Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Share
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4495
    Points : 4674
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:02 am

    TR1 wrote:Actually US has less than 2000 Tomahawks in its Naval inventory.

    The AF had about 1500 long range cruise missiles, but the AGM-129 has been scrapped, so it is left with ~1000 AGM-86s.

    Really? So the total cruise missile stockpile is less than 3000 (correct me if I'm wrong)? That's surprising...I was under the impression the U.S. military cruise missile assets were somewhere between 8,000-10,000 (especially considering how much is spent for defense). It's interesting that different parties (in power in the U.S. Executive Branch) favor different tactics and strategies to fighting wars. Republican's favor fighting large scale land wars with boots on the ground (with sharp increases in M1 Abrams purchases) while Democrats prefer largely to rely on having bellicose asymmetrical fighting groups to act as meat shields and take up all the loses while Naval and Air assets attack from safe distances and extended ranges.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:22 am

    Thats because NATO fights are against third world countries.. in low level easy wars.. and they go cheap.. but in a world war 3 , they do have the capabilities to fight many thousands projectiles.... between Cruise missiles , Rocket artillery , and Air to Ground missiles.

    They go cheap?

    B-2s in the Kosovo conflict is cheap?

    Apart from cruise missiles no other ordinance available to the US has the range to be delivered outside the range of Russian SAM defences.

    To launch all these weapons would require the mobilisation of enormous forces... which would not go unnoticed either.

    in IRAQ war for example US alone launched 800 cruise missiles in just 2 days..

    They had over 6 months to prepare for that attack and it still took 2 days to fire just 800 missiles? That is about 7 per hour... even the most pathetic old S-300 system from the 1970s could shoot those down at that rate... and even OSA was shooting down those cruise missiles as witnessed by western reporters in Iraq.

    NATO could fill their enemy radars Airspace easily with several thousands targets without problem.

    Such an attack would warrant a tactical nuclear strike on airfields and ports used to mount the attacks from.

    I generally roll my eyes a bit when Garry suggests that Russia would go nuclear over some low-level attack on its territory by NATO... but 5000 cruise missiles (if that's even possible) might just warrant a nuclear response.

    Putin has stated that any attack from anyone on strategic assets of Russia... which would include political, military, and economic targets I presume... and Russia reserves the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons. You work it out.

    Just look at Klub. It is based on the Granat also known to NATO as SS-N-21. A 2,500km range nuclear armed cruise missile. Unlike the western model the Granat didn't have terminal homing and did not have a CEP of 25m so there was no conventional armed model... it was only nuclear and had a CEP of 250m.

    A CEP of 250m is worthless for a HE warhead on conventional targets, but easily good enough for a small nuclear warhead.

    Modern technology however has meant improvements in guidance technology so now the new missiles have much better accuracy... reportedly less than a 20m CEP... some say 10m. This has meant accuracy is no good enough that conventional warheads become an option and the choices when making attacks can now include all conventional weapons with a reasonable chance of success. In other words precision conventional weapons can now do jobs previously only a decent sized nuke could do.

    This means instead of having to launch a nuclear strike to take out the enemies nuclear capability you might have the option to use conventional weapons to do it.

    The fact is that the west has had the capacity to attack and try to take out Soviet/Russian nuclear capabilities with conventional weapons for some time, so of course the Russians not only have dropped their policy of no nukes first the have adopted a policy of strategic attacks will be met with nuclear retaliation... basically a use it before you lose it policy... which is basically common sense.

    The number of tactical nukes left in the Russian arsenal is rather low - and given their otherwise large yield, would limit their use vastly in most cases.

    Last figure I saw was about 8,000. The US would love to negotiate those away but with ABM systems in Europe and possible systems with Japan and China I rather doubt they will get rid of them any time soon.

    I'd be surprised is Russia had even 1000 cruise missiles with a range higher than 1500KM.

    Compared with ballistic missiles cruise missiles are very cheap and easy to build.

    Of course American ones are expensive...

    More specifically, Kh-15 was a nuclear tipped cruise missile. Upgrade was proposed in 1991 but never gone through though

    Technically it was a nuclear armed ballistic missile.

    If NATO fires missiles from subs or bombers - what are you going to nuke? A military airport next to a civilian center or the middle of an ocean?!

