They will be broke, their conventional military battered and humiliated but they will still have thousands of nukes with a weakened and corrupt command and control system.
I broadly agree with your summary, but one of the unknowns we’re dealing with here is the condition of Russia’s nukes and their delivery mechanisms. Nuclear weapons and liquid fuelled rockets used to launch them require an awful lot of maintenance and they have a finite shelf life. Much has been written about Russia’s nuclear doctrine, but Russia’s vaunted state of the art conventional military has been hamstrung by poor maintenance and limited capacity to replenish.
Russia’s ability to wage large scale war will have been severely diminished
I would say their ability to wage medium scale war has been diminished. Unfortunately, that might make them more likely to try large scale war using nuclear weapons, and even if only 10% of theirs work, we're still stuffed, even if they're more stuffed. It's a delicate balance, I expect it's being wargamed quite extensively.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. “We’ve got no army left so we’re gonnna nuke the planet” - not a credible position.
@Greybeard. I agree, my point exactly. @PMJ1974 I also agree with your point regarding the questionable state of some of Russia's nukes. Liquid fuelled propulsion systems are more problematic than the warheads themselves. Why the Russians have persisted with liquid fuel instead of solid propellants surprises me. In a former life in the 1980s I worked at an ammo depot in germany where we stored Lance missiles, tactical nukes. I always remember the fuel and oxidiser were 'UDMH' and 'IRFNA' - Unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine and Inhibited red fuming nitric acid. Horrible, horrible stuff to store, move, handle and deal with leaks etc. The manpower and maintenance required were huge, even with 1980s attitudes to COSH and HSAW!
However the Russians are used to working with those materials, in low tech weapons like SCUDS, their space and satellite program and ICBMs. Even if corruption and poor maintenance has degraded some, a percentage will undoubtedly still work as Greybeard says.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. “We’ve got no army left so we’re gonnna nuke the planet” – not a credible position.
It might not be rational by our standards, but I'd argue that hypothetically it could be credible in future. With an embittered, defeated, impoverished, resentful and humiliated Russia? With a nutter in the Kremlin who only got there by being more nationalist and extreme than Putin?
We are all crystal ball gazing here, I'm shooting the breeze with no more insight than anyone else. I hope I'm wrong. I do think though that Russia is going to be a basket case and threat to peace whatever happens.
Sometimes the reaction of a few on here make some threads quite a hostile place to post.
Freedom of speech, thought, idea. Some just dont get it.
That might be aimed at me - totally misunderstood the point caher was trying to make, so I'm sorry if it came across as an over reaction.
I'm a big fan of freedom of speech, but disagreeing with someone is neither hostile nor an attempt to cancel them.
No worries, took it as neither.
I always remember the fuel and oxidiser were ‘UDMH’ and ‘IRFNA’ – Unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine and Inhibited red fuming nitric acid.
not sure you need to qualify that stuff as horrid. I am not a chemist but even to me that says ‘run away, keep running’
Well I think it all depends on whether you think Russia is controlled by nationalists or simply by money grabbing oligarchs. If the latter, I don't think they want to fry or destroy the assets they want to get their hands on.
I've read some excellent points - thank you @Greybeard and @blokeuptheroad.
I've learned a lot - I'm a layman, it's extremely good to read an account like this:
Liquid fuelled propulsion systems are more problematic than the warheads themselves. Why the Russians have persisted with liquid fuel instead of solid propellants surprises me. In a former life in the 1980s I worked at an ammo depot in germany where we stored Lance missiles, tactical nukes. I always remember the fuel and oxidiser were ‘UDMH’ and ‘IRFNA’ – Unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine and Inhibited red fuming nitric acid. Horrible, horrible stuff to store, move, handle and deal with leaks etc. The manpower and maintenance required were huge, even with 1980s attitudes to COSH and HSAW!
And this:
However the Russians are used to working with those materials, in low tech weapons like SCUDS, their space and satellite program and ICBMs. Even if corruption and poor maintenance has degraded some, a percentage will undoubtedly still work as Greybeard says.
In short, thank you both!
Sorry, I don’t buy it. “We’ve got no army left so we’re gonnna nuke the planet” – not a credible position.
FWIW, I agree.
Some Russian ICBMs are solid fueled, they aren't all liquid fueled. The only safe assumption to make about the Russian nuclear forces is that enough of their missiles and bombs would work that they could destroy the planet.
That might be aimed at me
Nope, just a general and not pointing elbows at anyone specific. Those who have been guilty of such know they've acted badly.
