bigFab , (edited )

News flash! One nation can't win vs the strongest military country of the world + an entire continent of it's allies!

RememberTheApollo_ ,

Vova will start chucking nukes around and blame the west if he gets in a losing position.

feedum_sneedson ,

Rhetoric is spinning up, and there's apparently more people on here that like the idea of a literal third world war than are against it. Manufacturing consent really is the name of the game.

Tinidril ,

Russia vs NATO might actually be a three day operation, at least in terms of the clash of armies.

Of course Russia's nuclear arsenal is quite an effective deterrent.

recapitated ,

Not only is this someone talking but it's talking about postulating about someone else's inner thoughts. Not an event, not a change. Not fucking news.

Clbull ,

Nobody wants a war between NATO and Russia because in that scenario, everybody loses.

Russia wouldn't win a ground conflict, but they'd sure-as-hell nuke the fuck out of every major city.

Rapidcreek OP ,

That would be the end of Russia and they know it.

itslilith , avatar

It would also be the end of NATO and probably the rest of the world. That's why it's called mutually assured destruction. But it seems like recently policy makers are forgetting that

efstajas ,

That's exactly the point. Why would Russia send nukes if it knows it'll be destroyed in retribution?

EffortlessEffluvium ,

Because assholes gonna asshole

JustZ ,

They know they can get a few off if they sacrafice a few Russian cities. Which Putin does not care about. He'll watch them be vaporized if he thinks he can land a death blow on any major western powers.

EatATaco ,

Why not just launch them now then?

nova_ad_vitum ,

"Russia" as a whole wouldn't want that. But there's only one guy in charge of everything.

MonsterMonster ,

The Lithuanian foreign minister sums up the response thus far very well here.

"We declare red lines for ourselves, but not for Russia. We publicly tie our own hands while leaving Putin free to pillage, rape and destroy. We create strategic transparency, not strategic ambiguity. It's time to change course."

khannie , avatar

I know the Baltics have more skin in the game but I have to say politically they are playing an absolute blinder at the moment. Just hard spoken, no nonsense, absolute facts coming out of each of them along with such great support.

Hats off to them.

jabjoe , avatar

Pretty sure NATO is going to be tested. After Ukraine. He'll build up his forces on a board and see what happens. If there isn't a NATO build up response, I worry he'll push over that boarder. Then what? We going to nuke him? No, we won't. Partly because Putin has got friends in high places in the West. If we didn't ready a traditional response, we could be salami sliced while we debate when to nuclearly respond.

nutsack , (edited )

nobody wins or loses. it's decades of civilian deaths and economic devastation, until someone decides to quit. people think everything is ww2 it's just not like that.

toastus ,

Good job repeating russian propaganda.

DriftinGrifter ,

Both parties have nukes

ricdeh , avatar

You see, this is the entirely wrong and often cited cliché that people think of when talking about war between Russia and NATO, but in reality, no such war between superpowers would be fought with nuclear weapons because there is no incentive for it, conventional warfare is much more desirable, even for the losing party. That's why I think that we shouldn't be afraid of openly opposing and fighting the People's Republic in the Taiwan Strait in the defense of the actual China. And even if these autocracies would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons then we've still got systems for intercepting ballistic missiles in-flight in the upper atmosphere. A war between superpowers would not nearly be as disastrous as the Russians and Chinese want you to think.

DriftinGrifter ,

The Losing Party tends to be The people though not the ones in charge

Tinidril ,

There's a pretty long list of people in charge that aren't here to disagree with you.

IvanOverdrive ,

And even if these autocracies would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons then we’ve still got systems for intercepting ballistic missiles in-flight in the upper atmosphere.

Hol' up. We've got systems. None that actually work. Hitting an ICBM is like hitting a needle in a haystack with a needle in a haystack. I'm sure we've made progress since the 80s Star Wars programs. But even if a fraction of the nukes detonate where they are supposed to, that's the end of civilization.

Tinidril ,

We have systems for intercepting ballistic missiles, but they aren't nearly effective enough.

I tend to agree that a nuclear exchange is unlikely but, the consequences of being wrong are pretty severe.

toastus ,

Like I don't know that, like anyone doesn't know that.

Still noone, not the winning side, and especially not the losing side has any real incentive to launch them first.
It's basic game theory, you never choose the option that has you lose absolutely everything, even if the alternative has you lose something big (like a war, or even your life).

Even crazed dictators like Putin know this.
And not even Putin can launch a nuke on his own. Even he needs generals and engineers that all know that not only they themselves will die if they obey, also their families will die, everyone they know will die if they obey.

We will never see full scale nuclear war, because noone at all could ever want that.

But Putin benefits from rubes just letting him bully everyone around him because, boo hoo he is so crazy and scary and after so many crossed red lines the next one surely is the one that makes him suicide himself, his wife, his daughter, his country, his place in history and anyone or anything he ever valued or cared about.

DriftinGrifter ,

Right and neither side has an incentive to push the other side to launch them so before a deciding victory a stailmate will occur and after a year or two the fighting will beginning again with no real problems solved and thousands of innocent young men paying for it

toastus ,

That's just wrong for the simple reason that NATO is vastly superior in any form of conventional warfare.

NATO against russia would be nothing like WW2.
It would be a one sided beating.

And russia would lose and lose fast.

But russia would still have no incentive to be the first to launch nukes, because that would change the situation from bad to total annihilation.

DriftinGrifter ,

All I've heard till now is your opinion that Russia wouldn't launch nukes, your statements have as much weight as a fart in the wind an Russia has threatened to use nukes so idk man

derGottesknecht ,

Everyones Favorit powerpoint artist Perun did an video calling Russias nuclear bluff .

DriftinGrifter ,

Yea I'm not convinced a lot of this is based on a history in which Russia has had very little personal loss and assumes Russia's use of military doctrine is static and will continue to stay static also if Russia is aware that nuclear threats have low probability of effectiveness it would speak more towards it being an actual threat and not a bluff

Hubi ,

Russia won't dare to use nukes as long as the fighting happens within Ukrainian borders. Putin and the oligarchs aren't willing to lose their kleptocracy over a piece of land they only tried to get because they felt it was a safe move. An actual NATO intervention would be a way out of the conflict for them without losing face.

Semi-Hemi-Demigod , avatar

I'm not convinced Russia's nukes haven't been sold off for vodka.

nutsack ,

russia has a massive population and a wartime economy. in some ways it's bigger than all the european nato countries combined. the idea that they would just fall over is absolutely western propaganda.

putin can suck my balls but he's not an idiot.

mriormro , avatar

Their population is already war weary.

Passerby6497 ,

Russia can't even take on a former client state, their military is a joke compared to any single NATO member. They're not a near peer for the US, maybe a near peer for some of the lesser NATO members. Russia would lose any conventional war against NATO without question. They barely have the personnel to fight Ukraine, they're not going to be able to go after NATO. Hell, how much of their black sea fleet is left above water? And that's against a country that doesn't even have a goddamn Navy.

The only way they would bring out nukes is if we invaded Russia proper. Which I don't think anyone is stupid enough to do.

KevonLooney ,

NATO vs Russia would be like the Iraq War on steroids. All of their planes would be grounded and their troops in Ukraine would surrender in huge numbers. Drones would not help Russia because NATO troops would move too quickly.

Look at what happened in the first Gulf War. Saddam's elite Republican Guard troops were destroyed by air and artillery fire, then mopped up in the largest tank battles since WW2.

Saddam had 1 million troops dug in defensively, fighting in territory they knew well, using many of the same weapons the Russians have now. His casualties were like 20% - 30%. Russia would be worse.

Pussydogger ,

The weapons manufacturer win!