    Yes.

    Why not?

    Obviously shooting down the bombers and cruise missiles would be the first priority, and dropping a few anti sub torpedoes in the water near where the cruise missiles appeared would likely also be considered too.

    Deterrent doesn't work if your enemy doesn't think you will use them... if you don't use them when your enemy blatantly attacks you when would you use them?


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 771
    Points : 952
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Mindstorm on Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:41 am



    GarryB wrote:have much better accuracy... reportedly less than a 20m CEP... some say 10m

    Actually you have greatly underestimate Калибр Garry Smile 



    "Ракета отвечает всем предъявляемым требованиям Министерства обороны России по дальности, точности стрельбы, поражающему эффекту и неуязвимости при полете к цели. Такой ракеты в силу ее уникальных тактико-технических характеристик нет ни у кого в мире.
    Ракета будет нести моноблочную боевую часть. В случае если боевая часть будет в обычном снаряжении, то предельная дальность полета ракеты составит более 2,5 тысячи километров.
    Если же боеголовка будет ядерной килотонного класса, то дальность полета несколько уменьшится
    «Калибр» – это высокоточное оружие, его вероятное отклонение от цели при стрельбе на тысячи километров не превышает двух–трех метров."

    http://vpk-news.ru/news/2106

    The missile is superior ,by a very wide margin, to all foreign model in almost any cardinal factor ; in particular just in the mean deviation area and engagement range parameters.
    For comparison the most advanced universal US stand-off cruise missile , in its conventional land attack version (BGM-109 Block IV TLAM-E) exibit a range inferior of most than 1000 km and a mean deviation radius over three times greater  Wink 

    avatar
    Stealthflanker

    Posts : 798
    Points : 882
    Join date : 2009-08-04
    Age : 29
    Location : Indonesia

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Stealthflanker on Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:55 am

    Mindstorm wrote:


    The missile is superior ,by a very wide margin, to all foreign model in almost any cardinal factor ; in particular just in the mean deviation area and engagement range parameters.
    For comparison the most advanced universal US stand-off cruise missile , in its conventional land attack version (BGM-109 Block IV TLAM-E) exibit a range inferior of most than 1000 km and a mean deviation radius over three times greater  Wink   


    i'm curious why ?

    avatar
    dino00

    Posts : 116
    Points : 161
    Join date : 2012-10-12
    Location : portugal

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  dino00 on Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:59 am

    Mindstorm wrote:

    GarryB wrote:have much better accuracy... reportedly less than a 20m CEP... some say 10m

    Actually you have greatly underestimate  Калибр Garry Smile 



    "Ракета отвечает всем предъявляемым требованиям Министерства обороны России по дальности, точности стрельбы, поражающему эффекту и неуязвимости при полете к цели. Такой ракеты в силу ее уникальных тактико-технических характеристик нет ни у кого в мире.
    Ракета будет нести моноблочную боевую часть. В случае если боевая часть будет в обычном снаряжении, то предельная дальность полета ракеты составит более 2,5 тысячи километров.
    Если же боеголовка будет ядерной килотонного класса, то дальность полета несколько уменьшится
    «Калибр» – это высокоточное оружие, его вероятное отклонение от цели при стрельбе на тысячи километров не превышает двух–трех метров."

    http://vpk-news.ru/news/2106

    The missile is superior ,by a very wide margin, to all foreign model in almost any cardinal factor ; in particular just in the mean deviation area and engagement range parameters.
    For comparison the most advanced universal US stand-off cruise missile , in its conventional land attack version (BGM-109 Block IV TLAM-E) exibit a range inferior of most than 1000 km and a mean deviation radius over three times greater  Wink   


    The cep is 2,5 m?

    Austin

    Posts : 6234
    Points : 6640
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Austin on Wed Jun 11, 2014 12:17 pm

    The CEP mentioned in that article is 2-3 m , Its more of CEP of GLONASS system that Klub will use to update.

    I am sure if there is no GLONASS the CEP will be higher based on just RLG Navigation system i.e navigation without external aids.

    Hmm may be if they use Accurate Digital Maps then CEP will be much better even without external aids.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:40 pm

    Guys - the US Navy has something like 4,000 Tomahawks in total. Do you seriously think Russia is about to pump out 1,500 Kh-101 class weapons per year!? How many bombers have even been upgraded to fire them?

