difficult enough that Ukraine thought it was worth using these low-payload, low-range cardboard drones to try to get around it.
>Serious think tanks have said Russian air defense is one of their strengths for years
yes, relatively when everything else is shit. Can't compare to USA's air power though.
>Some drones get through sometimes, but it's apparently difficult enough that Ukraine thought it was worth using these low-payload, low-range cardboard drones to try to get around it.
Lying vatnik. Cardboard drones are only some of them. The others are Byakatar's bombing runs, and the other larger suicide drones.
Are those the same serious think tanks that said Russia can capture the baltic states and Poland in an invasion?
The same people that then watched Russian columns get stuck in TRAFFIC JAMS??
Depends which expectations you mean.
According to Slavaboos and Ziggers the S-400 would be a 400km death sentence.
According to evil Westoid capitalist pigdogs the Russian AD does the job of shooting telephone pole SAMs but it's really not the fortress wall that closes the skies. Hell the Ukrainians had a mostly Soviet AD and they still needed stuff like Gepards to fill in the gaps.
>ranjeet
are you American?
>and air defense, unlike tank-killing, is one of the few things Russia is good at. It's delusional to claim it would be a desert storm style cakewalk
Anon, Russia is being hit around the clock and can't even swat down the Ukrainian Airforce of a hundred MiG-29's. If you think they can handle a military with 50x the Aircraft, a ton more stand-off munitions, a ton more SEAD and a ton more stealth then I don't know what to tell you.
We haven't lost anything. Ukraine lost them after we gave them over. See this difference, retard? Of course you don't.
>We haven't lost anything. Ukraine lost them after we gave them over. See this difference, retard? Of course you don't.
You'll notice I used the word "they've," npt "we've". I see the difference, but I don't think Ukrainian crews are that much worse than American ones. Even taking casualties at a third of the Ukrainian rate would be horrific.
You're telling me F22s and apaches slaughter unsupported infantry? Wow, that totally changes everything!
>Do we have any actual predictions on the war? not some crap how corruption would hinder their war efforts because any retard could say that.
The Ukraine war has been reasonably close to their predictions described in
Russia infantry seems pretty unsupported when we have ten different videos of them committing suicide on camera without any support.
But you forgot to mention that Russians are taking 3x the casualties the ukrainians are taking based on visual confirmation. I mentioned that even in parity, they're losing significantly more AA, radars, SPGS, and MLRS.
How many migs does Ukraine have again? Considering you think that losing 3 bradleys is significant, What do you think about the 50 bmps in a single pile up? NATO would utterly wreck Russia. How much they would wreck Russia is the question, but you seem to can't admit it.
>But you forgot to mention that Russians are taking 3x the casualties the ukrainians are taking based on visual confirmation.
If true, so what? My argument isn't that Russia is better than NATO, it's that we couldn't just waltz in like desert storm. The recent string of easy win predictions have failed miserably, pic related. We'd lose a lot of pilots, and we'd need to fight a big ground war with limited air support at the same time.
Let's say we do way better than the Ukrainians and get a 5-1 ratio. Would you accept 200K dead Americans to kill a million Russians? I wouldn't.
>How many migs does Ukraine have again? Considering you think that losing 3 bradleys is significant, What do you think about the 50 bmps in a single pile up?
No, the fact only 3 Bradleys were lost shows the extreme disparity between the Army and Saddam's forces. I'm saying the disparity is a lot less with Russia
>NATO would utterly wreck Russia. How much they would wreck Russia is the question, but you seem to can't admit it.
If by wreck, you mean gain territory with a favorable casualty ratio, then yes nato would wreck Russia. But it wouldn't be desert storm, and it wouldn't be without significant casualties.
You're whole argument relies on NATO being unable to supress Russian air defenses which is going to be hard to prove or disprove. It's also worth pointing out that any article overconfident about a weapon's capabilities is partially fueled by Russian incompetence.
Bro, have you read recent vatnik telegram channels and milblogger rants?
The russians are struggling against fucking Ukraine. They were scaring everyone before feb. 2022 and gave the Pentagon headaches.
If NATO somehow entered the conflict, russian forces would melt. It would be a onesided slaughter.
Putin fucking knows this. Why do you think Wagner tried to be cheeky at conocco fields? The russian MOD used Pringle's greed to see what the US was all about. The results were sobering, to say the least.
US Airpower would be the deciding factor and Europe also has planes. Unless Putin finds the Dragon Balls, there's no way for the Russians to win a head on fight against NATO.
None of the anons but I'd like to make the point that Russian ad is so far and few between, to the point where Ukraine which has way less air capability manges to do deep strikes in Russia as well as even get some of their AD with drones.
I'd wager that simply by the expontiel factor of better training and longer service as well as way more capability in America alone would probably overwhelm air defenses.
It just wouldn't make logical sense to me otherwise.
The amount of Anti radiation missiles cruise missiles and what have you not would probably kill of AD with the lightest of losses.
Especially combined with intelligence capabilities of nato...
Basically Ukraine which held up against Russia in the beginning themselves which is slowly dripfed western tech which their soldiers aren't even used to or isn't integrated in a long standing way into their training which has lower numbers in almost every category but still massively hurting Russia.
And then go on to say that the very same states which probably had those very same system in the fucking 80s and enough modern day missiles to kill every Russian ad system 3 or 5 times over, whichs tech was specifically integrated and designed far longer than in Ukraine.
Would take losses because Russian AD is the actual only category where they are a real military.
I'm sorry but the sheer number of tech on the other side is probably enough to strip Russia naked of anything air related for the next decade.
Post Battle of Khasham
>air defense, unlike tank-killing, is one of the few things Russia is good at.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust
>If NATO put boots on the ground, how long would the war take to end?
Direct involvement by all of NATO would almost certainly involve overwhelming conventional force as the opening salvo: air dominance via stealth fighters and bombers, long range cruise missile spamming, etc.
What I'm saying is that since you specified "boots on the ground", I believe that the RF would tap out before that actually happens. That could come in the form of a hasty retreat to save face and preserve some remaining combat potential, a coup in the Kremlin where the new rulers are desperate to cut their losses, or just from mass surrenders after the Russians on the ground realize how utterly fucked they are against such a disparate enemy. Regardless: by the time NATO Ground Forces had boots on the ground, the war would have already ended.