GoodEye8 ,

China would win. China is supplying Russia but China is not an ally of Russia. China would stop Russia the moment it's no longer beneficial, which would be when NATO and Russia start fighting. China doesn't care who wins, they win either way. If Russia loses China can take eastern Russia. If NATO loses, China can take Taiwan. If both wipe each other out China becomes the sole superpower.

kandoh ,

We'd all die

jettrscga ,

I've legitimately been curious about this. The nuclear arms race has been a threat for so long, do western countries really not have a mitigation strategy for them?

I assume we could shoot down any intercontinental weapons, and any airplane that entered allied airspace would immediately be shot down before it could drop a nuke.

Anti_Face_Weapon ,

Intercontinental nukes basically can't be shot down. This is because both sides can launch hundreds of rockets, each carrying multiple very small warheads. It's basically impossible to intercept.

ricdeh , avatar

But can you not also just scale up the defense systems in parallel with the ballistic missiles carrying warheads? If we can expend billions for the construction of thousands of intercontinental missiles, can we then not also build tens of thousands of interceptors, maybe a handful for each potential incoming nuke?

Aqarius ,

This isn't a new idea, it's been around sinde Reagan, and the consensus is that it's just non-viable.

AnAngryAlpaca ,

You could probably shoot down 80% or maybe even 90%. But if the enemy launches a few hundred missiles at the same time then some might make it.

kandoh ,

A 99% success rate for shooting down ICBMs would still be a catastrophic failure that would set us back hundreds of years.

We're seeing it now in the middle eat and Ukraine. US Air Defense equipment is the best in the world but not impenetrable.

Not even considering that a nuclear submarine can just surface off the coast and destroy the nearest city.

anticolonialist ,

From the same people that claimed the Ukraine issue would be resolved in a few weeks, and Russia days from defeat dozens of times since it started. Putin has cancer and wont survive much longer, Russia was using WWII shovels to fight. NATO and the US doesnt want to win war, they want to prolong it. The MIC doesnt want to win war, they want to prolong it.

uranibaba ,

Why would they want to prolong it?

oce , avatar

Because of some Lemmy leftie conspiracy theory.

Aux ,

Because this war brings in shit ton of money for way too many people around the world. The only ones suffering are Ukrainians. Heck, even North Korea got their economy booming! 2022 and early 2023 were tough, but oh boy the war profits started rolling in!

0xD ,

To drain Russia and prevent internal instability through a sudden end.

anticolonialist ,

It's making them richer than they already are.

Nopulseoflife ,

No one would win a war between NATO and Russia. No one.

Rapidcreek OP ,

NATO has half a million troops. The largest navy and air force in the world. I like their chances

xePBMg9 ,

Russia is coming up on its half a million cassualties milestone. Would be the perfect time for the NATO half million to step in.

wintermute_oregon ,

NATO has more troops than that. The united state alone has 2 million.

Tinidril ,

The largest air force in the world is the US Air Force. The second largest air force in the world is the US Navy.

EmilyIsTrans , avatar

Both sides have enough nukes to kill the entire human race several times over.

ShittyBeatlesFCPres ,

I would win. In times of war, I become a gentleman thief and underworld figure who is useful to both sides.

GiuseppeAndTheYeti ,

Disagree. I seriously doubt that anyone would turn the key. I don't think Russia could inflict enough losses to hurt NATO logistical operations and I think NATO would prioritize careful advancements to minimize casualties and give the Russian military a frog in the pot treatment. When they realize that its all over, it will be too late and I think we would see a russian revolution before then.

DrRatso ,

Doesn’t matter the tactics used, its corrupt politians measuring their dicks by using regular people as pawns on a chessboard.

barsoap ,

Of course applies to both sides.

nexusband , (edited ) avatar

I'm not entirely sure on that, because whatever intel he's getting fed on there war, has to be the best horseshit ever. I don't think that even Putin can ignore ~15.000 lost vehicles.

Meaning, he could very well believe he'd win.

