[Bullajami]

If you're going nuclear, I would be more concerned about the ICBM threat from the Strategic Rocket Forces. The Russians have not had 12 subs at sea at the same time in 15 years. Depending on our alert status, we would fare well vs the bombers, too. The ICBMs would def wear us out.

But if its a nuclear battle on their soil, then we win. Its the conventional matchup that makes it more intriguing.

[pavyracer]

All I need to remind is Pearl Harbor. Imagine what will happen if Russia attempts a nuclear "Pearl Harbor" in US Soil. They will go after Washington and Norfolk and Colorado Springs simultaneously with 50 nuclear missiles per side and cut the head of the US command. Without any central command our forces in the Pacific and the Gulf will be easy prey from land based attacks from Russian soil. If they attack first we are toasted. You don't need more than 10 submarines to destroy the US command in the USA.

[Gorzy]

[reno cool]

I finally got around to reading this thread. Some interesting stuff in here to contemplate. I would like to add one more:

Why is it that when we discuss a war wih Russia or China, we always assume it will be over there? What is preventing them from launching the first wave of attacks over here? Maybe coming in through Mexico or Canada?

I'll answer my own question: because they can't. China can't even get across the Straits of Formosa to retake Taiwan (yet). Russias sealift/airlift capability is even worse.

If there were to be a war, we would have to pack up our armies and take them over there to fight it. We have that capability, they do not. Our invasion of them might not succeed. Their invasion of us isn't even worth contemplating.

Your question is a very good one. But the implications of it may not be what you think. The US has by far the most aggressive, war mongering, meddling, foreign policy in the world. And you as well as the rest of us intuitively know it.

[Bullajami]

Your question is a very good one. But the implications of it may not be what you think. The US has by far the most aggressive, war mongering, meddling, foreign policy in the world. And you as well as the rest of us intuitively know it.

I don't disagree, but I would postulate that its because we can. If others could, they would. When others could (i.e. England, France, Spain, Russia, Germany, etc.), they did. The USA did not invent the policy of assertiveness, we are simply the current incarnation of it.

[Bullajami]

They will go after Washington and Norfolk and Colorado Springs simultaneously with 50 nuclear missiles per side and cut the head of the US command.

I'm not sure you can launch 50 nukes at us and not launch the other 6000 or so in the inventory. Nuking our capital and then leaving us with the weapons to retaliate seems a risky strategy.

Without any central command our forces in the Pacific and the Gulf will be easy prey from land based attacks from Russian soil.

Our forces in the gulf are commanded from Tampa, Florida and Doha, Qatar. Our forces in the Pacific are commanded from Honolulu, Hawaii.

Assuming those facilities were added to the target list in your command and control decapitation strategy scenario, I don't think it leaves our deployed forces much more vulnerable to attack from Russian conventional forces. Our forces would still be armed and higly alert. We would still have assets to monitor Russian force movements to provide indications and warning. I don't think our forces become sitting ducks without headquarters.

I had to take a course on military doctrine once - not something I would recommend, btw, very boring - but I recall that we were shown a translated copy of a Soviet strategy document from the early 1980s. It had a great quote in it that went like this: "The major dificulty in preparing for war with the Americans is that they do not have a complete doctrine, and in the areas where they do have doctrine their commanders are not compelled to follow it."

Essentially meaning that tactical commanders in the US military were observed by the Soviets to be imaginitive, intuitive and creative - not "by the book" as the Soviets were trained to be. Such forces typically perform better in the absence of orders from higher HQ, making them less vulnerable to decapitation-style attacks.

A surprise nuclear attack could certainly put the hurt on us, but I don't think the specific scenario you outlined above is an effective option for Russia.

[pavyracer]

I'm not sure you can launch 50 nukes at us and not launch the other 6000 or so in the inventory. Nuking our capital and then leaving us with the weapons to retaliate seems a risky strategy.

Our forces in the gulf are commanded from Tampa, Florida and Doha, Qatar. Our forces in the Pacific are commanded from Honolulu, Hawaii.

Assuming those facilities were added to the target list in your command and control decapitation strategy scenario, I don't think it leaves our deployed forces much more vulnerable to attack from Russian conventional forces. Our forces would still be armed and higly alert. We would still have assets to monitor Russian force movements to provide indications and warning. I don't think our forces become sitting ducks without headquarters.

I had to take a course on military doctrine once - not something I would recommend, btw, very boring - but I recall that we were shown a translated copy of a Soviet strategy document from the early 1980s. It had a great quote in it that went like this: "The major dificulty in preparing for war with the Americans is that they do not have a complete doctrine, and in the areas where they do have doctrine their commanders are not compelled to follow it."

Essentially meaning that tactical commanders in the US military were observed by the Soviets to be imaginitive, intuitive and creative - not "by the book" as the Soviets were trained to be. Such forces typically perform better in the absence of orders from higher HQ, making them less vulnerable to decapitation-style attacks.

A surprise nuclear attack could certainly put the hurt on us, but I don't think the specific scenario you outlined above is an effective option for Russia.

Do you actually believe that our overseas forces can win the war against Russia once the country loses the President, Vice-President and Congress in the Washington sneak nuclear attack? Do you think that when the naval command is destroyed in Norfolk we can effectively rage war against Russia that we can win?

When terrorists attacked us with civilian planes we couldn't scramble fighter jets to intercept them soon enough, hell no we couldn't find them on radar. When New Orleans was cut off from hurricane Katrina we couldn't transport the National Guard for 3 days and we think without a central command we can defend the country from a superior foe like mighty Russia?

Think again.

[fiveteamer]

this thread = genius convention

[Bullajami]

Do you actually believe that our overseas forces can win the war against Russia once the country loses the President, Vice-President and Congress in the Washington sneak nuclear attack? Do you think that when the naval command is destroyed in Norfolk we can effectively rage war against Russia that we can win?

I am in the Navy and I live in Norfolk (well, in Virginia Beach, but its close). There is no Navy operational command infrastructure here. Certainly none that would run a naval war with Russia. There's quite a lot of non-deployed assets, training infrastructure and bureaucracy, but not much in the way of operational commands.

Your initial assertion was:

Without any central command our forces in the Pacific and the Gulf will be easy prey from land based attacks from Russian soil.

I do not consider this the same as

Do you think that when the naval command is destroyed in Norfolk we can effectively rage war against Russia that we can win?

My point above is that deployed US forces would not be "easy prey". Not the same as winning a war.

However, I think it possible that we could win in the limited scenario you describe. Even assuming that the Russians would attack actual operational command and control HQs for the forces you specify. If they did it immediately becomes a NATO issue and there are entirely separate command and control elements for that.

The escalation would likely be too rapid to determine a winner, though. We'd probably all be losers when the dust settled.

When terrorists attacked us with civilian planes we couldn't scramble fighter jets to intercept them soon enough, hell no we couldn't find them on radar. When New Orleans was cut off from hurricane Katrina we couldn't transport the National Guard for 3 days

None of these scenarios involved loss of command and control, so I am not sure how they contribute to your argument.

...and we think without a central command we can defend the country from a superior foe like mighty Russia?

This is also different from "easy prey" and "winning a war". Defending this country from a Russian invasion force is child's play. Given our geographic advantages and their inadequate lift capability even the French could defend this territory from a Russian invasion.

[topgame85]

Haha Russia is weak pavy get it right I wish they would step foot on US soil

[pavyracer]

Haha Russia is weak pavy get it right I wish they would step foot on US soil

I wouldn't bother to answer this. Is this the best arguement you can have?

[pavyracer]

Bullajami,

Thanks for the nice information. You do know that I am russian spy according to most of the forumites here so giving me the US naval capabilities in the hypothetical war games we discuss is not for the best national interest of our country.

[topgame85]

There is no argument here there are few countries where the majority of its citizens would take up arms and fight in the streets to the death, the majority of Americans would, Americans all over the US would be taking out Russians at an astonishing rate we don't play games, sure there are some rich pansies but most inner city Americans as well as the entire midwest would never allow a Russian invasion to be succesful

[Bullajami]

[pavyracer]

There is no argument here there are few countries where the majority of its citizens would take up arms and fight in the streets to the death, the majority of Americans would, Americans all over the US would be taking out Russians at an astonishing rate we don't play games, sure there are some rich pansies but most inner city Americans as well as the entire midwest would never allow a Russian invasion to be succesful

You must be referring to the Battle of Stalingrad. Google this because you are too young to know and I doubt they teach it in US high schools.

[reno cool]

You must be referring to the Battle of Stalingrad. Google this because you are too young to know and I doubt they teach it in US high schools.

I'm pretty sure they don't. In fact what I do remember is having to argue with teachers constantly because the view they were presenting to students like the joker here is that the USSR was hardly involved.---if you can believe this. And it was the US with small help from "allies" namely GB and France that defeated Hitler.

By the way. No one wants to set foot on US soil and they never have. The danger is the US screwing around near the Russian boarder. At some point Russia may have no choice but to respond. And the US might feel bound to respond back.

