if only Turkish military is hit, there won't be many civilian casualties.
So all they need to do is develop clean nuclear weapons that only kill people in uniform.
America has a similar technology... well actually it is called denial... we deny that innocent civilians were killed in that wedding party be bombed... they were killed by our bombs in a war zone so by definition they were the bad guys and we have nothing to be ashamed about.
if they close the straits in peacetime, it'll be an act of war by a nation allied with nuclear armed states-thus, using nukes against it won't violate, & will be in accordance with, the RF military doctrine.
If they close the straits in peacetime without a valid reason then Russia might push them on it... but I suspect it would be more along the lines of sanctions rather than nukes... Russia and Turkey have a bit of trade at the moment and that is only likely to increase over time... especially with the US and EU giving them the cold shoulder for defending their interests in Syria and not towing the party line of Russia is bad and Assad is bad and Iran is bad.
Turkey is being practical and is working towards a real solution... the EU and US are being
as long as Turkey keeps them open in peacetime, she can control them.
So what? The rules are not secret and Turkey seems to be enforcing the rules fairly.
Did you notice the Black Sea did not suddenly fill up with US ships... the US wanted it to, but Turkey didn't allow it because the rules don't allow it.
It wasn't that Turkey was being pro Russia or anti US... it was following the rules set down by international agreement... now if that means they control it then that is fine... as long as they follow the rules why would Russia care?
Turkey does; but those NATO ships visits r aimed at Russia,...
Of course they are... the US does not give a shit about those NATO countries that are on the boundary of the BS.... they wanted to turn the Ukraine and seize Sevastopol for themselves as a nice big NATO base... but they screwed up badly.
Currently the rules are quite restrictive as to what US ships can enter the Black Sea and how long they can remain there... if Russia uses force to break that international agreement then there wont be any rules and the US will sail carriers into the black sea just to piss Russia off.
The current situation suits Russia better than any alternative... Putin isn't one of those dumb fucking American presidents who thinks if they can destabilise and attack that things might change for the better for them.
Such gambling is very destructive and in the last decade or so has resulted in the growth in Iranian power in the middle east and a lot of suffering and violence... but they live in america and own shares in construction companies and arms companies who make enormous profits in times of war so keep the wars coming... America loves a war economy... WWII got them addicted...
exactly; even if tactical nukes r used, there's no threat to US & EU to invoke the article 5 & nuke Russia to protect Islamist Turkish "shit hole", as some call it, aspiring to be an empire again, which been fighting Europe & Russia for most of its history.
Are you blind?
If Russia attacked Turkey with tactical nuclear weapons all of NATO would become best friends against the evil Russia... look at current news... all whistle blowers are bad.... except one with the dirt on Trump... invasions are OK except ones not sanctioned by the US... so Saudi Arabia can invade and demolish Yemen but it was a world crisis when Saddam invaded Kuwaite.
And let me explain why if there is any real need to. Iraqi aggression against a fucked up monarchy with zero democracy risked Saddam acquiring too much oil and risked saudi arabia as a potential next step for him to pay his bills after squandering Iraqs wealth in a pointless war against Iran for a decade.
We were told we had to save the Kuwaitis... do it for democracy in the region... the only democracy in the region is Iran of course... men got the vote in Kuwaite in about 2005 or 2006, while the women still have no say... but the world had to get together to save democracy and fight bad guy Saddam who risked gaining a monopoly of a large percentage of oil in the region... it would make him too strong and risk uniting arab countries together which would have given them too much power regarding oil prices. Remember it was Saddam who ignored the other OPEC countries and sold oil to the US and saved their butts but that was quickly forgotten. I remember carless days here in New Zealand... most families only had one car and you got a sticker that allowed you to drive the car on specific days of the week to reduce fuel consumption...
But then if the world must react to invasions in such a dramatic way then why no Desert Storm II for Yemen?
The west has SA under control so they can do what they like... no doubt they not only got permission... it was probably the CIA that created the war in the first place.