>Direct involvement by all of NATO would almost certainly involve overwhelming conventional force as the opening salvo: air dominance via stealth fighters and bombers, long range cruise missile spamming, etc.
NATO is a defensive organization, and in its entire history it has done VERY little. The Serbian war, and the Afghan war. So given the Serbian conflict it is a possibility it will be a proper NATO mission, but the chances would be pretty low. It'd be Americans and whoever else wants to go along.
Russia and China conflate NATO and USA+Europe's military all the time.
I believe the entire extent of NATO"s involvement in this conflict so far has been to say that a nuclear strike would be seen as a strike against NATO members because of radiation fallout.
Yeah but who in NATO doesn't want a chance to shoot Russians?
Hungary and Turkey properly. The Baltics might have to keep their armies on the Russian borders, but Poland will be all in on shooting Russians. France and Britain too if they want to keep pretending to be great powers. Germany as well if only out of obligation.
>It'd be Americans and whoever else wants to go along.
So at the very least, the U.S. plus Poland, Czechia, Finland, and the Baltics (all of whom have scores to settle). Pretty good odds that Romania and the Balkan members also view an expansionist Russia as their biggest existential threat, so they'll be in.
I'd argue the U.K. would contribute much more than just a token force: they're STILL pissed over the assassinations on their soil.
And a lot of the smaller or less-populous NATO members were outraged by Putin's actions, so I think the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark are going to be there, and probably some others.
Turkey is a bit of a wild card, but the chance to humiliate an old rival and enhance their prestige on the world stage is probably going to be too good to pass up. That means Greece (because the alternative is getting upstaged by the Turks) and France (because the alternative would be sacrificing Gallic pride and global influence).
At this point there's enough of a critical mass that I suspect most other members are going to send at least something. Iceland and Bulgaria might want to preserve their more peaceful reputations, but they could send medical units and work the tents for all the expected POWs.
Pretty much the only doubt in my mind is Orban: would he see the writing on the wall and take the chance to publicly cut ties with Putin, or just bow out quietly
No chance Turkey would pass up a chance to humiliate Russia.
>Turkey
Like I said, Erdogan is a bit of a wild card. I could argue that one either way.
>Finland
>Only recently got into NATO
Yes. Quite recently. Almost as if some geopolitical events caused a massive and historic shift in public opinion among the Swedes and the Finns, after decades of armed neutrality. Ask a few Finns their thoughts on Putin's Russia and its stated imperialist goals and judge for yourself what the zeitgeist is on any nation that shares a border with the RF.
>Finland
>still kind of neutral
No, not really. Even when they were neutral, they had mandatory conscription and military training, every bridge into the country mined in case of a sneak attack, etc. They weren't paranoid about all of their neighbors, just one. And everything about their defensive posture was pointed squarely at that one single existential threat.
If it came to open conflict with the goal of pushing Russia out of Ukraine, Finland would push their chips to the center of the table quicker than anybody except Poland.
>oh noo they will send a strongly worded letter
That would actually be Switzerland, and based on their previous behavior it's shocking that the Swiss have said as much as they have already.
Here's the argument for smaller nations like the Netherlands and North Macedonia joining in: they know that any success Russia can eke out is bad for them long-term, so they have a vested interest in Russia getting a conclusive beatdown. At this point it becomes a calculation of risk:
>A small nation like the Netherlands 1v1 with Russia
Literally suicidal
>What if they were backed by other small nations in a coalition?
Still pretty ugly
>And Russia was depleted from 18 months of losses, resorting to T-54s and poorly-trained conscripts?
Better, but still concerning.
>And the U.S. will be there to kick ass and take names?
Suddenly the outcome is no longer in question.
>Turkey
Absolutely not, they want to play nice guy to Russia and be the one who can still deal with them.
>Finland
Only recently got into NATO, still kind of neutral.
>Poland
Yes.
Turks get that Russia is all about saving face, like the god damn Chinese. They won't outwardly humiliate them. Send more weapons, armor, ammo, etc to Ukraine? Sure. But they want to be the ones in the position to come to Russia as a friend to start the process of negotiations for peace.
>Turkey doesn't want to embarrass Russia
Have you ever read a history book? You know they have a history of hating each other right?
The smaller NATO members would at least send a token force contribution, if only to claim a seat at the table and have a say when terms are dictated. Jeez, even if you barely have a military at all, send what you can. Pick up some of the bill, send some of your national police and get some medical folks to volunteer to help with civilian refugees. There's lots of ways to lend a hand in this sort of thing.
How dare you not invite Australia for the fun
Likely NATO would be at Moscow within several days. Russian troops would likely flee, or just get mowed down by Warthogs or AC-130s. The moment F22s enter the skies, it's over. The Russians have virtually no air force, hell a squadron of F22s could wipe out all of their Air Force in minutes.
>Likely NATO would be at Moscow within several days.
Why? They aren't Hitler or Napoleon they don't care about conquoring Russia and never will. They just want Russia out of Ukraine.
1. Their nuclear asenel is trash and as poorly maintained as everything else.
2. They know it's utter suicide to even TRY. They do not have the mass to completely saturate USA + Europe to prevent a counter strike.
Conclusions Russia will never use nuclear weapons ever.
They won't conquer it, they will just decapitate their government, and begin a new one that is pro-NATO. Russia attacked Poland, and now Romania, they should've invoked Article 5 but believe Russian propaganda that they have working nukes.
First off, you have it backwards. Russia was the one modernizing their nukes. Not us.
Secondly Russia has already stated that they would drop all their nukes if Russia ceased to exist. That a world without Russia isn't worth having. This would mean Russian subs would be instructed to launch as well. I know war fever is strong, but maybe let's not play chicken with the biggest human catastrophe imaginable?
7 million dead is not a catastrophe, and that's being generous.
>I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed
Doctor Strangelove is now real life
Unironically, I have learned to love the bomb.
>literal toddler chimpout if it doesn’t go their way
The risk is worth it to have a world without muscovites
>let's not play chicken with the biggest human catastrophe imaginable?
