deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
Running out of old stockpiles to send. Western militaries have plenty to spare, but it’d be the ammo they actually use.
You have a cite for that. That goes against every news article and statement from the White House and pentagon.
What your suggesting is false and no source will convince you otherwise. Your acting in bad faith.
He’s a mod for a dying conservative community, he does this ALL the time.
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
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.
I did and I’ll cite it again.
So please cite your source that says we have plenty of ammo.
It’s been a common line pretty much since the war in Ukraine began:
Think of it like this:
Russia invades Ukraine and rather than bulldozing them in a week, they have been fought to a stand still for 2 years.
If Russia had to fight Ukraine + the combined power of NATO how fast would it end?
Your cite says nothing about his claim. His claim is we have plenty of ammunition to send. We don’t.
It’s a matter of what ammunition, not ammunition in general. Ukraine uses a quarter of a million artillery shells a month. The US doesn’t have facilities to build them that fast because we would never need to use that many. We would absolutely own the sky over both the battlefield and Russia itself, reducing the utility of artillery and increasing it’s effectiveness. The benefits of combined arms and force multiplication can’t be overstated.
We could very quickly build out capacity to produce the shells Ukraine needs, but it’s a problem of economics. Those facilities are expensive, and wouldn’t be required long enough to provide suppliers a return on investment. We would have to pay a massive premium on those shells and, this far, there hasn’t been the will to do that.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Guns don’t win wars, they’re important, but we’re talking about artillery, missiles, drones, etc. Nobody is beating Russia with rifles.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
https://www.businessinsider.com/pentagon-increasing-production-of-155mm-artillery-shells-2023-1
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.
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
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.
That is my concern as well. That we will run low, start at o lose and then go nuclear
No one would win a war between NATO and Russia. No one.
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.
Doesn’t matter the tactics used, its corrupt politians measuring their dicks by using regular people as pawns on a chessboard.
I would win. In times of war, I become a gentleman thief and underworld figure who is useful to both sides.
Is this a Third Man reference?
No, I’m just a person deeply against war but if y’all gonna have one, 🎼 I’ll drink whiskey and Bacardi. I’ll sell dope to anybody 🎶
Well you should check out The Third Man. Orson Welles is fantastic in it
NATO has half a million troops. The largest navy and air force in the world. I like their chances
Both sides have enough nukes to kill the entire human race several times over.
More like hundreds or maybe thousands of times over
NATO has more troops than that. The united state alone has 2 million.
The largest air force in the world is the US Air Force. The second largest air force in the world is the US Navy.
I hear this all the time and it’s very subjective - I would argue the second largest is the US Army Aviation Branch - if you count helicopters have a lot more aircraft than the US Navy.
Also the Russian Air Force has more aircraft than the US Navy per most sources. I suspect the internet meme got the Navy and Army Aviation swapped around.
Helicopters are kind of hard to categorize since they are tactically somewhere between aircraft and ground forces. Most helicopters are in support rolls while most airplanes are in combat rolls. Helicopters in combat rolls also get used like they are really fast ground forces.
But yeah, I get what your saying about the subjectivity, and it’s true that my knowledge here is mostly from memes.
First, war is always a tragedy. Always. It is to be avoided until the reasonably plausible alternative is worse for human suffering. People who ignore this are asses (not saying you are one of them).
Second, as long as it stays conventional and China stays on the sidelines, then yes of course NATO destroys the Russian military, or at least keeps it hemmed into existing Russian territory. That’s been true for 30 years.
Third, those are VERY big ‘ifs’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4
Of course applies to both sides.
if we are being honest, current russia couldnt stop china or US from taking over the far east if there were no nuclear weapons
The shareholders would absolutely win.
Yes, for a brief moment
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.”
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.
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.
That would be the end of Russia and they know it.
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
That’s exactly the point. Why would Russia send nukes if it knows it’ll be destroyed in retribution?
Because assholes gonna asshole
“Russia” as a whole wouldn’t want that. But there’s only one guy in charge of everything.
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.
Why not just launch them now then?
Why would he?
The poster said he would sacrifice a few cities to take down a western power. He could do that now.
