Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Expert opinion on Russian collapse and consequences request
Necromancer    1/29/2009 12:31:16 AM
As Russia is the only country that can start a real world war, would anyone have theories on the possible scenarios that would lead upto say fall of government , military takeover or such?? Say taking Ukraine back?? I don't understand why China or Osama Bin is viewed as the primary threat to the West when Russia has 10,000 nukes available to the military.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
EddieV       2/1/2009 10:59:55 PM

Even if they think they can do it alone, forming a coalition including other countries has a lot of diplomatic and political advantages. And I don?t think they would be able to go alone after the capital and financial centers were destroyed.

 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       2/2/2009 1:08:21 PM
If Russia can't execute nuclear strikes on Iran after losing one city, I want my money back from the Cold War.
 
More to the point, China would be spraining its finger pushing the button on 'em.
 
Quote    Reply

EddieV       2/2/2009 2:33:02 PM

If Russia can't execute nuclear strikes on Iran after losing one city, I want my money back from the Cold War.

 

More to the point, China would be spraining its finger pushing the button on 'em.



The poster said that Russia would go and try a conventional campaign against Iran, and then after their forces get nuked, use the nuclear option.  I was responding to that, saying that even if Russia might be able to try and conquer Iran with a conventional campaign, they would be better served if they tried to form a coalition including other major countries.

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       2/2/2009 2:37:50 PM

As Russia is the only country that can start a real world war, would anyone have theories on the possible scenarios that would lead upto say fall of government , military takeover or such?? Say taking Ukraine back?? I don't understand why China or Osama Bin is viewed as the primary threat to the West when Russia has 10,000 nukes available to the military.

China is viewed that way because of Chinese potential to become a militarily significant challenge to the pacific region outside the usual territorial waters. Our preparations are precautionary rather than challenging and vise versa. Osama Bin Laden is a psychological target of opportunity and not the primary threat. He is only part of the larger Jihadist movement which itself is part of the growing list of non-state entities capable of causing serious harm to American and World interest. Since those entities exist outside the bounds of normal accepted behavior and international law they are unlimited in their potential for causing harm particularly with regard to mass casualties.

Russia is not going to nuke the Port of Los Angeles for obvious reasons. AQ might. And if they did, who do you shoot back at? Pakistan? Why? How do you prove they sponsored it or even knew about it? India still hasn't effectively publicly pulled the trigger on Pakistan yet in retaliation for Mumbai for that reason. Stay tuned on that though.

It is pure fiction to suggest Russia is prepared to initiate an aggressive war against the West at this time. Sure they could say F'it and fire off their nukes. But to what end? For the sake of doing it? I don't think so. With regard to their conventional capabilities, beyond sending a few SAG, maybe a few SSBN patrols if any and a single Carrier on high profile Med deployments. They cannot seriously contest control of the sea. Their Cyberwar capabilities are dangerous but not insurmountable and certainly not capable of making up for their other logistical deficiencies. And on the ground, outside of their immediate periphery and with only small numbers they cannot fight aggressive offensive wars. You saw that with Kosovo recently. They had to sit back and take it which was quite embarrassment considering their public positions. 

Russia is certainly trying to revitalize their defense but they are not even a shadow of what they were in the Cold War and are certainly not in a position militarily or economically for any serious conflict.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       2/2/2009 2:46:55 PM

After some thought I think I have your scenario, you will have to write the lead in.

 

The Russians intercept a nuclear truck bomb before it can detonate that traces back to Iran and then, during or just after it is announced in a press conference, a second identical device detonates inside Moscow and upwind of the Kremlin.  Both nuclear devices are enhanced fallout designs (packaged with a large amount of highly radioactive materials that are vaporized and spread by the nuke).  Moscow suffers over 200,000 casualties from the detonation and prompt radiation poisoning, and the city is considered uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.

 

In Russia demands for revenge approach levels not seen since WWII.  The UN steps in demanding moderation in their response.  Russia complains about foreign interference, but agrees not to initiate their attack on Iran with nuclear weapons. 

 

Iran makes a demonstration launch with an IRBM landing in the North Sea and issues warnings to the world that they will heap destruction on anyone involved (even peripherally) in an attack on Iran.  European governments that had previously opposed the ABM system in Poland are suddenly demanding that it be immediate made operational.

 

Russia's attack into northern Iran proceeds close to plan despite fanatical resistance until the Russian forces are about to exit from the mountains when another nuke is detonated behind them closing a critical pass.  The Russian units in Iran are left out of supply, surrounded, and over run.  Many of the survivors are executed.  All are brutally treated and subject to humiliating displays that are broadcast worldwide.