If Russia actually believes that the destruction of Russia is a valid catalyst to launch nuclear weapons upon the rest of the world, then it is an absolute moral imperative for all mankind to ensure the downfall of Russia as rapidly as possible.
I'm legitimately not joking, either. If we presume that all empires, nations and whatnot fall eventually, then the time that Russia chimps out is not an if but when. As technology advances, this means the level of destruction that Russia could cause increases, putting ever more people at risk.
Every day since 29 August 1949 has been a failure, another day that invited more destruction and misery upon the world. Every day our leaders were unwilling to stomach the cost of ensuring our future survival, and instead put their children and their children's children at risk. Why have we not put an end to this?
Daily reminder America is the only country to have thrown nukes in combat. and threatened nuclear war like a monkey over shithole Cuba
And they were based in all cases, please continue seething in the knowledge that whites will always be intellectually and morally superior to you, Sanjay
>only country to have thrown nukes in combat
Yes, to end the largest war in human history, in which it was attacked unprovoked.
>threatened nuclear war like a monkey over shithole Cuba
Because the Soviets were gonna put the nukes there. And the situation was eventually resolved by the US removing nukes from Turkey and Khrushchev realizing that Castro was unhinged enough to want control over the nooks.
Y'know how everyone posts gay threads about what the USA's black budget is spent on? It's ABM systems. The literal most important military development in human history thus far would be the ability to win a nuclear war and keeping the fact you can do that a secret is paramount. If Russia's sharty nukes did fly you wont be seeing ayylmao jet fighters you'll see LEO intercept satellites, hypervelocity missiles, probably some gay lasers, and other forms of extremely effective ABM systems get deployed that no one knew existed.
Thats some good fanfiction there anon
More or less. The daughter of a friend of mine is a civilian engineer who worked on the navy side of the THAAD (using Standard missiles and Aegis control) stuff...she said they are a LOT farther along than the media portrays it, but won't (obviously) go into any details. I beleive her, though. She worked for some group at Boeing and was always jetting off around the world.
of course, and my uncle works at nintendo
>Secondly Russia has already stated that they would drop all their nukes if Russia ceased to exist.
Russia didn't say that, Putin did. Russian glowies, oligarchs, general staff, security forces and civil servants are interested in living and would ACK Putin before any such thing would happen.
Putin is also very interested in living, given his obsessive COVID routine and cancer treatments. He knows and got the message that there'd be a bunker buster missile with his name on it if he ever pushes the "end the world button"
>This would mean Russian subs would be instructed to launch as well
What fucking subs? Their nuclear launch capable subs don't even patron 24/7365 because they can't afford it.
Russia is currently playing nuclear chicken with the only nation to ever use a nuclear device on a hostile target not just once but twice.
All mostly correct, except Russia (remaining entirely Soviet behind the Perestroika gay antics) NEVER complied with arms control treaties. They could try but the dud rate wouldn't garantee they wouldn't cause some damage, Patriots slapping down Khinzals notwithstanding.
>They do not have the mass to completely saturate USA + Europe to prevent a counter strike.
That's what shills love to ignore or are too dumb to understand:
Russia would need to target at least the US, the UK and France. In reality even more countries since, for example, US nukes are in Germany too.
US, UK, France on the other hand would just have to aim at Russia.
Even if both NATO and Russia had the same amount of warheads and delivery systems Russia would have a major disadvantage. But since their stuff is in a bad shape they wouldn't be able to execute even a basic form of counterforce.
They also would just have to pray that nuclear equipped nuclear armed subs would have their misiles interecepted by Russian air defenses (which we know are weak).
And what would China or India do in this scenario? They just saw Russia launch a pre-emptive strike. Would YOU trust Russia in this scenario if you were them, especially now taht Russia has just taken out tehir biggest rivals?
I think in such a scenario we might see China pre-emptively take out Russia even if not targeted.
Well, I'm not so sure if both Russa and NATO wouldn't send some nukes to china too.
See, Russia and at least US, UK, France, Germany, Poland would suffer a certain amount of damage from nukes. NATO would suffer much fewer than russia but anyways. Even a few dozen warheads ain't no joke.
Both Russia and NATO don't want (especially) China to come out as the laughing third. So in my opinion (and that's what I would do if I were a commander in chief) it would be reasonable to give china a good nuclear kick in their nuts too so they cannot take advantage of the situation in these countries.
Hey genius, you dont “win” a nuclear war. If russia actually did launch we would be equally fucked, the entire globe would. Thats the whole point of MAD
Shut the fuck up and learn a thing or two about the realities of nuclear warfare. This is not the 1970s anymore. Nobody will lob thousands of megaton-sized warheads at each other's cities anymore.
>Thats the whole point of MAD
Destruction is only mutually assured if both parties got enough nukes and delivery systems. Russia's nuclear arsenal is a paper tiger. Maintenance has been a major problem for them since it's very expensive to keep both warheads and delivery systems in good shape.
Just to get the idea: The amount of money the US spend on maintaining their nuclear arsenal is roughly equal to Russia's entire military budget.
>source:my ass
The u.s has been inspecting russias nuclear arsenal for decades under START and seem to be under the impression they work pretty well. Your post is nothing but propagandist garbage
By the way, you dont need to launch thousands of nukes. Vaporizing NYC, LA, DC and Chicago alone would completely cripple the united states and send the entire world into complete and utter chaos
START only inspects the launch vehicles and checks if they have a nuke warhead in them or not. START doesn't involve checking the purity of the fissile material, my brown compatriot.
>Vaporizing NYC, LA, DC and Chicago alone would completely cripple the united states
Hey, shillius, countervalue hasn't been a nuclear strategy since the mid 80s. Fucking morons I swear.
>Your post is nothing but propagandist garbage
Here's to you, russoid motherfucker
This ain't cringe, it's just what's gonna happen in real life.
You have no idea what nuclear strategy russia will employ. Counterforce is a complete meme, especially when they are outnumbered in terms of warheads. They will absolutely target cities.