[pavyracer]

Mark my words. Putin means business. If we install the missile interceptors in Poland and Czech republic he wouldn't wait a second to nuke them. We just can't install missiles a few miles from the Russian border guys. This is too dangerous. It will backfire on us worse than the Chruchef missile crisis or the Bay of Pigs invation fiasco. You just don't mess with the Big Bear nowadays. They will make an alliance with China, India and Iran and our army will be superextended. Putin is still pissed off from the sinking of the Kursk by our sub.

US missile shield makes Poland a target: Russian general Fri Aug 15, 9:11 AM ET



MOSCOW (AFP) - Poland is making itself a target for Russia's military "100 percent" by hosting elements of a US anti-missile system, a senior Russian general was quoted as saying by Interfax news agency Friday.

ADVERTISEMENT

"By hosting these, Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 percent" certain, the agency quoted General Anatoly Nogovitsyn as saying.

"It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority," Nogovitsy was quoted as saying.

Warsaw and Washington signed a preliminary deal Thursday on basing part of a US missile shield in Poland, in the face of Moscow's vehement opposition and mounting East-West tensions over Russia's military presence in Georgia.

A foreign ministry official was quoted by Interfax as saying the timing of the deal amid the crisis in Georgia indicated that the system was aimed at Russia.

Washington has always denied this.

[pavyracer]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080818...lictusmissiles

Missiles to defend Russia from US agression are deployed. Putin means business. Bring on the Stealth bombers if you dare Georgie.

[Bullajami]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080818...lictusmissiles

Missiles to defend Russia from US agression are deployed. Putin means business. Bring on the Stealth bombers if you dare Georgie.

The SS-21's are meant to influence Tbilisi more so than Washington, but that does not make them any less of an interesting development. And they do influence Washington to some degree, by demonstrating Russian resolve. On the battlefield the SS-21's (if conventional) are nearly inconsequential. A couple of thousand pounds of HE hurled against a maneuvering force has minimal impact.

Suffice it to say that in my day job I get more detailed news of the respective military positions of the interested parties in this situation than is generally available to the public. Given the current disposition of forces, Russia will leave Georgia when it is good and ready (not before), and Georgia will never militarily retake South Ossetia or Abkhazia in our lifetimes.

The mental exercise of whether or not the US could dislodge them from Georgia and Ossetia if we wanted to still intrigues me. Russia has a substantial force in place, and much more in reserve. The terrain is mountainous. Presuming the absurd - that the whole affair could be kept non-nuclear and contained to the caucuses - I think it becomes a game of whether or not the US can attrite the Russians faster than they can resupply themselves while attriting our attacking force. I think it might be close. US-Russian killed ratio would favor US, but that does not ensure victory.

In the end it remains simply a mental exercise. The Russians are significantly more interested in being influential in that region than the US, and would extract far more blood than the US would be willing to expend.

I think we should all just hug and drink vodka.

[purecarnagge]

I think the US wants Russia out of the G8...And this could lead to it.

[pavyracer]

The SS-21 is the bait for Georgie. If he attacks them with stealth bombers he will be hit from Russia with SS-400 anti-aircraft missiles and whatever is left of the strealth squadron will be shot down by SU-37 fighter jets at speeds of 3.5 Mach.

[Bullajami]

The SS-21 is the bait for Georgie. If he attacks them with stealth bombers he will be hit from Russia with SS-400 anti-aircraft missiles and whatever is left of the strealth squadron will be shot down by SU-37 fighter jets at speeds of 3.5 Mach.

Flying into range of Russia's air defense systems to attack the SS-21s using manned aircraft would be unnecessarily foolish given the technologic advantages of US weaponry. It is more likely that the US would use unmanned stand-off wapons such as TLAM, or possibly CALCM launched from B-52s well outside of the engagement envelope of Russian surface-to-air missiles. TLAM is much more likely given their availability and comparatively lighter planning considerations. There are other long range options in the US arsenal, but they become exponentially more problematic if you're in a hurry.

The SS-21s are a warning to Tiblisi, which is within their range from South Ossetia. From all the squawking, I believe the Georgians got the message.

[purecarnagge]

So what is NATO going to do other than cheerlead...

[pavyracer]

NATO can't do anything. They started this mess when they screwed up the Balkan wars and pissed off Russia. Now Russia, which is wealthy, natural resources rich and self sufficient in oil amd military technology is challenging the West to get out of its backyard or else they will have to deal with the wrath of russian blood thirsty generals that want to fight the US military.

[Bullajami]

They started this mess when they screwed up the Balkan wars and pissed off Russia.