    What have bombers got to do with it?

    1,500 engines a year for Klub, Kalibr, Kh-101/102, AS-18 variants, Kh-35, etc etc... plus likely a few UAVs will use these very fuel efficient engines too.

    If NATO fires missiles from subs or bombers - what are you going to nuke? A military airport next to a civilian center or the middle of an ocean?!

    If NATO is using a military base to launch an attack on Russia why should Russia care about any western civilians that might get in the way of them stopping the attack?

    Actually you have greatly underestimate Калибр Garry

    Actually I knew it was very good but didn't bother looking it up so I went with a conservative guess.

    Kalibr has the same terminal guidance used on Kh-101 and Kh-102 so it is actually very accurate.

    i'm curious why ?

    Modern ring laser gyros allow rather more accurate inertial guidance, but mostly terminal guidance enabling very precise target location to impact.

    The CEP mentioned in that article is 2-3 m , Its more of CEP of GLONASS system that Klub will use to update.

    I am sure if there is no GLONASS the CEP will be higher based on just RLG Navigation system i.e navigation without external aids.

    Hmm may be if they use Accurate Digital Maps then CEP will be much better even without external aids.

    Accurate digital maps allow the missiles actual position to be more accurately determined but high terminal accuracy comes from terminal guidance.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    mutantsushi

    Posts : 282
    Points : 304
    Join date : 2013-12-11

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  mutantsushi on Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:41 am

    magnumcromagnon wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Actually US has less than 2000 Tomahawks in its Naval inventory.
    The AF had about 1500 long range cruise missiles, but the AGM-129 has been scrapped, so it is left with ~1000 AGM-86s.
    Really? So the total cruise missile stockpile is less than 3000 (correct me if I'm wrong)?
    US stock JASSM-ER alone is supposed to reach ~3000 on top of ~2000 of the shorter range JASSM.
    I am not sure on current stocks of JASSM-ER, but since they starting acquisition in '09, I would guess ~1000 or a bit more.

    http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/JASSM.html
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:02 am

    Yes but that is not a strategic range stock.

    Either way, who cares. US or NATO are not attacking Russia. And certainly not with thousands of cruise missiles. That is a good way to get your major military bases nuked.

    Btw nice link ty.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Viktor on Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:27 am

    mutantsushi wrote:US stock JASSM-ER alone is supposed to reach ~3000 on top of ~2000 of the shorter range JASSM.
    I am not sure on current stocks of JASSM-ER, but since they starting acquisition in '09, I would guess ~1000 or a bit more.

    http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/JASSM.html



    2013
    USAF completes initial operational test and evaluation of JASSM-ER missile


    2014
    US Air Force Takes Delivery of First Production Lot of the JASSM ER Cruise Missile

    Deliveries has just started so nothing mutch as of yet on the other hand Russia is producing 1500 cruise missiles per year of all class so not bad at all. On the other hand only 2 missiles

    per F-16/18/35, 3 missiles per F-15 and B-2(16), B-1(24), B-52(12) so as you see US would need huge number of planes meaning lots of good hunting for MiGs and Sukhois and than

    Russian IADS
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:54 am

    They were talking about engines for all sorts of missiles, there is no proof that means 1500 stand off weapons.

    I mean what types would they even be making in such quantities?
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5672
    Points : 6321
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 36
    Location : Croatia

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Viktor on Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:15 am

    I dont know, but we will see it it if its true pretty soon. No one can conceal 1500 cruise missiles per year Very Happy

    dionis

    Posts : 63
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  dionis on Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:14 am

    TR1 wrote:Yes but that is not a strategic range stock.

    Either way, who cares. US or NATO are not attacking Russia. And certainly not with thousands of cruise missiles. That is a good way to get your major military bases nuked.

    Btw nice link ty.

    Russia isn't nuking anything LOL - not unless NATO starts targeting civilians and civilian critical infrastructure.

    The fear of out of control nuclear war is enough.

    dionis

    Posts : 63
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  dionis on Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:19 am

    GarryB wrote:


    They had over 6 months to prepare for that attack and it still took 2 days to fire just 800 missiles? That is about 7 per hour... even the most pathetic old S-300 system from the 1970s could shoot those down at that rate... and even OSA was shooting down those cruise missiles as witnessed by western reporters in Iraq.