FreudianCafe ,

Nowdays being a clown is really well paid

solidgrue , avatar

[Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

  • Loading...
  • circuitfarmer , avatar

    Exactly. Watching this all play out is strikingly similar to watching Trump get away with a mountain of stuff that would have put a poorer person in jail, and yet, no consequences.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Problem is the united states is running out of ammo to send. Thinking one small war could blow through our reserves so quickly is concerning.

    solidgrue , avatar

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

  • Loading...
  • wintermute_oregon ,

    It was shot. That is where it went. Where else do you think ammo would go? We hold a stockpile back for our defense but we sent the majority to ukraine. We have one factory that makes ammo and that's it.

    solidgrue , avatar

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

  • Loading...
  • wintermute_oregon ,

    Personal stockpiles? Do you think the average American has 155mm round sitting in their home? Rifle rounds are not the issue.

    Ukraine needs heavy weapon rounds. We have one factory that makes 155mm rounds. I can't remember which one stinger or javelin, they had to restart the line that had been shutdown.

    People complain about our military spending but that is what it cost to keep the capability to have a large war.

    Currently, our production is around 14K 155mm rounds a month. Ukraine was shooting that every few days. Biden is working hard to increase the capacity, but we are talking about a specialized production.

    I think the takeaway from this is that we have not seen a war like this in a very long time. The amount of ammo each side is shooting is insane.

    A quick google will find you many sources on this topic as it has become a huge issue. If we had another war, Taiwan for example, we would run out of ammo in days.

    solidgrue , avatar

    [Thread, post or comment was deleted by the author]

  • Loading...
  • wintermute_oregon ,

    It was fascinating when the topic came up. I just always assumed we had idle capacity ready to go. That is why we spend so much to have that capacity.

    It turns out that we just spend a lot but don't have extra capacity.

    Here is just one of the many articles on it.

    Currently, the US produces just over 14,000 rounds of 155mm ammunition every month. As The Washington Post reported last month, Ukrainian forces have previously fired that many rounds in the span of 48 hours.

    Gradually_Adjusting , avatar

    This is what scares me - the idea that we could run out of conventional weapons during a hot war, and start having to think of all those nukes lying around "doing nothing"

    Some powers really are too much for humans. We're not ready

    FarceOfWill ,

    Western military uses bombs and missiles from planes not artillery. There isn't much artillery ammo because our military isn't set up to use it.

    Ukraine doesn't have the air superiority to risk doing the same thing so the way they fight doesn't match the way Europe or the us does.

    Gradually_Adjusting , avatar

    Yeah... Good, I guess... This is a terrible subject, isn't it?

    wintermute_oregon ,

    That is my concern as well. That we will run low, start at o lose and then go nuclear

    Kalkaline , avatar

    Guns don't win wars, they're important, but we're talking about artillery, missiles, drones, etc. Nobody is beating Russia with rifles.

    TassieTosser ,

    Running out of old stockpiles to send. Western militaries have plenty to spare, but it'd be the ammo they actually use.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    You have a cite for that. That goes against every news article and statement from the White House and pentagon.

    ForgotAboutDre ,

    What your suggesting is false and no source will convince you otherwise. Your acting in bad faith.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    Don’t blame me for your failure to cite. Attacking me just shows how weak your claim is.

    I cited my claim. Now cite yours

    ForgotAboutDre ,

    You did not cite a source. You made a baseless claim that these sources exist.

    I'm solely blaming you for your deluded and misinformed takes.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    I did and I’ll cite it again.

    So please cite your source that says we have plenty of ammo.

    ForgotAboutDre ,

    This article doesn't support your assertion. You clearly have a issue with comprehension.

    wintermute_oregon ,

    It clearly does.

    NewPerspective ,

    He's a mod for a dying conservative community, he does this ALL the time.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • meta
  • story
  • wanderlust
  • goranko
  • forum
  • Woman
  • karpar
  • All magazines