The new cold war

a reply to: nightbringr



i think if we get involved in a shooting war with NK, they will let loose. granted NK and SK are sitting down and talking after the olympics.

i think it is a stalling tactic, and if they let one or more go the gloves will come off. Hopefully Russia doesn't get involved as then it would turn into a S show quickly.

a serious proxy war or maybe even between NATO and Russian forces would for sure turn nuclear.

During the whole Crimia thing Putin said he gave his commanders permission to launch IRBM's, im not sure of the real controls on Russian nuclear warheads are but it seems a little fast and loose to leave it up to individual missile commanders to launch or not.

if they saw NATO coming they might think use em or lose em. The out cry in the US and Europe would be crazy and off we go.

low to mid range yield nukes are still pretty high yield and would do alot of damage, i dont know if NATO and Russia really started shooting at each other if it is even possible to keep it non-nuclear

Russia believes in limited nuclear exchanges. So, I'd say it really depends on how badly they want to win whatever engagement they are in.

Hypothetically, Russia is directly engaged in Syria against rebel forces in the north who are supported by Erdogan. Erdogan directly commits Turkish forces against Russian/Assad loyalists. Turkish air inflicts massive damage on Russian forces and interdiction strikes on airfields from which Russians are operating. Russians decide keeping the Assad regime for economic reasons and retaining their credibility with allies are vital national interests. Russia uses a low-yield tactical nuke or neutron weapon on Dyakbir and Erhaç denouncing Turkish aggression, and then announces a unilateral ceasefire asking for the Turks and the West to reconsider engagement in Syria.
Do you think NATO would use special weapons to retaliate? Or would there just be a storm of righteous indignation and condemnation of Russia, and a list of threats and demands? "Horrific!", " Dangerous!", "Irresponsible!", " Destabilizing!" Maybe conventional retaliatory strikes in Syria. Maybe. A nuclear response? Doubtful. Certainly not in Russia. Some poor Syrians, on off chance. More likely just calls for calm amid the condemnation trying to prevent WWIII over Syria. It'd be much the same story for the Ukraine, as we've seen. The West has no stomach for anything more, and they know it. That's why they think NBC is a viable card for them.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Well seeing as Turkey is still part of NATO for the time being, they would probably demand a NATO response and it would go from conevental strikes on Russia airfields and ship yards, to people in Russia demanding Putin to hit NATO back to avenge their dead sons.

There would be tactical strikes on Turkey and NATO/US bases and troops and then we would hit back wherever these tactical strikes were launched from, geographically.

and it just gets in to a loop where unless cooler heads prevailed it might get nasty.

i think Putin would pull the trigger quickly to uphold his image to his population, at least tacitly that is.

I don't think we'd do it. Loss of life does not constitute an obligation for NATO intervention under Article 5. Turkey has lost aircraft over Syria already, and NATO has not entered into a massive campaign to aid Turkey.
Further, if you think Article 5 is necessarily applicable, it simply mandates "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."

"As it deems necessary... to restore and maintain the security". Does that mean NATO retaliatory strikes in the Black Sea with special weapons? Does that facilitate restoring or maintaining the security of the Alliance members in a way I am missing? Each country is actually allowed to decide what constitutes "necessary ". I doubt Germany deems nuking Russia because Turkey lost two airfields in their campaign against Syria is among the "measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Russia believes in limited nuclear exchanges.

They currently have a 'no first use' policy, unlike the US.

originally posted by: RadioRobert
Do you think NATO would use special weapons to retaliate?

While their may be an outcry from the public to de- escalate, internal government and and military pressure to respond in the very least in like terms would be massive. The fear of course would be not responding would make NATO seem weak and ineffectual, embolden Putin, Russia, and for that matter any WMD holding country.

What good is deterrence if a country is seen as being unwilling to use it?

a reply to: nightbringr

What good is deterrence if a country is seen as being unwilling to use it?

I completely agree with you. I simply don't see member nations as willing to enter a nuclear exchange with Russia in such a scenario. In fact, they make policy on it.

The "no first use" policy died with Soviet Union. You can find some interesting reading on nuclear "de-escaltion". The US held a similar policy at one time and Eisenhower almost allowed it to be used once actually.

a reply to: RadioRobert

i think it comes down to who is making that call, in this moment we can say of course it seems mad to use nukes for turkey.


BUT

there are american forces and bases there and the US would be a little miffed at getting taken out by normal or special weapons. IF an american base or a large amount of troops were killed by Russias forces PLUS Turkey trying to invoke article 5, it might happen.

it would probably not get thru the UN S.C but it might if the damage was bad enough and Russia's posture was a little to aggressive because after Turkey falls, whos next. We saw what they did in the Ukraine/crimea(sp?), they moved quick and annexed it. I dont think the US or Turkey would stand for that and might act unilaterally


im not sure if we still have nukes in turkey seeing how things are going there, but i wouldn't surprised if we did.


might be interesting if SS OST has been seen anywhere overseas

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: nightbringr

What good is deterrence if a country is seen as being unwilling to use it?

I completely agree with you. I simply don't see member nations as willing to enter a nuclear exchange with Russia in such a scenario. In fact, they make policy on it.

The "no first use" policy died with Soviet Union. You can find some interesting reading on nuclear "de-escaltion". The US held a similar policy at one time and Eisenhower almost allowed it to be used once actually.

The member nations may not have time to react, or for that matter even realize that say, Brussels has been destroyed before a counterstrike is deployed. When a decision is required quickly, there may be no time to form a committee to discuss consequences.