In such a climate do you really think the US and EU would sit on the sidelines if the Russians attacked Turkey?
true, but her trade will be mostly overland, so SLOC protection in the Indian Ocean is also near S. China & her allies Thailand & Pakistan.
China has spent a small fortune on its multiple silk roads from Asia to Europe, but they also have interests in Africa and central and south america. they can access one side of south america directly across the pacific, but the NSR allows them to access the other side of the continent too... as well as shaving two weeks off the sailing time to Europe so they will be going that way anyway.
A couple or more years ago the US deployed extra AF planes to Japan to cover the absence of a CVN in W. Pac; even though the US CSGs r to impose will on others, this event shows that they r not indispensable.
Well if you don't have a pen then you can scratch notes in the dirt... but pen and paper are the preferred solution and certainly the most flexible and portable option.
As u stated many times, the VMF CBGs will be for defending Russia's trade with friendly regimes- but if it can be done with less, why spend more on deploying the Adm. K across N. Atlantic & the NSR?
Well lets use a real example of Venezuela... the US almost invaded... if Putin had warning that they were actually going to invade.... ie preparing a carrier group to go there... without a carrier group of his own he might send some aircraft, but announcing an exercise with the Venezuelan navy that will involve naval exercises off the Venezuelan coast for a few weeks would be their best solution to prevent that US invasion... exercises can be extended indefinitely...
in what way more capable and flexible? it doesn't even need a tanker following it like the Adm. K does!
A cruiser operating in the open ocean detects blips on its radar 300km away... what are they? Are they hostile? Are they military or civilian? A cruiser on its own has no way of knowing. As it approaches islands what is hiding behind those islands? Those radar blips that are ships... who are they and what are they doing?
If they are 300km away that is several hours of fligh time for a helicopter... several hours when you tie up your helicopter... you couldn't send a corvette to investigate as it would be pretty vulnerable on its own outside the cover of the cruiser.
With a carrier you can send an aircraft at 900km/h which will get to the target in about 20 minutes... it can take a closer look and pass back relevant information about the target... often they can also deal with some targets... like low flying Harpoon missiles.
Even without sending your fighters you have much more persistant longer range radar coverage that means you have a much better idea of what is around your ship on the water and in the air... a carrier adds detail to your situational awareness and reach to your eyes and ears and also claws if need be.
If you do find yourself in a combat situation it means you can fight from further away, you see the enemy earlier and are able to deal with them from further away which is safer for your ships.
they'll send their icebreaker just in case.
That would be sensible.
weather & ice damage. as mentioned before, the flight deck will be covered with ice from the sea spray & snow.
Land based airfields deal with ice and snow for 8 months of the year... an aircraft carrier should be able to deal with it too... worst case scenario... pump sea water through the engine cooling system to heat it up and use hot salt water to clear ice off the deck...
The deck of a carrier is like a road... it needs to deal with volumes of water sprayed on it anyway... so build in some features that can be used to solve the problem...
they have more common interests there than in the ME.
And they have areas where they don't have common interests too... why take the risk?
Using nukes against the turks for closing the straights would be insanity on Russia's part because everyone will turn against them at that stage.
Are you that ignorant to think you can use Nuclear weapons so freely and get away with it.
The crap I see people say here is hilarious.
Honestly I was thinking almost exactly the same thing but when you mention the taboo of nuclear weapon use it reminded me of comments from the US military and lots of US politicians regarding mini nukes for bunker busting and I thought that the US would justify it if it was in their interests to do so... and currently I would expect a few nuke warheads might be attached to Standards and PAC-3 Patriots to defeat hypersonic manouvering weapons soon too as a first stage plan.
But I do agree the Russians wont use them unless they are desperate or stupid and they are not either of those.
Can't say the same for the US leadership...
A lot of countries r already against Russia, & she won't be the 1st & 2nd to use nukes- both times it was the US, besides using depleted uranium shells that cause cancers for years afterwards.
They also used bioweapons in Korea & Agent Orange, a chemical weapon, in SE Asia- all 3 r the WMD.
Not to mention plans for Star Wars and later bunker busters...