 

With most of their available ground forces destroyed, Russia proceeds to nuke all Iranian cities.  This action resulting in universal world wide condemnation, calls for the Russian leadership to be put on trial for crimes against humanity, and is seized upon by political opponents to demand that the regime in power step down.  Several former Eastern Block nations try to take advantage of this situation to make attempts to 'correct' Russian imposed situations, notably the Ukraine and Georgia.  Russia, lacking sufficient troops to counter all these moves simultaneously threatens to defend itself and it's allies with it's nuclear arsenal.  NATO moves token detachments into the threatened nations, including Patriot missile batteries for protection against short range ballistic missiles.

 

In Russian communist political opponents are attacking the regime in power using claims that the ABM system that is rapidly nearing completion in Poland will be used intercept Russia's nuclear weapons.  Russia threatens to attack "US interests" if this happens.

 

At this point all you need is for fighting to break out in one of the hot spots, a Russian ballistic missile intercepted by a Patriot battery, and a lot of people that are afraid of losing power and being put on trial if they back down.

------

Synopsis: 

The goal here is to produce a situation where Russia has lost the bulk of her conventional forces and is forced to rely solely on it's nuclear arsenal while political opponents are using their failing in a bid to oust the regime in power.


Why exactly would Iran do this though??? And why would the Russians give a ferk about UN mandates? Moreover, who is going to step in and interfere with an angry Russian Government following a nuclear attack on their capital city by a rogue state? Also, if Russia could not subdue Afghanistan with over 100,000 troops at the hight of their military power in a 10 year long war. How are they going to muster the resources necessary to go into Iran? Doesn't make sense.

-DA

 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       2/3/2009 1:26:03 AM

Why exactly would Iran do this though??? And why would the Russians give a ferk about UN mandates? Moreover, who is going to step in and interfere with an angry Russian Government following a nuclear attack on their capital city by a rogue state? Also, if Russia could not subdue Afghanistan with over 100,000 troops at the hight of their military power in a 10 year long war. How are they going to muster the resources necessary to go into Iran? Doesn't make sense.

-DA

Necromancer asked for a scenario that could have Russia lobbing nukes.  The only way that would make sense would be if their conventional forces had suffered massive loses to render them ineffective, Russia's prestige is on the line, and the leadership was both very angry and in danger of being replaced.  It does not make a lot of sense, but feel free to try and make one that does.  Large scale nuclear war scenarios never make sense because everyone always loses, and there is no way to guarantee that small scale nuclear conflicts do not escalate.
 
Why Iran?  Well, the only forces I see that could actually take on the Russian army are the US/NATO, China, and Iran (if they fight defensively and use their terrain).  Neither NATO or China are would chance a war with Russia if it could be avoided, and it is unlikely that either would launch a limited nuclear first strike, they have to much to lose.  That leaves Iran, who's leadership seems to have a limited grip on reality.  But I could not come up a reasonable argument for why they would do it, so I left it up to other readers.
 
The UN has to ask Russia to show some restraint, that is about all they are good for in the world.  And sure, Russia would be very tempted tell the UN where to go and what to do when they arrive, but it would cost them a lot in world opinion and quite possibly their seat and veto on the Security Council.  Besides, if Russia invades and takes over Iran, they would have Iran's oil wealth to add to their own and ports in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, something that Russia has dreamed about since the czars.  So Russia swaps a promise not to use nukes for an approval to invade, knowing that they can used the "They nuked us" card to 'white wash' the inevitable atrocities. 
 
Then they end up using nukes after all when they get mousetrapped.
 
Lastly Iran is like Iraq, not Afghanistan.  Iran has a national identity, literate population, strong central government, working transportation grid, and vast mineral wealth.  There are vital targets that can be targeted to destroy or control
 
Given the likely patriotic response to having Moscow nuked, the Russians will probably be able to field over a half million in volunteer infantry (Class 'C' troops) in support of a smaller group of Class 'A' troops to do the actual fighting to break the Iranian lines and then form a mobile reserve.  If it came off as planned, Iran could end up looking like Germany after the end of WWII.
 
Quote    Reply

The Lizard King    GOG   2/3/2009 3:55:41 AM

"In 45 the Russians could have "rolled West", but as early as the 70s, it would have been impossible."

You do realize that the US dropped the first tactical nuclear bomb in 1945. You do realize that if Soviets attacked US forces in Europe that an improbable alliance would have emerged between the US & Japan (similar to the one that emerged between Western Germany and the the Allies) and that the Soviets would be fighting the US on two fronts. Do you have any idea what it would have taken to expel an Allied-Japanese alliance in the Pacific theater?

