That's what nukes are for. But then Russians went full retard and decided to flush all the money they had on redundant good for nothing conventional military
Without a conventional armed force what exactly would Russia do if Georgia got some NATO support when they next attack South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
What would Russia do if Japan decided to take back its northern islands... all of them...
Russia needs a conventional military ability simply because the nuclear solution is suicide... meaning they can't really use it, or can use it only once.
A conventional military on the other hand is vastly more useful and the products they develop and use for their conventional military can be sold world wide to help the economy and technical ability of Russian producers...
They were turned into state version of prostitute who is willing to work for table scraps.
Under Yeltsin I would agree... and the eastern europeans were even worse... they did all sorts of things under that table...
The fact is that Russia is no longer under the table and has moved to its own table, where table manners means there are no scraps thrown on the floor for the dogs... the dogs have bowls and are fed separately like real dog owners do.
Naval component is dwarfed in numbers by US, UK and French SSNs and there is decent possibility that they might be taken out in well planned strike.
Numbers don't really matter... the powerful US Navy is ineffectual in the Black Sea and the Arctic Ocean, the French and British navies less impressive near Russian borders... where they will have to venture if they want to sink SSBNs before they launch.
And BTW well planned? Such a first strike would inevitably lead to a leak by officers who will not like where this is headed... just like Snowden and Manning didn't like the illegal activity of their own military and did something about it, there will be officers in NATO for which a pre-emptive strike on Russian SSBNs will not sit well...
Add to that poor condition of Russian aerial ASW component and you have a massive problem (how far behind are new ASW aircraft?)
The P-8 honestly isn't actually that wonderful, and near Russian naval bases they have sonar arrays that will warn of an enemy approach rather better than any MPA could... not to mention more than a few SSKs lurking around that could easily ruin the day for a NATO sub or ship...
Land component is vulnerable because they are in silos.
Those soviet silos are amongst the strongest structures around designed to withstand nearby impacts of nuclear weapons... and of course they have a broad range if air defence and self defence systems of their own... even just a TOR battery would be enough to keep them totally safe... they could defeat cruise missiles dozens of kms away from the silos themselves so even if they were multi megaton weapons getting shot down would dud them most of the time but even if the impact set them off they would be too far from the silos to have any effect on the weapons inside.
And they have rather better defences than just TOR batteries...
Situation with road mobile is little better but those aren't majority and are not perfect solution.
The Road Mobile ICBMs are completely safe, the Americans have no idea where they will be at any given time... all the restrictions on their basing locations and how often they are allowed to deploy were part of START II, and mean nothing in new START.
Aerial component is small and easiest to deal with.
I love your confidence, but what exactly could any NATO member do to Russian bombers in the middle of Russian territory protected by the Russian air defence network?
Any hint of a problem and they will be airborne... and the airfields in Canada and northern US where interceptors might be launched to meet them will be vapourised by SLBMs and ICBMs in the first 30 minutes of war... not to mention major radar sites and HQs etc etc...
By the time the Russian bombers get to their launch positions to launch their 5,000km range missiles all the air defence nodes within 1,000km of them will be glowing...
Russia could lose well over 50% of it's nukes in first strike.
Majority of what survives could be intercepted by enlarged iteration of existing American ABM system or some new variant of it.
The largely unproven US ABM system is hardly going to be effective against a full scale launch of Russian nukes... they would likely struggle with one launch from Iran let alone a full scale attack.
USA would lose several cities but they would wipe out entire Russian population more or less unopposed.
All US cities would likely be hit... many of them several times.
And we haven't even got to biggest problem that Russia faces in this scenario: cowardice of Russian leadership and and lack of will to defend their nation.
What are you talking about?
And to add cherry to stupid cake Soviets were so scared of doing what must be done that it resulted in over-investing in useless bloated conventional military instead of relying on existing nuclear triad and using surplus money to improve their pathetic economy.
I agree, but would suggest an economic conflict with the west will stunt the growth of any country... look a Cuba or North Korea or Iran... all three countries would be in much better situations if they bent over and took it like a homo, but they have a spine and dignity and so they are poor and isolated from the west.... they know they could sell their people out and live a different life, but for Cubans it would be a life bringing drinks to white foreigners in from the US to enjoy the beaches and the casinos... not owning land... just working for mobsters from the US that own everything because they made the previous owner and offer he couldn't refuse...
Only intelligent thing they done was to deploy Perimeter system to automate nuclear response but even that is completely pointless because they are too scared to keep it online other than for testing.
Who told you that?
So no, Russian nuclear triad is definitely not unassailable. With approach that Russians have it's questionable if it even has any purpose or utility at all.
Well the last NATO attack was against Syria, which Russia did not interfere with, and of about 103 missiles fired, 73 were intercepted and the ones they missed hit empty buildings and open ground and were essentially a useless show of fireworks... if that is the threat I think Russia will be in great shape.
You mean over Cuba? The US ended up withdrawing its missiles from Turkey, so it sounds like both sides won. And both sides realized that they're not so enthusiastic for nuclear war after all, paving the way for detente.
The whole reason for deploying nukes to Cuba was in response to US Jupiter missiles in Turkey, so in actual fact it sounds like the Soviets won and the US pretty much backed down and lost.
That's what nukes are for.
When you have nukes and the other side doesn't that would make sense as they would never try to repeat Barbarossa if they thought Russia would nuke them, but when the other side has nukes then using them becomes mutual suicide...
Do you even know what 'respect' means?
In this case it means fear.... you know... like thinking the leader of Russia is some master super criminal that can change election results, hack servers but leave no evidence, invade the Ukraine... but again with no evidence at all...
10 years after Putin started to make life better by removing corrupted parasites, not by nucking Washington. If he was there in 1991 instead of the other asshole they would have had a very good economy in 2000.
Yeah, so western sanctions would have started about 2002 instead of 2014...
Python is under the impression that Russia can just sit on it's ass and let it's nukes go stagnant and just take Uncle Sam's promise that everything will be fine while US works on ABM and builds SSNs en masse
No, FP has rightly said that Russia has developed a lot of new weapon types to deal with new threats like US ABM systems... both in Europe and at sea and so if the US was prepared to give up their ABM system and sign back up to the INF treaty etc then it would be worth it for Russia to give up the weapons it has developed to defeat them.
That is not to say they would just freeze their work on hypersonic manovering platforms and nuclear powered cruise missiles etc etc, but they would be prepared to control them like they do with ICBMs and SLBMs to calm things down... but the US wont agree to this... they want China included which on its own will prevent any progress because China is not interested in that, and besides if China gets included then we need to include Britain and France and Israel then too... which is not going to happen either.
Nukes are only thing that guarantee Russia's safety 100% and there should be no compromises about it ever
Relax, Trump doesn't sign agreements... he just rips them up.
No treaties, no bullshit
No point in treaties with this dickhead, but eventually he will leave office and we can see what replaces him... it might take a decade or a civil war, but eventually someone will get into power and see reason... and is not on the payroll of the US MIC... OK it might take a while, but no treaty is better than a rushed bad one... which would be all they could manage between now and feb 2021...