    That's 16-17 per hour, not 7.


    GarryB wrote:
    Putin has stated that any attack from anyone on strategic assets of Russia... which would include political, military, and economic targets I presume... and Russia reserves the right to retaliate with nuclear weapons. You work it out.


    Some talk really is just talk - even from Putin..

    GarryB wrote:

    Yes.

    Why not?

    Obviously shooting down the bombers and cruise missiles would be the first priority, and dropping a few anti sub torpedoes in the water near where the cruise missiles appeared would likely also be considered too.

    Deterrent doesn't work if your enemy doesn't think you will use them... if you don't use them when your enemy blatantly attacks you when would you use them?

    Why not? In any realistic scenario, NATO would be staging their "attack" from either the Mediterranean or Barents.

    In the case of the Mediterranean, the Russians will never even leave the Black Sea or get close enough to Turkey with anything that COULD fire rocket mounted anti-sub torpedoes.

    You use them only in a case of complete desperation - when your existence as a nation is hanging in the balance. That would make sense.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 3:42 am

    dionis wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Yes but that is not a strategic range stock.

    Either way, who cares. US or NATO are not attacking Russia. And certainly not with thousands of cruise missiles. That is a good way to get your major military bases nuked.

    Btw nice link ty.

    Russia isn't nuking anything LOL - not unless NATO starts targeting civilians and civilian critical infrastructure.

    The fear of out of control nuclear war is enough.

    And NATO isn't mass cruise missiling Russia now either, is it.
    Because that also....makes people worry about nuclear escalation.

    dionis

    Posts : 63
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  dionis on Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:53 am

    TR1 wrote:
    dionis wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Yes but that is not a strategic range stock.

    Either way, who cares. US or NATO are not attacking Russia. And certainly not with thousands of cruise missiles. That is a good way to get your major military bases nuked.

    Btw nice link ty.

    Russia isn't nuking anything LOL - not unless NATO starts targeting civilians and civilian critical infrastructure.

    The fear of out of control nuclear war is enough.

    And NATO isn't mass cruise missiling Russia now either, is it.
    Because that also....makes people worry about nuclear escalation.

    Maybe there won't be a mass cruise missile attack on Russian civilian population centers, but territory and resource control (especially at sea) will not require that.

    Attacking Russian military assets (troop concentrations, ships, naval and airbases) in such an event with a large number of cruise missiles is certainly reasonable.

    Nuclear retaliation for that would never be considered for fear of what you just said - further nuclear escalation.
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  sepheronx on Thu Jun 12, 2014 4:56 am

    dionis wrote:
    TR1 wrote:
    dionis wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Yes but that is not a strategic range stock.

    Either way, who cares. US or NATO are not attacking Russia. And certainly not with thousands of cruise missiles. That is a good way to get your major military bases nuked.

    Btw nice link ty.

    Russia isn't nuking anything LOL - not unless NATO starts targeting civilians and civilian critical infrastructure.

    The fear of out of control nuclear war is enough.

    And NATO isn't mass cruise missiling Russia now either, is it.
    Because that also....makes people worry about nuclear escalation.

    Maybe there won't be a mass cruise missile attack on Russian civilian population centers, but territory and resource control (especially at sea) will not require that.

    Attacking Russian military assets (troop concentrations, ships, naval and airbases) in such an event with a large number of cruise missiles is certainly reasonable.

    Nuclear retaliation for that would never be considered for fear of what you just said - further nuclear escalation.

    Then you are ignorant.  large cruise missile strikes is considered an act of war against Russia, no shit.  And Medvedev stated in 2008 (or so) that Nuclear tipped tactical missiles would be used in a conventional war.  If you want to question that or deny it, that is up to you.  But that is just you ignoring the point.  And no, it does not have to be just against civil population.  It is against Russian troops.

    dionis

    Posts : 63
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  dionis on Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:14 am

    sepheronx wrote:
    dionis wrote:
    TR1 wrote:
    dionis wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Yes but that is not a strategic range stock.