The US economy was firing on all cylinders in 1945.   The USA and UK excelled in the production and use of heavy bombers and would have been used to issue a crippling blow to the Soviet economy. Tell me how the Soviets would have slowed down the US economy?

Patton also thought in 1945 the Soviets were at their most vulnerable point.

Not so sure of this ?rolled??

 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    LK   2/3/2009 5:52:39 AM
I readily concede that "roled" is a bit strong, LK.
 
Still, it would have been an interesting confrontation. Sort of like Mike Tyson in his prime vs. Muhammed Ali in his. The unstoppable force meets the immovable object.
 
The Red Army in 45 was a steamroller that had just crushed the Wehrmacht, possibly the deadliest army to ever walk the earth. No other army could have done the same. The Brits were incapable of sustaining such casualties and the US were unwilling to. Only the Russians had the manpower, tech and talent to pull it off. Having said that, in 45 they had spillt a lot of blood and with 20m casualities, they were hardly ready to take on the rest of the western hemisphere.
 
However, i maintain that 45 was the point in time that they had the best chance of 'rolling' west. By the time you get to the 60s and 70s, Eastern Europe (which would be in their rear) was virtually up in arms (Poland, Hungary and Czecho) and their economic model was clearly failing. Everyone was on ration cards. If they had a shot at Internationalisme a la Marx i.e. to spread the revolution by force, it was in 45. After that, I believe, it was nothing but a pipe dream. Gorby simply called a spade a spade but the writing had been on the wall for decades already.
 
Let me ask you then LK, at what time do you think the Russians were at their zenith and capable of pushing west if not in 45? 
 
If i'm not mistaken, i believe that in another thread Herald once maintained that the USSR could have pushed the Allies back to Normandy in 3 mths in 45 using conventional forces.... I agreed with him, but I think opinion was divided.
 
Do you think they had a better chance in the 80s? 70? why?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

The Lizard King    GOG   2/3/2009 7:35:42 AM
"Sort of like Mike Tyson in his prime vs. Muhammed Ali in his."
 
First of all Mike Tyson was not a boxer and could never beat a boxer not past his prime.  I would much rather have see Ali vs Holyfield.
 
"Only the Russians had the manpower, tech and talent to pull it off."
 
The Soviets did not have a navy, air force or nuclear weapons.  I do not believe their economy, especially under attack, could have supported the Soviet machinery in a full blown war where as the US's economy could.  18 year old soldiers do not come from an infinite pool.  Solider attrition would have crippled the Red Forces.  -The Germans resorted to fielding boys. 
 
People also tend to overlook the US/UK Lend aid towards Russia and the role it played.
 
"Let me ask you then LK, at what time do you think the Russians were at their zenith and capable of pushing west if not in 45?"
 
I believe the Soviets have been a threat to peace and world stability from 1945 until present time.  Not sure if they could ever have taken the Western World.  NATO is one of the most if not thee most formidable fighting alliances of all time.  You throw in partner nations like Japan, SKorea, Australia, etc... .
 
"Do you think they had a better chance in the 80s? 70? why?"
 
70s
 
-No.  MAD
 
80s
 
-No.  MAD AND Reagen
 
"If i'm not mistaken, i believe that in another thread Herald once maintained that the USSR could have pushed the Allies back to Normandy in 3 mths in 45 using conventional forces"
 
I remember the thread but could not seem to locate it.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    Russians 1945   2/3/2009 9:21:06 AM
The Russians couldn't have pushed west in 1945. The US/UK advantage in Airpower alone could have stopped the russians...T-34's and JS-II are no go without fuel and ammo and lets face it the Red Armys logistical tail was heavily dependent on Lend Lease for Ammo, Transportation, and Aviation fuel. The US/UK Medium and Heavy bomber force would have paralyzed the Rail and truck transport capabilities. The Red Air Force was a tactical air force...they would have played hell trying to stop high altitude b-17's, 24's, and 29's escorted by p-51's and 47's. The Yak-9's and  Lagg 5's and 7's were good low level aircraft but above 20k altitude they would have been easy meat.
That being said the was no easy way for the US/UK to push the Red Army out of Europe...the US Army was cannibalizing support units just to get enough Infantryman in 1945. Russian artillery would have played hell with western forces until such time as their supplies ran out...we couldn't afford the casualties.
Just my opinion and I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death on other threads.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics