Missiles inbound but do not worry
Russia’s military doctrine dictates the use of nuclear weapons in response to any non-nuclear assault on Russian territory.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,868
Received 2,816 Likes
on
1,200 Posts
But wasn't that similar to what we envisaged? using localised "Tactical" Nuclear Weapons to stem the hordes rolling into West Germany in the hope it would cause a de-escalation.
..
..
Last edited by NutLoose; 15th Nov 2019 at 13:50.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
The problem with Flexible Response was that the linkage between battlefield to tactical to strategic weapons inevitably, in ever6 exercise, escalated to general response rather than de-escalated. which is why the INF Treaty was eventually signed to get rid of them, and the linkage risk.
Russia has, if you read the paper above, introduced the equivalent of Flexible Response for homeland defence, with all the risks entailed - and which has also, inevitably, as the need the range of weapons to implement the policy, their reintroduction of tactical weapons and the demise of the INF Treaty.
Russia has, if you read the paper above, introduced the equivalent of Flexible Response for homeland defence, with all the risks entailed - and which has also, inevitably, as the need the range of weapons to implement the policy, their reintroduction of tactical weapons and the demise of the INF Treaty.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Moscow region
Age: 65
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is written in the original (I just opened that web page) that Russia "reserves the right to use N-weap in response to use N-weaps or other WoMD against it or its allies, and also in the case of aggression against RF with the use of conventional weaps when the existence of the state is at threat. The decision is made by the president".
Russian original:
<<< 27. Российская Федерация оставляет за собой право применить ядерное оружие в ответ на применение против нее и (или) ее союзников ядерного и других видов оружия массового поражения, а также в случае агрессии против Российской Федерации с применением обычного оружия, когда под угрозу поставлено само существование государства. Решение о применении ядерного оружия принимается Президентом Российской Федерации >>>
So, IMHO sounds not as black-or-white.
E.g. if "hordes of tanks from baltic superstates" enter the Russian territory, no need to use nukes. They would be kicked out by a couple of battalions.
The latter phrase remains in the doctrine since the times of Mao when millions of Chinese soldiers were ready to cross the Russian border in Far East so that no conventional weaps could stop such a crowd of kamikadze fanatics.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ESSEX
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may be very wrong, and not to defend the Labour position, or the MAD philosophy, but I thought I’d read that the modern thinking with nukes had moved away from “use ‘em or loose ‘em”, especially with submarine based capabilities, that the strategic advantage was not with first strike, especially if you’ve shot your bolt, but rather with the response. The side responding having the now larger arsenal (assuming of course it hasn’t been depleted in the first move or lost its command and control) could exert more influence/pressure and my not need to fire in the short term, and even in the long term might have the aggressor at a disadvantage having depleted its inventory.
JAS
JAS
but I’ve seen worse negotiating positions . The red indians, the aboriginals,
In the cold light of day. What satisfaction does it give anyone to know that 4 minutes after ruin of the nation, 10 million russians will cop it. We will be toast.
Remove Trident and spend saving on more conventional arms,How about a 100 ship navy, and a 20 squadron air force. Naval bases N,E,S & W . Ships to be British built.
Aviation , Airforce to operate large numbers of "Hawker Hunter Mod 2" or Similar. multi role fighters. 50s performance 12 mins to 45000 ft is well respectable. Modern engines and materials should improve on this
Penny for your thoughts?
Remove Trident and spend saving on more conventional arms,How about a 100 ship navy, and a 20 squadron air force. Naval bases N,E,S & W . Ships to be British built.
Aviation , Airforce to operate large numbers of "Hawker Hunter Mod 2" or Similar. multi role fighters. 50s performance 12 mins to 45000 ft is well respectable. Modern engines and materials should improve on this
Penny for your thoughts?
That is the perennial argument javelinfaw9 and there is no doubt that most of our Nato allies are in that position (ie no nukes) so why shouldn't we be? But the whole question of the ruin of the nation depends on the fact the the aggressor nation (ok lets call it Russia) knows that it will be toast too if that happens, and that is what it stops it toasting us (or our allies). It only needs one NATO country (ok lets call it the USA) to have nuclear weapons, and to state that it is willing to use them. It doesnt really matter if Corbyn says he is going to continue to have a guard dog, but state that it will remain chained up and muzzled, as long as the "enemy" knows that our most powerful ally has one, and it is most certainly unchained and unmuzzled. That's what they call having a nuclear deterrent
Here we go again.
Yey, it’s the ‘fleet of Hunters’ argument yet again.
12 minutes to 45000’ sounds awesome. Could any Hunter, no matter how upgraded, do that with a Radar, 8 decent missiles, a targeting pod and maybe with room to spare for a bomb or two? Oh and some fuel. And the ability to do it all supersonic.
I know people on here love the notion of ‘quantity has a quality of it’s own’ but good luck finding volunteers to fly your 1950’s wonderjets into a 5th gen war.
As I have said previously, a single Typhoon Sqn has more offensive capability than the entire Jaguar Wing had in its day. It would take an awful lot of Hunters to make a similar claim.
BV
12 minutes to 45000’ sounds awesome. Could any Hunter, no matter how upgraded, do that with a Radar, 8 decent missiles, a targeting pod and maybe with room to spare for a bomb or two? Oh and some fuel. And the ability to do it all supersonic.
I know people on here love the notion of ‘quantity has a quality of it’s own’ but good luck finding volunteers to fly your 1950’s wonderjets into a 5th gen war.
