It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Revealed: Russian Invasion Could Overrun NATO in 60 Hours

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2016 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

The US was not using even close to full fighting force. Nor was the USA mobilized




posted on May, 24 2016 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Hahaha...hahahahahahahahahahaha

Good one.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra
And then there's NATO's Article 5 covering collective defence... You would also expect Sweden and Finland to support NATO due to implications of such belligerence. Doubtful Russia would have any allies or friends. to support such a stupid enterprise.


“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”


NATO Art 5



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 07:12 AM
link   
there is nothing to take in the Baltic countries, besides analyzes



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: spy66
It wont be suicide for Putin to invade the Baltic states. Just look how Putin walked all over US/NATO in Syria. THe US/NATO were shown to the stans as observers.


It would be suicide both economically and militarily. If you are basing your worldview on Russia's intervention in Syria then they are two different things. Flattening a city like Aleppo with dumb bombs and cluster munitions, is a different thing to tangling with someone who shoots back.

The Baltic States are members of NATO and the EU. Georgia and Ukraine were not.

Anyway, it won't happen. Russia will continue to pick on weaker neighbours, as is their form.



You see the wrong Connection. On bouth accoundts.

NATO cant attack Russia and gain the Baltick states back. That will end in no gain for anyone. No one will gain from this kind of war. NATO will not win this war. That is why if Russia did invade and annexed the Baltic states within 60h. NATO couldnt do a damn thing about it unless NATO want to push for ww3. Pushing for ww3 is not sometning that is done just like that.


EU/US cant sanction Russia and hope to gain the Baltic states back. THat is never going to happen as long as China helps Russia.

That is not even realistic after what Russia did when they annexed Crimea and supported the pro russians in Ukraine. The sanctions are not working, because russia is adapting.

EU suffer just as much if not more when it comes to the sanctions the EU support the US on towards Russia.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: Xcathdra
And then there's NATO's Article 5 covering collective defence... You would also expect Sweden and Finland to support NATO due to implications of such belligerence. Doubtful Russia would have any allies or friends. to support such a stupid enterprise.


“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”


NATO Art 5



I dont know if you have noticed, but Sweden is calculated into the Equation. And it wont stop Russia. It wont even slow it Down. The longest time it would take Russia to take the Three Baltic states was 60 hours.

60h is such a short time that NATO wouldnt have the capasity to send support that would have any effect. Sending US/NATO F-18, F-16, F-15, ground crew and weapon loads to Sweden is not done over night. Such support would also be intercepted by Russia.

Calling for art 5. Is a long prosess. It is not just soemthing you ask for and it is a done deal.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: luthier



Not only that they have advanced tech, built the internet, and are frontrunners in AI development.


Rand was abandoned by the military in their think-tank scenarios due to funding. With the advent of powerful computing , such as mainframes and clusters ,there was no longer a need for humans to develop with statistics. Took too long.

Back to the internet and the development. This should help

History of the Internet



The thing is Rand has some if the most powerful computers and AI. They don't have rooms of people plotting military moves.

And this may help you out with Rand and the internet. Considering Paul Baran was a big part in the sixties of the development I would say Rand had a pretty strong hand in creating it.

www.rand.org...



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Willtell

Dont see Russian being allowed to invade that far without NATO using tactical nukes and EMP weapons against any invading force.

Plus like someone else suggested there supply lines simply could not cope with the fuel demands, reload of weaponry and whatever else there Armour and troops need to function in such a short period of time.



And you think Rand, it's supercomputers, AI and intelligent analysts haven't thought of this?

Russia has plenty of their own tactical nukes. They have oil and gas supplies. The country also spans an immense amount of land with all kinds of supply caches.

Russians are great strategists and also have great computer programmers.

Surely NATO could prevail but at what cost? How far would russia get and how many fronts can both sides fight?

Definately not the slam dunk your presenting this as. Russia has a lot of very good missiles.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
The US currently have the best soldiers in the world, Now being a Brit that is a climb down as we used to be able to rightly boast that we did but that was back when we still had corporal punishment in British schools and you never heard of bullying in the British army like they are a bunch of school kid's today.

I may be off side on this but it is a fact, we still have a great army but our equipment is crap now and the Tory's are pouring the money into an un needed nuclear weapon system, we could rely on the yank's for that and simply boost our conventional arm's system's and increase our armed forces but Idiot's and politician's never the twain should meet eh?.

Russia has a very good army today and a very good air force, there navy is dated but still serviceable and of course there armed forces are still huge.

In a face off my money would be on NATO - IF NATO WAS FULLY MOBILIZED but in a quick strike I believe the Rand think tank are correct, the Russian's would win in the Baltic hand's down, taking the rest of europe though, nope.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 08:34 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Its still a M.A.D world buddy and if Russia ever tried to pull the crap as suggested they would glow in the dark for the next few thousand years, as would we, which is why it will never happen.

There is no slam dunk, there are no winners where significant or full on nuclear exchanges take place.
edit on 24-5-2016 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

Its still a M.A.D world buddy and if Russia ever tried to pull the crap as suggested they would glow in the dark for the next few thousand years, as would we, which is why it will never happen.

There is no slam dunk, there are no winners where significant or full on nuclear exchanges take place.


Yep. Thats my entire point.

Let's say it doesn't even get that far. The impact on the economy alone would be devastating for the world.

In case you thought I was siding with Russia here I wasn't. I was pointing out the chest thumping that we would kick butt and save the day is not accurate. Russia is not a slouch when it comes to military action and strategy.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Correct, the western Russian's see themselves as very much European's but of course Russian's first as they are very patriotic and they don't want war, in fact most Russian's are just like us though of course there history is different due to the long period of soviet communist rule (Which oddly many are now wishing had never fallen) and the great patriotic war in which so many died (though stalin killed just as many in his purges) as they name the Second world war, but it has to be said though they started that war on the wrong side just as in the case of the yank's we would not be here except for them and they would not be here except for us.

The ideal scenario would be to put all the politicians and war mongerer's on an island with a large wall around it and let them sort it out and the rest of us get on with our live's.

qz.com...
www.thetrumpet.com...



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: andy06shake

Correct, the western Russian's see themselves as very much European's but of course Russian's first as they are very patriotic and they don't want war, in fact most Russian's are just like us though of course there history is different due to the long period of soviet communist rule (Which oddly many are now wishing had never fallen) and the great patriotic war in which so many died (though stalin killed just as many in his purges) as they name the Second world war, but it has to be said though they started that war on the wrong side just as in the case of the yank's we would not be here except for them and they would not be here except for us.

The ideal scenario would be to put all the politicians and war mongerer's on an island with a large wall around it and let them sort it out and the rest of us get on with our live's.

qz.com...
www.thetrumpet.com...


Good idea. Maybe we could do it every ten years or so when the new psychopaths spring up.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767



Apparently this dude would love to build walls, now if only we can find a suitable island, id buy that idea for a dollar.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Actually the military won all three of those wars. Problem was the politicians stepped in and handed everything back.

And also why would the US be the big issue in a NATO war in Europe? After the "Cold War" was over in the 90's everybody wanted us out, so we moved most of our stuff home. Its Europe, let the EU handle defending it from the rise of the old USSR. But of course to do that you will actually have to build an army and not depend on the US to save you anymore.

Lets see how long that socialist paradise last when you have to actually defend yourself for a change.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: rigel4
a reply to: Willtell

No.... Russia can not defeat NATO.. period.

If they use nukes , then that's another story.


What makes You even think people will end up fighting for the USA in the next conflict? I for one will not fight for Hillary especially since Women can't and won't be drafted. Why on earth would any man fight any war instigated by that evil woman especially sense Her child is not eligible for the front line. You do realize that the old jingoistic propaganda is no longer working and the American people are starting to realize whom the real enemy is?



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annunak1

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Annunak1

Some are in it to change the world in a positive way though.


Like the soldiers turning a blind eye while their allies rape young boys.
Or the peacekeepers in Africa who stand with their penises in their hands while tribes slaughter each others villages.

Soldiers ain't changing crap. They are living a dream and when they wake up it's too late


Problem is all the liberials have gotten too the politicians. US troops are not ALLOWED to stop those rapes becuse it is part of their "culture" and their not allowed to interfer. In fact we have had troops court-martialed for stepping in and stopping it.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 09:14 AM
link   
douglas who own this rand corporation, state a build up of an american air force could repel the attack.
douglas supplies the american air force.
coincidence?



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: Annunak1

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Annunak1

Some are in it to change the world in a positive way though.


Like the soldiers turning a blind eye while their allies rape young boys.
Or the peacekeepers in Africa who stand with their penises in their hands while tribes slaughter each others villages.

Soldiers ain't changing crap. They are living a dream and when they wake up it's too late


Problem is all the liberials have gotten too the politicians. US troops are not ALLOWED to stop those rapes becuse it is part of their "culture" and their not allowed to interfer. In fact we have had troops court-martialed for stepping in and stopping it.


That has nothing to do with it and this has been going on between conservatives and democratic presidents over war.

It's a terrible situation and more a logistical measure of not getting bound up with local people and creating a larger insugence base from upsetting the population.

I don't agree with it but its not a liberal policy it's just a terrible reality. The fact the US has been basically policing and staying in the countries it what makes this very awkward. In a normal war you get in and out take out the leaders, impose sanctions and all kinds of things. In these cases the operations are more like police work so the soldiers are witnessing normal life a lot more.

If you ask me its disgusting and they should be forced to take measures with economic incentive and sanctions. Same with our buddies the Saudis.



posted on May, 24 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: rigel4
a reply to: Willtell

No.... Russia can not defeat NATO.. period.

If they use nukes , then that's another story.


Do you mind explaning why? Or are you one of those people that think they know everything?




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join