I trust the word of u.s nuclear experts over you, mr magaboomer. The u.s is so confident that russias nukes work they wont even allow the ukranians to target inside russia with u.s weapon systems for fear of potential escalation. Proceed with your wishful copium
>I trust the word of u.s nuclear experts over you
I'm sure you can source your claims that US nuclear experts say Russian nukes are good to go.
im sure you can source your claims of them saying they arent?
I'm not the one claiming that START inspectors are saying that Russian nukes work.
youre claiming russian nukes dont work, can you source any evidence for that? the burden of proof is on you
otherwise, you may want to call up the DoD and stare department and inform them there is nothing to worry about, and their nuclear policies arent needed.
Nukes are expensive as hell to maintain, can't really bullshit that equipment. But with the way Russia runs things, I'm not even sure the rockets themselves all even work properly, much less the nukes.
you know absolutely nothing.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2023.2202542
no, you are the one who started it by claiming that russian nukes dont work, post literally any evidence that they dont
Once again, my chromosome hoarding compatriot, not everyone who replies to you is the same person. My first post in the thread was calling you a retard for saying START involved checking the nukes work. You're spewing so much retarded bullshit that there are multiple people telling you to lay off the cowpiss.
still waiting for evidence anon
When rocket with nuke cannot fly, then rocket that can fly what have not a nuke picks up nuke from fallen comrade and flys nuke to target. Very old of rossian technologies.
I know you're new to this website, but there are multiple people who post under the name anonymous. You're the one who started the retarded proofs war by claiming that START inspects nukes when they don't. That is objectively wrong and I called you a retard for that.
>Counterforce is a complete meme, especially when they are outnumbered in terms of warheads. They will absolutely target cities.
So you admit that Russia is an uncontrollable pitbull that will kill billions of people if he doesn't get his will? Thanks for providing a case that makes a preemptive decapacitating strike on russia's means to wage nuclear war a reasonable strategy.
You cannot stop russia launching nuclear weapons.
Bwahahaha watch us you sorry gay.
Copium.
Therefore it is more imperative to launch decapitation strikes and stop as many as possible. All Russia has to do is go home to the borders they themselves agreed on in several memoranda. Instead they would kill millions out of literal spite. Evil evil people.
Launching ''decapitation strikes'' will kill millions more people than not
>Launching ''decapitation strikes'' will kill millions more russians than not
FTFY
implying russia could
Submarines are countered by neutrino detectors and hunter killers.
Satans are self-countered by terms of service.
Sarmats are self-countered by 50% of failures on trials.
The ground and air launchers are monitored from satellites in real time.
Every Starlink satellite can deploy 100 grams of metal powder into LEO.
Yeah kid you can still try to launch your toys.
>millions of leftist urbanite gays die
>TZD happens
Okay so what's the catch?
Hey shillius, if russia actually did launch the only country that would be completely fucked would be russia and russia alone.
You just give us as much as the olde stink eye we gonna stomp your fucking guts into the ground and sell russia piece by piece to the highest bidder.
Nobody wants uncontrollable pitbulls who start launching nukes for whatever reason. Every country with nukes would fuck your shit before most of your shit has even cleared the silo doors - that's if your shit even manages to ignite.
Cringe.
>US, UK, France on the other hand would just have to aim at Russia.
Russia is larger than all of those countries combined though, not really a worthwhile comparison.
What has size to do with this? This is about aiming at valuable military targets, especially targets which enable a country to wage nuclear war.
This is not the 50s and 60s anymore where SLBMs hat only a few thousand miles of range and bombers didn't have aerial refueling
NATO would simply apply air superiority to the problem. By the time the F-35s have turned around the pilots would see the Uke thunder runs in their wake
What's it like living in an alternate reality?
yes and those chuds killing them selves bothers me in the slightest
the russians started a brother war and they will pay the price for it
I remember when I was a kid, I'd get bored in the outfield playing baseball and stick my head between my legs to see the world upside down. Every time I had this rush of fear that the world had flipped over and everything was going to plummet into the sky.
Not sure why this has stuck with me thirty years later and this dumb image unlocked it.
>Vatnik shills
Russia plays a big game with flashy projects, but they can never mass them or produce more than a handful. The same is with their nuclear arsonel. That
It'd be over in a couple of months.
>First wave, stand off strikes
>Second wave, massive air campaign
>Third wave, ground forces sweep up the rest
It'd be over in 2 more weeks exactly.
are the NAFOchuds in the room with us?
you're only inviting mockery by obsessing over your internet rivals here, you should really go back to twitter if you enjoy their company so much.
I live in the tenth largest city in a third string NATO country, I doubt those retarded slavmoron monkeys have more than a few dozen functional and I honestly expect NATO anti-ballistic missile tech to be way, way more advanced than is widely known.
Those morons will never get far enough down the list to hit me, and honestly my nation’s capital is a pulsating tumor of browns, l*ftists and gays. In this scenario I get to watch the Russian animal become extinct whilst they do my country a favor on the way out. Sign me the fuck up.
>Those morons will never get far enough down the list to hit me, and honestly my nation’s capital is a pulsating tumor of browns, l*ftists and gays
>I live in the tenth largest city in a third string NATO country. Those morons will never get far enough down the list to hit me, and honestly my nation’s capital is a pulsating tumor of browns, l*ftists and gays.
interesting though. is there any fiction of a future taken over by provincial survivors of a mass nuclear strike.
Lmao if paper drones can cause so much damage to Russian aircraft fleets imagine what Tomahawk salvos will do.
We already watched them delete syrian airbases under s300 umbrellas. A NATO/Russian war would just be called Gulf War: Remastered
it would take about a day, on the bright side, every major us city would be gone so there wouldn't be any more Hispanics or nigs to worry about
rural chads rise up
Like clockwork, almost like you’re working from a script eh Arjun?
wtf how is that tank lifting an entire road?
There is virtually nothing the Russians can do if the US launched a Gulf War sized Air Campaign. Every single piece of equipment in the Western Military District would be deleted. Wtf can their AD network do against a salvo of 1000 TLAMS and 1000 JASSM's?
Keep in mind the RuAF/PVO can only manage a 4-ship of fighters and an AWACS in the air at once. If they try to fly 8 fighters, they can't juggle them all and commonly end up shooting each other. This has been corroborated by many analysts.
The USA would not need to put boots on the ground. We would only need to provide air support, and every Russian LOG Base, AA system, most artillery systems, most of the Russian troops would be destroyed.
As cool as it would be to see US Military aircraft killing a hundred thousand vatniks... it will not happen.
I feel like it could happen in 2 scenarios. If they use a tactical nuke within Ukrainian borders, and if the US sees that Ukraine can't win.
>end
Oh no anon…the war would just be getting started
Russia can’t even produce modern tanks and is forced to refurbish fucking t-72s for modern frontline usage. I have zero fucking faith that their nuclear arsenal is operation outside of single digits, if that.
Just look at the state of the fucking moskva. That was their big ass PROPAGANDA ship, and it was barely fucking functional. you expect me to believe the country that cant even keep their propaganda flagship in working order before sending it into a warzone has functioning nuclear arms, let alone competent delivery systems?
Get your head out of the FSB’s ass, the king has no clothes on you dipshits.
>estrogen runs out
>testosterone kicks in
>US soldiers become even more powerful than malnourished conscripts
>If the US Government was not run by gender queer affirmative action retards
Do you really believe that SJWs couped the US government, how many hours a day of fox news do you watch?
>Do you really believe that SJWs couped the US government
Nah, they just gathered the old white men in charge and told them that recruitment is in the shitter so it was time to get creative
Brain permanently sludgified, turned to goo, full of lead, squishy, wrinkleless
you'd obey either way
>chuds dilate their skulls
>dilate their skulls
>skull dilation
>suicide due to no estrogen
>thinks higher test ratio makes you suicidal
classic low t cope
you will never be a man.
It would prolong the war but the result would remain the same.
Almost 2 years failing to subdue a former dependa state is pathetic and cringe.
this war is a dream come true for the garden gnomes/MIC/hawks. The US can just shell out money and watch Russians die without sacrificing a single American life.
Best military investment ever.
I think the real question in this thread, assuming that nuclear war is not a possible outcome, who would aid Russia if NATO became involved? North Korea? Iran? Belarus? Troops and or supplies? or is it just not worth it for them?
I couldn't see any countries other than Belarus getting involved.
>Ukraine
>no estrogen
Cisbros don't know about Lena
Lmao that's what I was thinking. They'd be fighting on the damn source.
why do i get the sneaking suHispanicion that most poltards jerk off to shemale porn?
I don’t know about 4chan as a whole but /chug/ has been caught simping for trannies multiple times. And one schizo accidentally shared his gay porn while raiding /uhg/
In much the same way that vatniks are virulently homophobic while thinking of nothing but cocks all day.
They have a differnt view of being gay.
To them being gay is the same as being weak becuase you could not resist them fucking you in the ass.
You can lust for assholes all day and rape 100 dudes in the ass and still not be gay.
This is why russian gayry confuses westerners becuase they have some other meaning.
Basically in the West gay mean you lust for dick or manass
In the third world gay means you were too weak to prevent being raped in the ass.
See russian prison rape culture or how russians proudly rape POWs in the ass.
that's the old roman view tbh. either you're the top or bottom.
Because they do. 4chan is basically the internet version of Russia. whatever they are projecting about others is exactly what they are guilty of.
Don't look up the ratios of porn that Russians watch online versus other countries. Only LatAm enjoys it more than them and that's because Brazil is Brazil.
D-doesn't, uh, everybody? I mean, right? Guys? You know what I'm talking about ...Right?
You mean how /d/ was completely overrun by futa and shit?
>You mean how /d/ was completely overrun by futa and shit?
God I fucking wish.
90% of the catalog on /d/ is just retarded transformation, pee and fart threads.
Not long, a few months and that is being nice to the Russians. If nato went full nato short of nukes. They don't need to go through that pre prepared shit in Ukraine. Push through Russia itself and come round. Fuck push to Moscow. Russia doesn't have enough defending their own boarders to do diddly shit about it.
>Fuck push to Moscow. Russia doesn't have enough defending their own boarders to do diddly shit about it.
I think that's highly unlikely for political reasons and nuclear reasons, but hot dog man's march on Moscow made me realize (maybe) what Russia's leaders might think, or what makes them so insecure. The country is so easily invaded... it just happened to be from their own guys in this case. It's so wide open you could just drive a tank column down the highway and what's stopping you?
>If NATO put boots on the ground
Impossible scenario, by the time the transports are loaded, the USAF would have already forced an unconditional surrender through sheer air dominance.
This honestly. We don't fight like dipshit russians, we'd have overwhelming air superiority before anyone touches down.
I think only Poland+ perhaps Czechia or Romania would place boots on the ground. No other NATO country is willing to.
I am willing, strap me to a missle and fire me at moscow
Most likely just a chemical/nuclear appocalypse, but if a full scale conventional war did somehow happen, I would anticipate something along the lines of a gigantic massed air assault like first night desert storm to kick things off, but with significantly higher casualties.
If NATO joined the war, didn't strike any targets inside 2014 Russia and just focused on getting Ukraine back it would still be a couple of years because it's hard to beat someone that is happy to send endless waves on men to their death.
If NATO joined at hit targets inside Russia it would be over within a year.
If NATO invaded pre-2014 Russia it would be nuclear war.
wouldn't need boots on the ground, just their airforces would be enough to decimate russian artillery and other stationary objects. the rest would be history.
Why hasn’t NATO put ANY boots on the ground? Why hasn’t a SINGLE European nation sent SOME kind of force to assist Ukraine? Please answer this simple question.
Why would they? Russia couldn't take Ukraine in 3 days with its blitz attack. Now Ukraine is armed what chance does Russia have?
A kid with a stick started hitting another kid without one, NATO gives the other kid a stick to fight back with.
Why bother stepping in?
>Russia couldn't take Ukraine in 3 days
Didn't need to*
Bause Russia's plan was to have more than 100k of its own young men killed or wounded, its existing military storages depleted, bank accounts seized and economic ties with many countries cut?
Well that's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for 'em.
>unironic We don't need this posting
kekw
>unironic
😉
They likely already have. "The US army rangers were just on vacation when a missile hit their hotel." Yeah.
>NATO put boots on the ground
Not viable or necessary and would precipitate tactical nukes at a greater than 50% chance. Assuming they aren't pressing the no fun button, SEAD would likely completely overload them and Gulf War sort of ground pounding with impunity would follow.
Bull, that’s just a cope; NATO already sends in a huge arsenal to Ukraine it would hardly make a difference if the users were not Ukrainian.
>b8
They wouldn't need a single boot on the ground. It would be more than enough to unleash their massive overwhelming air power. This is my personal timeline here:
>Within 48 to 72 hours every AA, radar and EW installation including major air bases at least west of the ural mountains would be out of the game.
>After 96 to 120 hours russian C3 installations for the western theater would be either destroyed or unable to work.
>Within the same timeframe russian supply lines and supply hubs needed for the war would be destroyed. NATO would have complete air supremacy over ukraine and the western parts of russia.
At this point no western soldier on ukie or russoid soil would be necessary. NATO would just strip russia of any means to wage war in the western hemisphere. At the same time western submarines and naval air forces would block every russian naval base and trail every submarine while nuclear forces would be on high alert to fuck up every piece of russian nuclear forces the very second Puccia decides to act funny.
I'm not even a shill. It's just what would happen. NATO has gotten better every year while russia has stagnated since the end of the Cold War.
15-20 years against poor farmers living in mud huts.
Oh, is this what actually happened to the VDV
they project so much. Russians have so much gay rape and gay prostitution in their ranks. Tons of heroin use too.
I loathe chuds, but good Lord Almighty they live rent free in your head. Seek help.
You're a fag and don't get Russians. They are mostly hetero like anywhere else, but their culture is dominated by prison and military culture where male hierarchy is important and they lack access to women. That results in a lot of fucking other men, endemic male rape and prostitution. But since they're also religious they play games and create hierarchies about this.
If given the chance, they will screw women. If in the army and horny, it's a bj from a private. they think nothing of it. The average male in Russia is way more likely to have had gay sex.
The gay fucking and Heroin use is where all the HIV is coming from too.
They really ought to try not being unemployed drunks who beat their wives and girlfriends.
>all this vatmoron reeing ITT
What happened this time?
Running away from gay spartan supersoldiers I guess.
>ukraine lost again
Why would there be no estrogen? bro we had ice cream ships in WW2. If we wanted to, our invasion force could include a fully equipped femboy battalion for the sole purpose of sissifying Russian PoWs. Vatnigs are so inept at logistics they can't fathom utilizing resources not available in your immediate vicinity?
>the sole purpose of sissifying Russian PoWs
They kinda do it to themselves already
I don't think that NATO would even need to put boots on the ground.
In the case of a war there would be a constant 27/7 barrage of PGMs and airstrikes on any element larger than a company
I think Nato could probably do enough with air assets to let Ukraine do the ground work. Main thing would be the minefields after they hit all the artillery.
Exactly, their progress through the minefields would go on unmolested because all the artillery is either blasted scrap or is hiding from enemy planes
The first periode would be slow and measured since they're already dug in. The big difference with what's happening now is that everything in the rear will be fucked non stop so when the dug in portions are dealt with you'll see a complete ciollapse with litle to no chance to regroup at tactical positions for the Russians.
>dug in
I don't think these shitty trenches we've seen are enough to stop American CAS, honestly.
Yeah you're right but I feel we can be cocky enough to approach it in a way where you have little to no casualties on our side before the steamroll begins
Uninformwd retard here regarding stealth tech
Is Russia capable of detecting B2s, F22s or Nighthawks in full stealth mode? Or they would only be detected when they open their bomb bays above Moscow?
1) There's no such thing as "full stealth mode": It's nothing you switch on and off. These planes are stealth because of geometry and coating
2) Nighthawks haven't been in active service for many years.
3) Stealth basically reduces your plane's cross-section as seen by radar. Fewer radar waves bounce off of the plane and make it back to the receiver.
4) We are talking about cross sections that are the size of a small bird or even as low as a pinpong ball - as you can imagine exact numbers are highly classified for obvious reasons.
So since russia doesn't have a lot of truly modern hardware they have a very low chance of detecting stealth planes. Especially since active radar lights up like a beacon so you can choose flight paths that allows you to show the smallest radar cross section.
tl;dr: Russia has a very, very low chance of detecting modern stealth planes in their airspace and an even lower chance of shooting them down before they reach their assigned targets.
>source: my ass
so you've resorted to single sentence shitposting? You ain't worth your money, huh?
Why do you even try when in every thread you get curb stomped
How does the reverse work? Does the US have radar equipment that could detect something with a cross section as small as their own planes, without getting hit by an anti radiation missile itself?
The US has air superiority, there is no reverse.
I highly doubt that stopped the USA from investing into radar system research
Boats and planes use radars too
1) Since russia has no stealth planes this is a completely theoretical scenario
2) The US has global multilayered early warning systems between various satellites and ground-borne radar. The US has also fighters in the air and ready to fly at any given times.
3) The very moment a stealth plane launches an anti radiation missile it gives away its exact location.
I'm pretty positive the US would be able to keep such enemy planes from reaching their targets.
Don't forget one thing: The very moment an enemy might get the upper hand, the US tends to throw billions at the possible problem until they've developed an overkill countermeasure.
See the F-15s development for example. Or the advent of russian ICBM road mobile TEL vehicles that kicked off the B-2s development
>Yes, the original reason for the B-2 was hunting ICBM launchers behind the iron curtain
I live in Berlin, that's probably too short a distance for American AA to shoot a nuke down
As bad as berlin needs at least 20 warheads why should someone nuke berlin? It's not a target for nukes because there's nothing of value for nukes.
Nukes are mainly used against other nukes and their C3 installations
That being said: I got an old bottle of cognac in the basement. Berlin being nuked would be a good reason to open it.
t. Teutscherrr Auswanderrerrr in Amerrrikka
>Over 1.6 million adults (ages 18 and older) and youth (ages 13 to 17) identify as transgender in the United States, or 0.6% of those ages 13 and older.
So your hopium scenario has 0.6% chances at best.
>those urbanites are the reason you are alive
The other way around, retard.
If you live in a big city you're permanently 3 days of cut power and transport lines away from societal collapse.
urbanites are the reason you are alive
>The other way around, retard.
The reason you are alive is those urbanites? Lol
>If you live in a big city you're permanently 3 days of cut power and transport lines away from societal collapse.
I live in medium-sized city in central CA. The good news for me is i can get up into the mountains into fairly remote areas in about 90 min to 2 hours. The bad news is, there are about a million people within an hour's drive of here, and twice that if you go to 2 hours, and a good chunk of them will try to go the same direction. I need to be pretty smart about a bugout destination, I need to be smart about spotting a disaster in time to make a run for it ahead of the crowd, and I need to have a smart bug-IN plan in case that stuff isnt feasible. The problem is, as you may have guessed by the fact Im posting on PrepHole, that I am not a smart man.
>copium fanfiction.
Yeah, that's everything you shills have to say when confronted with facts.
Out of the entire puccian arsenal...
1) Only a fraction of launch vehicles will make it to the launch point in time.
2) Only a fraction of the missiles will lift off properly
3) Only a fraction of missiles will reach their orbit and separate every stage successfully
4) Only a fraction of missiles will be able to eject their MIRVs properly
5) Only a fraction of warheads will make it through counter measures
6) Only a fraction of warheads will come down in the general vicinity of the target (CEP wise speaking)
7) Only a fraction of the warheads' arming systems will work properly
8) Only a fraction of the warheads' primary stages will detonate properly
9) Only a fraction of the warheads' secondary stages will detonate properly.
So of the entire russoid nuke arsenal only a very small number of warheads will both reach their targets as expected AND not fizzle.
On the other hand, aside from the few russoid counter measures, there will be a literal hail of missiles and warheads that get the same amount of maintenance and modernization as a racing car or a combine right before harvest time.
You're just restating what you already said without elaborating, Sergei.
Hope you don't expect to be paid for this sloppy ass job.
there is no need to reply in earnest to a moron that actually thinks his country is going to be fine if all the major population centers are vaporized cause it ''gets rid of them darn LIBERUALS''. its so comically stupid.
im sure you are an expert on the subject of russian nuclear warheads anon. why dont you post some sources to back your claims up?
Please post sources stating Russian nukes are properly funded and fully functional.
sure: the u.s DoD
I see you're posting sources in invisible text
>why dont you post some sources to back your claims up?
Because everybody can see the sorry state of the russian military. The price of nuclear weapon maintenance is also well known - as is the russian military spending and its GDP.
On the other hand you fail to deliver counter-arguments to my facts.
Your ''arguments'' are nothing but fanfiction and wishful thinking
please post some legitimate sources that state russian nuclear weapons dont work
Please post some legitimate sources that state russian nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles do work - all of them
When was the last nuclear test of russia, at least a subcritical one that hints development or modernization? Oh
>No testing has occurred in the former territory of the USSR since its dissolution.
When was the last nuclear test of russia, at least a subcritical one that hints development or modernization? Oh
>No testing has occurred in the former territory of the USSR since its dissolution.
neither has the u.s
by your metric, none of their nuclear weapons work either, you utter moron.
>neither has the u.s
Whoops
>The United States conducted two rounds of subcritical nuclear tests last year, the first such tests under the administration of President Joe Biden, according to the National Nuclear Security Administration.
https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2022/04/87da4fef4929-us-conducted-subcritical-nuclear-tests-in-1st-under-biden-govt.html
By the way: subcritical tests only work if you got brute computer technology to properly simulate a full blown detonation.
On the other Hand:
>Russian President Vladimir Putin has put the world on notice that Russia MIGHT resume nuclear explosive testing
https://www.rand.org/blog/2023/03/putin-could-escalate-with-nuclear-testing.html
The same hot air as the nuclear war threats every thursday.
Atleast the US has been testing their launch platforms regularly with great success.
As seen in the SMO Russia's launch platforms are highly unreliable.
Someone wrote it earlier here: The US spends more on nuclear weapons and delivery systems maintenance than russia on their entire lousy ass military.
Labour cost is 10 times higher in Usa
russian launch platforms are literally more modern than the u.s ones
https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/nuke-subcritical.htm
whoops.
>https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/nuke-subcritical.htm
So you cant read your own sources? kek!
>Meanwhile, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) said on the same day that they could not confirm the statement by the US Department of Defense, which suspects Russia of secretly conducting nuclear tests.
So you are saying U.S intelligence agencies are wrong?
Nice work Boris. So now you either got to admit the US' intelligence is able to take a very close look into your nuclear shenanigans or russia doesn't even do subcritical testing.
Which way to choose, slavoid?
you asked for evidence and i provided. russia is not only actively performing non critical nuclear explosive tests but are likely also conducting actual nuclear tests in secret. as per u.s intelligence agencies
proceed with your copium and try not to embarrass yourself again.
>but are likely also conducting actual nuclear tests in secret
Which is completely impossible since the shock waves would be visible on every last earthquake detector around the entire globe.
You know shit about nuclear weapons. You're nothing but a shill who sucks russian dick or wants to be a contrarian.
>On June 13, 2019 a Defense Intelligence Agency statement responds to questions we have received about remarks DIA Director Lt. Gen. Robert P. Ashley, Jr., made at a Hudson Institute event May 29, 2019: "The U.S. government, including the Intelligence Community, has assessed that Russia has conducted nuclear weapons tests that have created nuclear yield. Regarding China, the information raised at the Hudson Institute, coupled with China's lack of transparency on their nuclear testing activities, naturally raise questions about those activities in relation to the "zero yield" nuclear weapons testing moratorium adhered to by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France. These are actions that the U.S. government characterizes as inconsistent with the commitments undertaken by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France."
the DIA disagrees with you. and they obviously know a lot more than a dumb magaboomer on PrepHole. you have been utterly owned.
>"zero yield" nuclear weapons testing
Zero yield is another word for subcritical testing. So once again:
>You know shit about nuclear weapons. You're nothing but a shill who sucks russian dick or wants to be a contrarian.
Remember when you tried to do a missile test when biden was in ukraine and your test failed? Russian nuclear readiness^^
hey bro, still waiting for even one source backing up your claims
ive posted mine: its the DIA, and they definitely think russian nukes work
>and they definitely think russian nukes work
They only think russia might have done testing.
One question: If russia's nuclear arsenal is so plenty and ready, why don't they finally push the button? What makes them so scared?
Oh, lemme guess: They are the good honorable guys who don't wanna kill millions, right?
of course.they know a lot more than you do. theyre the defense intelligence agency of the most powerful country on earth
and guess what? they know russian nukes work.
>and guess what? they know russian nukes work.
At this point I think the US know more about the state of the russoid arsenal than Putin herself.
>lose argument hard
>ad homs about gay sex and trannies
thanks for playing.
>Zero yield is another word for subcritical testing. So once again:
maybe you missed this part:
>The U.S. government, including the Intelligence Community, has assessed that Russia has conducted nuclear weapons tests that have created nuclear yield
can you even read, you illiterate chimp?
>can you even read, you illiterate chimp?
Do you know what "assessed" means? And are you proud that US intelligence is able to look into russian nuclear secrecy?
Yes, i know what assessed means, and i trust the assessment of u.s intelligence agencies over you.
>Yes, i know what assessed means
Hint, Sergej: It's got nothing to do with asses and putting stuff inside them.
>has assessed that Russia has conducted nuclear weapons tests that have created nuclear yield
Since nobody else came to this conclusion it's pretty certain russia DID NOT do any testing.
oh, so now the DIA and u.s intelligence is wrong?
oh, so now the DIA and us intelligence got their noses right in the middle of russoid süper sicrit nuclear testing even though this should be impossible if russian counter-intelligence was worth its salt?
copium + moving goalposts hard.
They tried to do a missile test near Ukraine when Biden was visiting and it failed lmao
All your arguments are "your argument are wrong anon".
>The state of pol
waiting for some sources anon
Where's your source anon
>russian weapons are 100% efficient unless you prove otherwise
>t. vatnik
We won't fall for this trick again.
>incredible fanfiction
It is if you know shit about the money holes called russoid military maintenance.
Hey, when they invaded ukraine last year, they had to leave vehicles because of tyre dry rot. You think their missiles and warheads, both wich are lightyears more complicated and expensive to maintain, will be in a better condition?
>Russia is not being invaded
Those must have been the ghost of Moscow drones exploding recently. Probably just malfunctions or friendly fire.
>terror bombing = invasion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Madrid_train_bombings
I guess every major European country got invaded by Afghanistan then
Wow, the Taliban had hundreds of combatants bombing Europe.
Try better next time.
Wow, the Ukraine has hundreds of combatants bombing Moscow.
Try better next time.
This site has been flooded with footage of Ukrainian incursions into Russian land.
Helicopter raids, bombings, assassinations.
>terror bombing
>"a nas to za scho"
Pidoran's Theorem strikes once again. I'm still wondering what caused all this zigger seethe and MUH NOOKS posturing this time.
Irrelevant. NATO would never win without significant casualties so it won't try. Just see how it wimped out when NK was gearing up for nukes and it had a window to take out the NK nuke programme but didn't because of the number of artillery tubes NK has.
Why could NATO risk losing worse Korea just because best Korea could build a handful of nukes with no launch platforms.
Honestly, just the regular suicide rates of US troops alone, would be more than enough to ensure Russian victory.
>the regular suicide rates of US troops alone
>Dedovshchina has devastating and lasting consequences for the physical and psychological well-being of conscripts
>According to official statistics, twenty-five conscripts died as a result of abuses associated with dedovshchina in the first half of 2004. 109 soldiers committed suicide during those six months
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2004/russia1004/6.htm
abrams will get blown up by 152 and mines and drones just as easily as every other thank.
>https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/01/politics/air-force-fires-leaders-nuclear-safety-inspection/index.html
Yeah, indeed. The US saw someone wasn't working according to protocol so they kicked them out before they could affect nuclear readiness.
Thirdies really think that discovering and rooting out corruption is a bad thing lmao
>109.. is that supposed to be a large number..?
Well, it's the number for only six months and it covers only russian soldiers who got a taste of dedovshchina
On the other hand your statistic covers a span of 20 years and all reasons combined...
So the equivalent US rate would be roughly.. 750 soldiers per 6 month period. Good to know, US troops over 7 times more likely to commit self forever sleep than Russian troops, and that's me taking your numbers at face value.
>Russia is somehow better because my weird mathematics somehow state russian soldiers kill themselves on a lower rate than US soldiers.
You guys are truly desperate huh?
C'mon, write something about trannies
Norway Denmark
>oh noo they will send a strongly worded letter
Denmark has been a passionate US bootlicker for a long time. Highest number of soldiers lost per capita in Afghanistan.
Well do it gay, launch your nukes like you've been threatening to if HATO "escalates" again for the 146,795th time.
Literal moron of a country, constantly acting tough, but can only sucker punch weaklings, and starts crying, shitting and pissing themselves when someone hits back.
>No desperation here
>Changes topic from russian nukes and conscript rape suicides to a british tank in ukraine
Oh, no, how terrible, now they'll have to send five more :^)
Retard gay ESL janny lets this stay up the whole time and removes any thread that triggers his massive aspergers. No wonder this board is so shitty when the Americans are not there.
>long live Russia.
I hope russia and most of its inhabitants die in a nuclear hellfire during my lifetime.
>those urbanites are the reason you are alive
This is what the Moscow dwellers believe
Russia keeps threatening to use "muh nooks".
The nearest major city to me is 2 and half hours away.
I've used a nuclear bomb simulator that even accounted for the fallout.
I am out of the radius zone and the fallout drifts WELL north of me.
If they want to nuke the Blackids for me, I have no objections.
American racial demographics reset to the 1920's instantly if the cities are nuked and this makes me really warm up to the idea.
It is genuinely worth any hardship, if that is the result
Fuck the drama of boots on the ground. Ukrainian military supported by American aviation would be decisive. Even just sending them things like ATACMS, cruise missiles, F-16 would be huge.