As I have said previously, a single Typhoon Sqn has more offensive capability than the entire Jaguar Wing had in its day. It would take an awful lot of Hunters to make a similar claim.
BV
Who are going to man these fleets of aircraft, ships and presumably tanks. Nobody that is going to spend a career looking over their shoulders for a lawyer hunting for 'war crimes'.
I watched the 3 part series on the Queen Elizabeth Carrier with the F35 tests. I am sure I am not alone in thinking that we have a £3 billion ship with (eventually) several £100 million a/c but a total lack of destroyers & frigates - never mind attack/hunter submarines to protect this asset. Every US carrier fleet has a decent defensive fleet. In a past world I attended a course at HMS Dryad & learnt (by a nuclear submarine captain) about how the RN defends a carrier using the many assets available to the RN. I may be wrong but from what have recently read about the lack of serviceable naval surface assets, there are nowhere near enough ships available to defend the QE II never mind the second carrier.
The point I would wish to make is that the MOD & past Chiefs of the Air Staff/Admirals of the Fleet have gloriously cocked up for the UK in spending billions of £ on these enormously expensive machines when for less than a tenth of the cost Britain could have bought many squadrons of F16/F18 & F15s off the shelf plus a decent tanker fleet. Great Britain no longer needs aircraft carriers. Our priority is defence of the UK. There is also a distinct lack of intelligence from MOD in not replacing our medium/long range SAM systems which disappeared when Bloodhound went in 1991.
All it takes is for one anti-ship missile to hit the QE2, or a tactical air burst nuke within about 10 miles & there is one third of the RN gone.
The point I would wish to make is that the MOD & past Chiefs of the Air Staff/Admirals of the Fleet have gloriously cocked up for the UK in spending billions of £ on these enormously expensive machines when for less than a tenth of the cost Britain could have bought many squadrons of F16/F18 & F15s off the shelf plus a decent tanker fleet. Great Britain no longer needs aircraft carriers. Our priority is defence of the UK. There is also a distinct lack of intelligence from MOD in not replacing our medium/long range SAM systems which disappeared when Bloodhound went in 1991.
All it takes is for one anti-ship missile to hit the QE2, or a tactical air burst nuke within about 10 miles & there is one third of the RN gone.
Sam - the carrier issue is discussed interminably in thread Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Half agree with you, half are True Believers
I think its a good point about the SAM's - I'd have thought a few deployed in the Falklands might not be a bad idea for example.
Half agree with you, half are True Believers
I think its a good point about the SAM's - I'd have thought a few deployed in the Falklands might not be a bad idea for example.
Sam - the carrier issue is discussed interminably in thread Future Carrier (Including Costs)
Half agree with you, half are True Believers
I think its a good point about the SAM's - I'd have thought a few deployed in the Falklands might not be a bad idea for example.
Half agree with you, half are True Believers
I think its a good point about the SAM's - I'd have thought a few deployed in the Falklands might not be a bad idea for example.
As a moot point to all on here, around 1986 some bright spark air officer in MOD thought it a jolly good idea for the Bloodhound Launch Control Posts to be upgraded from their perfectly good C scope/raw audio displays to full colour CRT displays for many millions of £s. They didn't take into account that all of the Bloodhound Mk2 solid propellant boost motors (across 25 & 85 Sqn) were time expired around 1991/2). I was the poor unfortunate EC to be propelled from a Flight Training Officer on 25 Sqn to the Sqn Training Officer on 85 Sqn to look after this mess In 1988. Then the decision was taken to scrap Bloodhound because of the procuement cost of a couple of hundred new boost motors.....
" 10+ x C130" ??? hadn't they heard of a boat???
The Russians refer to it as a policy of “escalate to de-escalate”.
https://globalsecurityreview.com/nuc...ence-strategy/
Russia’s military doctrine dictates the use of nuclear weapons in response to any non-nuclear assault on Russian territory.
https://globalsecurityreview.com/nuc...ence-strategy/
Russia’s military doctrine dictates the use of nuclear weapons in response to any non-nuclear assault on Russian territory.
US lost 550,000 in US Civil war its biggest loss in any war. UK & colonies lost 1 million in WW1.
If any country had lost similar in same period I would expect a very clear statement if they were invaded again.
The question remains what PM would openly fire a Nuke knowing full well that UK will be obliterated in return.
Rather have someone who would do everything to avoid firing one than someone weak enough to be blase about firing one.
Rather have someone who would do everything to avoid firing one than someone weak enough to be blase about firing one.
You think that's mad? This is MAD:
The question remains what Premier would openly fire a Nuke knowing full well that the Soviet Union will be obliterated in return.
Rather have someone who would do everything to avoid firing one than someone weak enough to be blase about firing one.
The question remains what Premier would openly fire a Nuke knowing full well that the Soviet Union will be obliterated in return.
Rather have someone who would do everything to avoid firing one than someone weak enough to be blase about firing one.
You think that's mad? This is MAD:
The question remains what Premier would openly fire a Nuke knowing full well that the Soviet Union will be obliterated in return.
Rather have someone who would do everything to avoid firing one than someone weak enough to be blase about firing one.
The question remains what Premier would openly fire a Nuke knowing full well that the Soviet Union will be obliterated in return.
Rather have someone who would do everything to avoid firing one than someone weak enough to be blase about firing one.