Yep depends on how much fear and hatred Putin has for the west and how much he actually cares about his own people.
which is why he’s actively pushing for trump to win so there is no more nato
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.
Good job repeating russian propaganda.
Edit: Not that I care about internet points.
But the thought that opposing russia would lead to nuclear war is exactly what Putin wants people in the west to think to keep bullying and suppressing everyone around him.He is bluffing though and he knows it.
He said delivering supplies to Ukraine was the red line.
He didn’t react when we did.He said delivering arms to Ukraine was the red line.
He didn’t react when we did.He said delivering tanks to Ukraine was the red line.
He didn’t react when we did.He said delivering planes to Ukraine was the red line.
He didn’t react when we did.Because he can’t. He knows he would lose everything.
Both parties have nukes
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.
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
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.
NATO against russia would be nothing like WW2. It would be a one sided beating.
Like NATO in Afghanistan.
NATO sucks at occupation. (As does everyone) Clashing armies are another matter. A war with Russia would be quick and decisive. The following occupation of Russia would be a quagmire.
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
Everyones Favorit powerpoint artist Perun did an video calling Russias nuclear bluff .
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.
I’m not convinced Russia’s nukes haven’t been sold off for vodka.
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.
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.
The Losing Party tends to be The people though not the ones in charge
There’s a pretty long list of people in charge that aren’t here to disagree with you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Their population is already war weary.
The weapons manufacturer win!
Also, the west gets to get rid of the old weapons that would otherwise have to be destroyed, while also burning through Russia’s materiel.
Don’t forget the nuclear waste and banned cluster bombs
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.
Firstly, Pretty sure Russia’s nuclear weapons work just as well against China as they do against the West. Barring a complete collapse of Russia, China isn’t going to be taking vast swaths of Siberia, even if they wanted. They can take some already disputed territory (in fact the already have) because of Russia’s current weakness. But that’s about it.
Secondly, it’s no exaggeration that a conventional war between NATO and Russia would be over quickly. Ukraine with just a small percentage of NATO’s air power could defeat Russia. With Russia in the weakened state it’s in right now, it’s likely just Poland alone could defeat Russia. The Full force of NATO? They’d be done in less than a week. But that’s only if Russia doesn’t use nukes. In which case see the previous, but then ask why would China want to invade a nuclear wasteland? Probably just be hunkering down and dealing with the fallout.
Thirdly China doesn’t currently have the capability to take and hold Taiwan. Likely fail even to invade. If they tried that now it would go about as well as Russia’s attempt to invade Ukraine. Who knows, maybe Xi is as dumb as Putin, but I don’t think so.
Maybe in 10 years China might have the capability to make a move on Taiwan, but it’s likely the whole Putin situation will be resolved long before then.
I don’t know for certain what China would do but I very much doubt China wouldn’t try to benefit from a war between NATO and Russia. I also think you’re also severely underestimating how big Russia is. NATO could maybe take Moscow in a week, that’s only about 600 km from the Baltic states (which would be the closest point for NATO). But Russia has a lot of land to fall back to. From Moscow onward (just going east, but to keep in mind NATO would also need to go south) you’d have to take Novgorod, Samara, Yekaterinburg and Novosibirsk (and then Russia still has more land to fall back to but let’s just say Novosibirsk would be the final stand). Now we’re no longer talking about ~600km, now we’re talking about 4000km. We’re talking about the equivalent of taking the whole of United States. In a week? Yeah, that’s not happening.
It would be a long and tiresome war and would give plenty of time for China to come up with ways to benefit from it.
I think you’re underestimating how effective air power is. As bravely as the Ukrainian Air Force has been using what they have against Russia, it’s a very tiny fraction of what NATO has. And yeah Russia has a lot of land, but none of it is outside of the range of NATO air power. This isn’t the Napoleonic wars, Russia can fall back from ground offensives all they want but they’d be hit from the air while they’re making strategic retreats.They didn’t really have the accuracy needed to target individual tanks for the air (despite claims to the contrary) in WWII. NATO can do that now. They didn’t have mid air refueling in WWII, but that’s something NATO does have. So the range is effectively unlimited, they’d have tanks being destroyed during their their retreat and would have no way to replace them.
We’re talking about the equivalent of taking the whole of United States. In a week? Yeah, that’s not happening.
Yeah that indeed isn’t happening because there’s an insane number of air superiority fighters that would prevent anyone from getting close. An attempt for anyone to try to gain air superiority over the US would be over in minutes. NATO gaining air superiority over Russia would take longer than that because Russia would have ground based air defenses to deal with, but it wouldn’t take that long.
It would be a long and tiresome war and would give plenty of time for China to come up with ways to benefit from it.
As with all wars in modern times, the long and tiresome part would be the occupation, not the invasion. Well all wars except the failed Russian invasion of Ukraine. But in the the event of a hypothetical war between NATO and Russia, Ukraine would be behind NATO while the Russia (the country that failed to accomplish the easy part of an invasion) would be in front of NATO.
And yeah China would find ways to benefit, as all nations look for ways to benefit from any situation. If it came down to it (though hard to see it happening because nukes exist) most likely outcome would be the Russian Federation being broken up. There are many groups that aren’t happy about being ruled over by Moscow and granting them independence means less area to occupy. China would do shenanigans to get puppets installed in the newly formed countries close to them. In fact if there were a conventional war between NATO and Russia, it’s likely China would side with NATO so they could invade from the east while NATO invades from the west. Then they’d be in a good position to set up puppet governments post war. Because there is zero question who would win.
But since nuclear weapons do exist, none of this will happen.
I’d better get back to studying Mandarin.
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.
like I said Russia can barely handle shitting their own pants. they can’t handle someone else shitting their pants too
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.
News flash! One nation can’t win vs the strongest military country of the world + an entire continent of it’s allies!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Russian President Vladimir Putin doesn’t really want a conflict with NATO because in that scenario Russia would quickly lose, the head of the UK’s armed forces said on Tuesday.
Speaking at an event in London, Admiral Sir Tony Radakin said that “the inescapable fact is that any Russian assault or incursion against NATO would prompt an overwhelming response.”
Radakin, speaking at a defense conference in London’s Chatham House, said the UK is "not on the cusp of war with Russia.
He said that the thousands of allied troops stationed in Poland and the Baltic states could draw on the “three-and-a-half million uniformed personnel across the alliance for reinforcement.”
Referring to Sweden and Finland joining, he said NATO is growing from 30 to 32 nations, "with a collective GDP twenty times greater than Russia.
He added: “Russia’s Army has lost nearly 3,000 tanks, nearly 1500 artillery pieces, and over 5,000 armored fighting vehicles.”
The original article contains 555 words, the summary contains 152 words. Saved 73%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
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.
We’d all die
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.
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.
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?
This isn’t a new idea, it’s been around sinde Reagan, and the consensus is that it’s just non-viable.
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.
Let’s say we do, wouldn’t it be smarter as the government to keep the rumor up that we would indeed be screwed but on the day they decided to go nuclear we just laugh and show them our power?
At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, that’s why I’ve been curious.
I’m pretty confident we wouldn’t show our hand on that defense strategy, but there’s no way there’s not a plan for it. It’s obviously better for everyone to avoid a need for that strategy in case it doesn’t work perfectly.
It’s opposite MAD theorem. If neither side knows that there are countermeasures then neither side will launch a first strike, as they then run the risk of being knocked out in essence.
Ever play defcon? First to launch rarely wins there
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.
Issue is that multiple countries have systems where it’s, “They launched nukes? We’ll launch all our nukes”
The mitigation is basically, “We will wipe you off the map if we think even ONE nuke is coming at us,” and this has nearly happened several times, only stopped because the system has a human at the final step, and humans when realizing they could end the world seem to hesitate
When you have a madman threatening nuclear confrontation, when does the probability of a first strike that might prevent significant retaliation have fewer megadeaths than being the victim of a first strike? This is the problem with sustained nuclear sabre rattling. What if its taken seriously?
Whomever wipes Putin off the planet gets a blowjob.