Do you think that was it? I was thinking it was the persistent march of NATO toward their borders. First the Baltic states, then Poland and Czech Republic. Georgia and Ukraine became too.

It might have been the Balkans. Probably a combination of the two.

[pavyracer]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20...latchy/3029488

By Shashank Bengali, McClatchy Newspapers
Wed Aug 27, 2:42 PM ET



BATUMI, Georgia — The United States scuttled its plan to sail humanitarian aid into Georgia's main seaport Wednesday as Russia denounced the deployment and sent a naval task force into the waters off nearby Abkhazia .

ADVERTISEMENT

A U.S. Coast Guard cutter steered its humanitarian cargo instead to Batumi, 50 miles to the south, avoiding a potential confrontation with Moscow in the increasingly tense Black Sea.

In what would have been a strong show of support to an embattled ally, the U.S. military had intended to send the cutter Dallas to Poti, Georgia's main commercial port, escorted by the USS McFaul, a destroyer. Poti is under Georgian control, but Russian forces operate two checkpoints just outside the town, which sits on the Black Sea 15 miles south of the breakaway Georgian province of Abkhazia .

Instead, it was Russia that moved to assert its authority by deploying a naval task force armed with anti-ship and antiaircraft missiles in the waters off Abkhazia , which it occupies, the Russian Itar-Tass news agency reported Wednesday. The agency called it a "peace and stability" mission.

Hours before the Russian announcement, U.S. officials decided to reroute the Dallas to Batumi, where the McFaul anchored Sunday with a small cargo of aid.

Even before crews began to offload the Dallas' modest cargo— 38 tons of bottled water, baby food, soap and other supplies— conflicting accounts emerged of who decided to redirect the vessel Tuesday night and why.

A U.S. official in Georgia said that the decision was made "at the highest levels of the Pentagon" but wouldn't elaborate. The official requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the subject.

In Washington , however, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said that a U.S. military assessment team in Georgia had made the decision. The team, he said, determined that the infrastructure and transportation capabilities in Batumi were familiar and in better condition than those in Poti.

"Batumi was used because it was the military assessment that it was the best port for the expeditious delivery of the relief supplies," Whitman said.

It was unclear whether U.S. officials knew in advance of Russia's naval deployment. Amid the contradictory accounts, it was impossible to determine whether U.S. officials had blinked in the face of Russia's aggressive posture or opted on their own for a more restrained course.

As late as Tuesday night, a U.S. disaster assistance team in Georgia was preparing to dispatch trucks to Poti to receive the cargo, while the U.S. Embassy was planning to send journalists by helicopter from the capital, Tbilisi , to witness the ship's arrival.

Military officials aboard the Dallas said the Russian presence wasn't a deterrent.

"The question of safety didn't come up. We had all the cards on the table," said Navy Capt. John Moore , the commodore of the task force that includes the Dallas .

Georgian officials, however, acknowledged the sensitivity of sending the ship to Poti. Although the bulk of Russian forces withdrew from Georgia last week after two weeks of conflict, Russia has asserted a broad right to maintain troops far outside the conflict zone, in what may be a violation of a French-brokered cease-fire agreement.

Not including Abkhazia , which Russian and Abkhaz forces control, there are 11 Russian checkpoints in northwestern Georgia , including two on the outskirts of Poti, Western diplomats say. Three more are within 25 miles of Poti, near a main highway leading to Tbilisi .

Western diplomats say that seven of those checkpoints, including those in and around Poti, violate the cease-fire agreement. Russia has defended the checkpoints.

"Of course it is safer in Batumi," said Levan Varshalomidze, the governor of Georgia's Ajara region, which includes Batumi. "There are no Russians here."

Moscow has condemned the deployment of the Dallas and the McFaul— which brought 55 tons of relief supplies— as part of what it describes as a growing presence of NATO warships in the Black Sea. In an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. this week, Medvedev accused the U.S. military of sneaking weapons into Georgia aboard the ships, a charge that an American military spokesman called "ridiculous."

Dmitry Peskov , spokesman for Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin , said Wednesday that delivering humanitarian aid using warships "is something that can hardly be explained."

"Let's hope that we won't see any direct confrontation," Peskov said.

The Dallas has been deployed with the U.S. Navy's 6th Fleet for two and a half months since it left Charleston, S.C. , in late May, said Lt. Robert Wyman , a Coast Guard spokesman in Portsmouth, Va . Coast Guard vessels, he said, routinely are assigned to assist the Navy far from U.S. waters.