I think you have more faith in humanity than I do.

Frankly, I think it'd be near madness to commit to WWIII and massive nuclear escalation in response to a limited use of tactical weapons in such a scenario. I suspect most world leaders would feel the same, and that's why it works as policy. Russia drops a nuke or two and says, "Timeout". Most people would be happy to take the timeout instead of trading nuclear strikes with Russia on behalf of Edorgan (just an example).

it would probably not get thru the UN S.C 

The UNSC doesn't get a vote on NATO operation or response. The hope is that the UNSC can help restore peace, but it doesn't get to dictate the actions of NATO member states.

a reply to: RadioRobert

i thought they could black ball military strikes?

eta:nvm im stupid

a reply to: nightbringr

Nuclear deployment is a political decision. It isn't going to automatic based on two low yield detonations. It's less faith in some sort of inherent goodness in people, and more faith that politicians always prefer an easy out to a hard decision. And in this hypothetical case, it's probably also the right way out.

a reply to: penroc3

No, not the UNSC, but each individual NATO member gets to decide what it "deems necessary" according to the situation. The French and Germans have stated a few times they aren't interested in NATO ops that do not have UNSC stamp of approval, but it is not necessary-- particularly under Article 5.

a reply to: RadioRobert

yeah i thats what i was thinking about and just got carried away in the terminology.


nato members

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: nightbringr

Nuclear deployment is a political decision. It isn't going to automatic based on two low yield detonations. It's less faith in some sort of inherent goodness in people, and more faith that politicians always prefer an easy out to a hard decision. And in this hypothetical case, it's probably also the right way out.

Oooh, I'm all for the 'right ' decision. I do after all inhabit this earth and am not fond of blinding lights and fiery armageddon.

A hard decision to a politician is to lose face. I hate to say it, but a country who let as enemy nuke them and didn't respond, especially a country with all the ability in the world to respond, would have lost that face. Khrushchev after the Cuban crisis is a prefect example.

All those hours stuck in college international relations courses so many years ago weren't a total waste of time and money!

Extra-nerd points for once being part of a model UN and having to create a resolution for Japan about the Kuril-- no, Chishima Islands to place before the General Assembly.

a reply to: nightbringr

Starting a massive escalation in nuclear exchanges over Erdogan, probably isn't a winner on the public polls either, though there would probably be a lot of second guessing afterwards about what should have been done instead. I just don't think the West has the stomach for a "real" conflict at the public or governmental levels. We play by different rules, which is why are strength is often useless because we lack the will to use it.

a reply to: RadioRobert

hey you never know when that stuff is going to pay off

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: RadioRobert

hey you never know when that stuff is going to pay off

Wowing strangers in anonymity on the internet
+
???
-----
*Profit*

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: nightbringr

Nuclear deployment is a political decision. It isn't going to automatic based on two low yield detonations.

Nuclear deployment is a military decision which solely rests upon the US Commander in Chief, not NATO or some European committee.

There are no mechanism to use or prevent the use of nuclear weapons within the NATO structure, the US has full authority over their arsenal including weapons shared with NATO countries.
There is something called the Nuclear Planning Group within NATO, but this body oversees NATOs long term nuclear policy, not deployment decisions.

As i tried to explain in my previous post, the use of nuclear weapons generates the need for an immediate, time critical response. You have time to debate the issue at length, the US Joint Chiefs will press the US President for a decision to implement immediate contingency operations aimed against the Russian capability to conduct follow up strikes.
Once nuclear weapons are in use the time for decision making shortens to mere minutes. There simply won’t be time for European political leaders to discuss the issue at length within some NATO forum an come up with convincing enough reasons to surrender to Russian aggression.
A decision to deploy would be handed down through the US Nuclear Chain of Command from the National Command Authority to the Global Strike Command.

Nuclear weapons shared within NATO like those at Incirlik would not be used in the response and neither would the NATO units assigned to deploy those weapons. It would be an unilateral US decision to protect their national interests in Turkey (=couple of thousand US personnel at the very least), not a joint NATO operations. NATO statues would applicable anyway if Turkey strikes Russia first.
Weapons shared with NATO would only be used when the Alliance is under a general war footing anyway with the Supreme Allied Commander Europe commanding all mobilized NATO member forces, but even then, the decision to deploy them would come from the US NCA, not SACEUR or any other NATO body.

The scenario you described would not cover that. And of course, I seriously doubt Russia would just resort to nuking Turkey over a clash in Syria. Pretty farfetched. We’d see a conventional response first and the process to deescalate as you described. But there is just about no way Russia would be willing to enter a nuclear exchange over something as unimportant as a small Navy base in the Mediterranean.

General warfare with NATO over the Baltics is a different story as laid out, but ignoring the propaganda for a second, at the end of the day Putin is not nuts.

Nuclear deployment is a military decision which solely rests upon the US Commander in Chief, 

Is the POTUS not a politician making political decisions? I don't understand what you disagree with.

And yes, the Turkey hypothetical is a bit farfetched, but what if Turkey closed the Bosphorus straights? Started sinking ships as the Russians came through, etc, etc. Or as you addressed entered into a limited conflict alongside proxies in the Baltics or Serbia or the Ukraine, etc that escalates into direct conflict with one or more NATO members? Are we going to reply in kind after Russia decides that instead of getting its nose bloodied and taking it, they'd rather "deescalate" by using a tactical nuclear weapon or two to get everyone's attention and return to the status quo? Are we going to attack Russia with nuclear weapons over the Ukraine or Estonia? Probably not, if we're being honest.