And if they dont. Well, theres little hope for them at this late stage 😆
. We need a comet heading towards us or something to wake up and realise we can’t afford it as a species
I've seen that movie, it doesn't end well.
I’ve seen that movie, it doesn’t end well.
Maybe you saw the director's cut or something. The version I saw had the guy from Thunderwings realizing that when you had control reversal, you could pull out of a dive by pushing forward on the control stick so he became the first person to break the sound barrier.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. “We’ve got no army left so we’re gonnna nuke the planet” – not a credible position.
FWIW +1
The Russian dogma is expansion. Without an army to follow along behind there's little point. I think that Georgia has to watch out for conventional attack though
Attacking the country of Russia might get a little hotter, which is why countries have had to be careful about not tripping an invisible wire and only supplying defensive and short-range weapons
Arguably Russia has squandered any reputation for military competence
I don't think Russia has ever had a reputation for anything other than a total disregard for the lives of it's recruits, which lends ones army something of a advantage. Competence? No, not ever.
I'd say the main danger of a severely weakened Russia is Putin and how much control he'd still have, if you know you're going to be falling out of a window soon you might be tempted to try and take the world down with you
Competence? No, not ever.
As a BAOR cold war warrior in the 1980s, I can tell you we and the hierarchy absolutely believed the Soviet military was competent! The widespread view was that whole of NATO would not be able to hold back a Soviet armoured thrust across the inner German border with conventional weapons. It seems daft now, but we really believed this. Endless lectures about the skill of their spetznaz special forces, their sig int units that were even listening to us on exercise and tracking the careers of individual soldiers. Their believed complete mastery of combined arms operations and whole regiments of chemical warfare troops. Of course the Soviet forces were superior to the oligarch ravaged RF forces but they probably were never quite as good as we thought! This started to become more apparent after their Afghan adventure.
This film gives a flavour of the time. I remember watching this on a 16mm projector (through clouds of fag smoke) in our unit training wing. Along with endless films about Soviet vehicle and aircraft recognition, the law of armed conflict, NBC drills etc. Good, but quite scary times!
The irony being that decades of fear of Soviet capabilities drove the US military industrial complex to insane heights and established a persistent level of technological and logistical dominance in conventional force projection that not even China is going to be to challenge for a very long time.
You could justifiably speculate that fear of the 'red menace' was deliberately stoked at the time by defence contractors and their lobbyists who were after a slice of that sweet Pentagon budget, but what's done is done.
not even China is going to be to challenge for a very long time.
They are definitely the next near-peer opponent, but I have a feeling that they may catch up and even overtake a bit quicker than we're all expecting...
It might not be rational by our standards, but I’d argue that hypothetically it could be credible in future. With an embittered, defeated, impoverished, resentful and humiliated Russia? With a nutter in the Kremlin who only got there by being more nationalist and extreme than Putin?
We are all crystal ball gazing here, I’m shooting the breeze with no more insight than anyone else. I hope I’m wrong. I do think though that Russia is going to be a basket case and threat to peace whatever happens.
This is a fair point. The thing to understand is that Russia/The Soviet Union/MotherRussia has always been a basket case. They've never even been close to competing on an economic basis with the West and "capitalism" and arguably never will (see decline and fall of the Soviet Union). As such their only option if they're to avoid stagnation at best is natural resources and military driven expansionism (nick the economies and natural resources of others in order to cover over decline at home).
If we accept that the Russians are never going to give up the way of life which so compromises their effectiveness, and that Russia is largely a vast, empty tract of relative nothingness, then the fact of the matter is that they're always going to be dangerous, in so far as they will cast covetous eyes on the rich pickings down the road. So degrading them as far as is possible right now can only lead to security for a time. Which is probably all that we can hope for.
I always remember the fuel and oxidiser were ‘UDMH’ and ‘IRFNA’ – Unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine and Inhibited red fuming nitric acid.
Strong stuff indeed. I dread to think what the Uninhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid must be like..
but Russia’s ability to wage large scale war will have been severely diminished, possibly for generations.
I don't think so - where there is a will, there is a way. It took just 21 years for Germany re-equip and go back to war.
I dread to think what the Uninhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid must be like
Isn't it Musk's new vision for Twitter?
Strong stuff indeed. I dread to think what the Uninhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid must be like..
Isn't it a hip craft ale?
I dread to think what the Uninhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid must be like
The chemical equivalent of Louise
I dread to think what the Uninhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid must be like
strong dryness and smoke mixed with good flavors and just enough complexity, not too much though.