The U.S. Embassy's disaster assistance team said that the aid would travel by road to Tbilisi this week and would be dispatched later to the areas around the town of Gori and the separatist province of South Ossetia , where the worst damage of the two-week conflict occurred.

That marked a shift from earlier statements by U.S. officials that the aid coming by ship would remain in western Georgia . Members of the U.S. relief team said that the humanitarian needs in western Georgia weren't as severe as initially estimated.

( Jonathan S. Landay and Dave Montgomery contributed to this article from Washington .)

Russia defies West, recognizes breakaway Georgia regions

U.S. warships due to arrive in disputed Georgian port

Georgia war was in South Ossetia , but Abkhazia's the prize

[reno cool]

Pavy, this is week old stuff, anything new?

[pavyracer]

What do you want me post reno cool? The actual time and date the Russians sink the U.S. Coast Guard cutter? It ain't happening. Too many spies are lurking in this thread.

[reno cool]

no. yours is a good post. But this is where I get my news. I expect you to keep me posted on latest developments.

[Bullajami]

Dallas is now in Sevastopol, Ukraine. A port that the Russians lease as their Black Sea homeport. If the Russians intend to sink her, now would be a good time.

The preponderance of naval power currently in the Black Sea clearly favors the Russians. If war breaks out, those 6 NATO ships are going down.

Poti is a better port facility, you can see on Google Earth that it has about 4 times the capacity of Batumi. Last week it was not known whether or not the port was clear, or whether the Russians - still occupying Poti - would oppose the offloading operations. The Russians pulled out of Poti a few days ago.

USS Mount Whitney, sixth fleet's flagship, entered the Black Sea yesterday. She may go to Poti. She may already be there, not sure.

[pavyracer]

All US warships entering the Black Sea are sitting ducks.

[pavyracer]

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/h...d=244&sz=80038

Tension on the rise in Black Sea, Turkey stuck in the middle

The tension in the Black Sea has increased steadily, placing Turkey in a very difficult position. The first challenge Turkey faced was the passage of U.S. warships through its straits carrying humanitarian aid to Georgia, a move slammed by Russia.


Ankara refused to open its straits to two hospital ships of the U.S. Navy but agreed to the passage of smaller cruisers, in line with the 1936 Montreux Convention.

The two hospital ships tonnage exceeded the limits set by the Montreux Convention, which governs international traffic through the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits. Under the convention, the total weight of the warships that countries not bordering the Black Sea can deploy was limited to 45,000 tons.

The U.S. Coast Guard cutter Dallas delivered supplies to the Georgian port of Batumi yesterday, three days after the guided-missile destroyer USS McFaul docked in the port.



By choosing Batumi, the U.S. opted for a less confrontational move than docking at Poti, another Georgian port where Russian troops are dug in. The U.S. may have also suspected that the Russians had mined the harbor at Poti.

Meanwhile warships belonging to NATO members Spain, Poland and Germany passed through the straits to head to Romania's Constanta.

NATO warships attended the Black Sea for long-planned exercises and routine visits to ports in Romania and Bulgaria.

Russia responded harshly to the increased military presence of NATO in the Black Sea. General Anatoli Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian General Staff, accused NATO of “ratcheting up tension” in the Black Sea. Dmitri Peskov, a spokesman for Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, said: “It’s not a common practice to deliver humanitarian aid using battleships.”

Nogovitsyn also warned U.S. ships could only stay in the Black Sea for 21 days according to the Montreux Convention, and warned if they do not leave by then Turkey would be responsible.

The U.S. ships are carrying nuclear missiles that can hit Russian targets as far away as St. Petersburg, Russia also said. Moscow has dispatched its own ships to track the U.S. vessels.

Russia sent its flagship of the Black Sea deployed at the Crimea peninsula to Sukhumi.

Tension in the region remains high, leaving Turkey stuck in the middle, being the sole NATO member that borders the Caucasus on one hand, while Russia is one of its major trading partners, especially in energy, on the other.

[Bullajami]

All US warships entering the Black Sea are sitting ducks.

It would be somewhat like foreign warships coming into the Chesapeake Bay.

That stuff on the Montreux Treaty was interesting. I was not aware of the tonnage and time limits for warships transiting the Turkish Straits. Seems a bit lame that hospital ships were turned away, though. Doesn't seem to fit the common sense test.

[pavyracer]

When the Ottoman Empire was dissolved the Montreaux Treaty was one of the concessions the Soviets got so they wouldn't occupy Istanbul and control the Bosphorus Straits.

[Helmut]

If war breaks out, those 6 NATO ships are going down.

Entire NATO fleet will rest on the bottom of the Black Sea in twenty minutes.