    Either way, who cares. US or NATO are not attacking Russia. And certainly not with thousands of cruise missiles. That is a good way to get your major military bases nuked.

    Btw nice link ty.

    Russia isn't nuking anything LOL - not unless NATO starts targeting civilians and civilian critical infrastructure.

    The fear of out of control nuclear war is enough.

    And NATO isn't mass cruise missiling Russia now either, is it.
    Because that also....makes people worry about nuclear escalation.

    Maybe there won't be a mass cruise missile attack on Russian civilian population centers, but territory and resource control (especially at sea) will not require that.

    Attacking Russian military assets (troop concentrations, ships, naval and airbases) in such an event with a large number of cruise missiles is certainly reasonable.

    Nuclear retaliation for that would never be considered for fear of what you just said - further nuclear escalation.

    Then you are ignorant.  large cruise missile strikes is considered an act of war against Russia, no shit.  And Medvedev stated in 2008 (or so) that Nuclear tipped tactical missiles would be used in a conventional war.  If you want to question that or deny it, that is up to you.  But that is just you ignoring the point.  And no, it does not have to be just against civil population.  It is against Russian troops.

    I've found a remarkably large correlation between *real* ignorance and the person accusing someone of it.

    Tough talk of using nuclear weapons is one thing - actually using them is another. Walk me through a single scenario where things don't go out of control at some point or run such a high risk of doing so that no player would do it, and I'll be surprised.

    Russia wouldn't be desperately modernizing its armed forces with some of the most powerful conventional weapons ever made  if it could "go nuclear" in a whim.  Rolling Eyes
    avatar
    sepheronx

    Posts : 7255
    Points : 7555
    Join date : 2009-08-06
    Age : 28
    Location : Canada

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  sepheronx on Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:22 am

    It is meant for large conflicts, hence why Tactical nukes exist, for the battlefield.  ICBM's are end game.  Two systems are completely different.  If you think otherwise, then ask them why both sides developed two different systems.

    Tactical nukes are nowhere near the same magnitude as an ICBM in terms of destruction.  But enough to take out a battalion if needed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_nuclear_weapon

    Such events is the reason why NATO did not bother to try and attack Russia, even in its weakest case.  If NATO was more than prepared to fight a full on war with Russia, they would have tried at Pristina airport, but most generals though the American general was an idiot for even suggesting to attack them, as they know it would mean war and one that may mean the end of it all.  But tactical nukes are not out of the question for Russia.  Hence this is what help kept Russia safe for so long.

    Purpose of Russia modernizing itself is so that there may not be a need for first strike of tactical nukes if need be. Prior to this, their military was in a dissaray. Now that they are funding heavy development, the concept of first strike with tactical nukes, could become out of the question. But for current sake, it is still in. Not until they are modernized, so after around 2025.

    Russia was quick to use tactical missiles quite early on in a fight against Georgia (Iskander), so you can imagine if it was against NATO. And you state from a naval vessel. Well, a Tactical nuke is even a better option than anything, as it would guarantee to sink the ship and the ship was asking for it for striking at Russian troops. So tactical nukes or not, it would end up sinking and NATO/US cannot complain about it or the methods used to sink it.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 5:48 am

    dionis wrote:
    TR1 wrote:
    dionis wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Yes but that is not a strategic range stock.

    Either way, who cares. US or NATO are not attacking Russia. And certainly not with thousands of cruise missiles. That is a good way to get your major military bases nuked.

    Btw nice link ty.

    Russia isn't nuking anything LOL - not unless NATO starts targeting civilians and civilian critical infrastructure.

    The fear of out of control nuclear war is enough.

    And NATO isn't mass cruise missiling Russia now either, is it.
    Because that also....makes people worry about nuclear escalation.

    Maybe there won't be a mass cruise missile attack on Russian civilian population centers, but territory and resource control (especially at sea) will not require that.

    Attacking Russian military assets (troop concentrations, ships, naval and airbases) in such an event with a large number of cruise missiles is certainly reasonable.

    Nuclear retaliation for that would never be considered for fear of what you just said - further nuclear escalation.

    You understand that the sort of mass cruise missile attack you are talking about would result in the nuclear forces being put on alert, which would make everyone back up real quick?

    This scenario is as laughably unlikely as Russia nuking America.

    I think you underestimate Russia's willingess to use nuclear warheads vs say a carrier battle group, if a cruise missile attack is on a scale to threaten the regime.

    dionis

    Posts : 63
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  dionis on Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:30 am

    TR1 wrote:
    dionis wrote:
    TR1 wrote:
    dionis wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Yes but that is not a strategic range stock.

    Either way, who cares. US or NATO are not attacking Russia. And certainly not with thousands of cruise missiles. That is a good way to get your major military bases nuked.

    Btw nice link ty.

    Russia isn't nuking anything LOL - not unless NATO starts targeting civilians and civilian critical infrastructure.

    The fear of out of control nuclear war is enough.

    And NATO isn't mass cruise missiling Russia now either, is it.
    Because that also....makes people worry about nuclear escalation.

    Maybe there won't be a mass cruise missile attack on Russian civilian population centers, but territory and resource control (especially at sea) will not require that.

    Attacking Russian military assets (troop concentrations, ships, naval and airbases) in such an event with a large number of cruise missiles is certainly reasonable.

    Nuclear retaliation for that would never be considered for fear of what you just said - further nuclear escalation.

    You understand that the sort of mass cruise missile attack you are talking about would result in the nuclear forces being put on alert, which would make everyone back up real quick?

    This scenario is as laughably unlikely as Russia nuking America.

    I think you underestimate Russia's willingess to use nuclear warheads vs say a carrier battle group, if a cruise missile attack is on a scale to threaten the regime.

    In some particular scenarios, a tactical nuke vs a large enemy naval force may well be plausible, except most of the tactical nukes on relevant platforms have been retired.

    Counter-attack possibility with a tactical nuke against military assets on Russian soil does open up then, but with some smaller degree of likelihood.

    dionis

    Posts : 63
    Points : 64
    Join date : 2012-12-13

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  dionis on Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:32 am

    [quote="dionis"]
    TR1 wrote:
    dionis wrote:
    TR1 wrote:
    dionis wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Yes but that is not a strategic range stock.

    Either way, who cares. US or NATO are not attacking Russia. And certainly not with thousands of cruise missiles. That is a good way to get your major military bases nuked.

    Btw nice link ty.

    Russia isn't nuking anything LOL - not unless NATO starts targeting civilians and civilian critical infrastructure.

    The fear of out of control nuclear war is enough.

    And NATO isn't mass cruise missiling Russia now either, is it.
    Because that also....makes people worry about nuclear escalation.

    Maybe there won't be a mass cruise missile attack on Russian civilian population centers, but territory and resource control (especially at sea) will not require that.

    Attacking Russian military assets (troop concentrations, ships, naval and airbases) in such an event with a large number of cruise missiles is certainly reasonable.

    Nuclear retaliation for that would never be considered for fear of what you just said - further nuclear escalation.

    You understand that the sort of mass cruise missile attack you are talking about would result in the nuclear forces being put on alert, which would make everyone back up real quick?

    This scenario is as laughably unlikely as Russia nuking America.

    I think you underestimate Russia's willingess to use nuclear warheads vs say a carrier battle group, if a cruise missile attack is on a scale to threaten the regime.

    Back up real quick - after the OpFor achieved what they needed to the expense of Russian losses (both economic and life)?

    In some particular scenarios, a tactical nuke vs a large enemy naval force may well be plausible, except most of the tactical nukes on relevant platforms have been retired.

    Counter-attack possibility with a tactical nuke against military assets on Russian soil does open up then, but with some smaller degree of likelihood.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5699
    Points : 5735
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  TR1 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:44 am

    dionis wrote:
    TR1 wrote:
    dionis wrote:
    TR1 wrote:
    dionis wrote:
    TR1 wrote:Yes but that is not a strategic range stock.

    Either way, who cares. US or NATO are not attacking Russia. And certainly not with thousands of cruise missiles. That is a good way to get your major military bases nuked.

    Btw nice link ty.

    Russia isn't nuking anything LOL - not unless NATO starts targeting civilians and civilian critical infrastructure.

    The fear of out of control nuclear war is enough.

    And NATO isn't mass cruise missiling Russia now either, is it.
    Because that also....makes people worry about nuclear escalation.