If anyone wants to know more about the horrors of storable liquid rocket propellants like IRFNA then I highly recommend 'Ignition'.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ignition-Informal-Propellants-University-Classics/dp/0813595835
There may or may not be PDF copies to be found on the web.
I'm so tempted by that even if it's a ridiculous thing to read about.
You won't regret it....
For a long time it's been out of print, it looks like mentions from Elon Musk and others has prompted a reprint.
The author has an intresting bio!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Drury_Clark
(sorry about the thread hijack)
I dread to think what the Uninhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid must be like
A bouquet of a good claret, and best enjoyed alone in a park.
I dread to think what the Uninhibited Red Fuming Nitric Acid must be like
White fuming nitric acid lacks the intensity of the red, probably better choice for novices.
No doubt some will moan about cost or appropriateness, but I thought this was a nice gesture from the UK MOD. I've got half a dozen old Zippos with unit crests on stuffed in drawers somewhere that I was given as leaving gifts. As a lifelong non smoker they were never that much use to me, but I suspect they will be to the Ukr troops in the field this winter.
https://twitter.com/DefenceHQ/status/1593605115574816768?s=20&t=GuDjmGfov7l7NRazNMwfjw
Lighters always get used even if you don't smoke, just not as much. Yeah nice gesture.
but I have a feeling that they may catch up and even overtake a bit quicker than we’re all expecting…
I see this a lot, and while I don't doubt that they have the tech, or the ability to make things like aircraft carriers and planes; a couple of things to bear in mind. 1. The Military in China is kept on a very very tight political leash. So much so that bits of the Air Force, Navy and even regional Army forces aren't allowed to train together often for fear that (like in the 50's in Korea) they start to become a powerful "counter revolutionary" force. 2. Shiny Kit doesn't necessarily mean that they have the capability to use it. Which leads onto 3. The Chinese military haven't been involved in a shooting war since a low level skirmish across the Vietnam border in the 70's. and a lobbing the occasional shell at both the ****stanis and Indians. Compared to the US who've pretty much been practicing "being at war", well, since they joined in with WW2.
I don't think they're a paper tiger by any means, but generally speaking; the armies of Authoritarian regimes tend to be more than a bit shit at doing war with outside forces, because really they're designed to be effective against their own populations.
Also, I chose my words very carefully, the US's advantages are technological and logistical, not necessarily purely in terms of actual fighting capacity, if you hypothetically teleported all of the US's military and all of China's military and all of their conventional gear into the middle of the steppe and let them have at it in one massive land-based head-to-head bloodbath it would probably would be a pretty even fight.
But that's not how modern wars work, force projection, the ability to get all your stuff where it needs to be, supplied, maintained and ready to rumble is key and here the US and NATO have a massive lead.
The global supply network needed to maintain that, and the decades old system of alliances that have been needed to build it in the first place will take decades to build, if they can be replicated at all.
Pretty good summary here:
it would probably would be a pretty even fight.
I doubt it personally, but I get the pint you're making. But yes, agreed, most folks just don't realise that the US Armed Force's ability to fight two wars at the level on intensity that they can simultaneously on two different continents (as they did in Afghanistan and Iraq) is pretty much unique.
Made me laugh more than it should, at least 1 russian now gets it.
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1593573406829678593?
There may or may not be PDF copies to be found on the web.
Indeed.
Also, I chose my words very carefully, the US’s advantages are technological and logistical, not necessarily purely in terms of actual fighting capacity, if you hypothetically teleported all of the US’s military and all of China’s military and all of their conventional gear into the middle of the steppe and let them have at it in one massive land-based head-to-head bloodbath it would probably would be a pretty even fight.
Yeah but what about a fight between the Cat World and the Monkey Kingdom?
US is technically superior because they have been preparing for a while since the day they kicked out their old colonial masters, perhaps even during the day of Monroe Doctrine. Now it's their turn to conquer the world whether you like it or not. Very aggressive and will use all means to subdue their enemies even if it means mass destruction. US will not hesitate to use nuke to wipe out their enemies just to ensure they are in dominance. Be careful what you wish for because once the enemies are gone, the next target will be the lefties thinkers. That's the American ways.
Pissed early?
Pissed early?
Nope.
What alternative view(s) do you have?
Something a little more in line with reality?
Now it’s their turn to conquer the world whether you like it or not. Very aggressive and will use all means to subdue their enemies even if it means mass destruction. US will not hesitate to use nuke to wipe out their enemies just to ensure they are in dominance.
More water with it. If you seriously believe this codswallop could you start an 'America is the great Satan' thread about it and stop trolling this one.