    Maybe there won't be a mass cruise missile attack on Russian civilian population centers, but territory and resource control (especially at sea) will not require that.

    Attacking Russian military assets (troop concentrations, ships, naval and airbases) in such an event with a large number of cruise missiles is certainly reasonable.

    Nuclear retaliation for that would never be considered for fear of what you just said - further nuclear escalation.

    You understand that the sort of mass cruise missile attack you are talking about would result in the nuclear forces being put on alert, which would make everyone back up real quick?

    This scenario is as laughably unlikely as Russia nuking America.

    I think you underestimate Russia's willingess to use nuclear warheads vs say a carrier battle group, if a cruise missile attack is on a scale to threaten the regime.

    In some particular scenarios, a tactical nuke vs a large enemy naval force may well be plausible, except most of the tactical nukes on relevant platforms have been retired.

    Counter-attack possibility with a tactical nuke against military assets on Russian soil does open up then, but with some smaller degree of likelihood.

    How so? The anti-ship, large SAM, air to surface missile etc nuclear warheads are still around, and would be relevant in a "non-city busting" response.
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Werewolf on Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:05 am

    Would be nice if you could post clean replies without all that old dead posts hanging to your response which are not relevant to your reply.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16302
    Points : 16933
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jun 12, 2014 8:26 am

    Russia isn't nuking anything LOL - not unless NATO starts targeting civilians and civilian critical infrastructure.

    The fear of out of control nuclear war is enough.

    If NATO started attacking Russian civilian targets Russia would happily retaliate with conventional weapons.

    It is the NATO military attacks on Russian military targets that threatens Russian deterrence, which demands nuclear retaliation... of course any attack on Civilians in Russia would be met seriously and might include nuclear threats and then use of nukes.

    That's 16-17 per hour, not 7.

    I missed the 1... 17 per hour is not that fantastic especially when Russia has the potential to engage launch areas and a functioning air force.

    Some talk really is just talk - even from Putin..

    You are entitled to your opinion.

    Why not? In any realistic scenario, NATO would be staging their "attack" from either the Mediterranean or Barents.

    Ships launching from such places would simply warrant a direct attack on the countries whose ships participate. Especially any troop concentrations near Russian Borders and air fields.

    In the case of the Mediterranean, the Russians will never even leave the Black Sea or get close enough to Turkey with anything that COULD fire rocket mounted anti-sub torpedoes.

    If Turkey is even part of this attack then attacks on Turkey would be justified... and targeting their navy would open the Med to the Russian fleet to allow attacks on attacking NATO vessels.

    You use them only in a case of complete desperation - when your existence as a nation is hanging in the balance. That would make sense.

    Tactical nukes? They would be used to make the other side see sense that you are prepared to wipe them off the map and indeed be wiped off in return. They indicate to the enemy in no uncertain terms you have had enough and the next step up the ladder is a strategic nuclear strike.

    A mass cruise missile attack on Russia would be exactly the sort of thing that would initiate a tactical nuclear response... likely aimed at Brussels.

    Or are you suggesting with its conventional military advantage NATO would be allowed to do as it pleases with impunity?


    Attacking Russian military assets (troop concentrations, ships, naval and airbases) in such an event with a large number of cruise missiles is certainly reasonable.

    Nuclear retaliation for that would never be considered for fear of what you just said - further nuclear escalation.

    Says who?

    Are you saying the Russians wont fight back in fear it might escalate to nukes?

    The West has rather more to lose in a nuclear war than Russia does and if Russia retaliates with tactical nukes then the West will have to stop any conventional attacks because conventional attacks require troop and weapon concentrations... things that create excellent targets for tactical nukes.

    Why wouldnt the Russians detonate nukes in the Med? Why would Russia care about radiation there? Obvious lesson would be obvious... don't attack Russia.

    Russia wouldn't be desperately modernizing its armed forces with some of the most powerful conventional weapons ever made if it could "go nuclear" in a whim.

    Right now it is no where near finished so until it is ready the nukes will be used when considered appropriate.

    The tactical nukes aren't a tit for tat weapon... they are a step back and think about do we really want to go down this path weapon... and Russia has no conventional alternative at the moment.



    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Sponsored content

    Re: NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:26 pm