Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,384
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Nov 22, 2024 13:12:53 GMT
They've said quite a lot about NATO including the US supporting Ukraine and being 'involved' in the war, the UK is just doing it's part in supplying weapons. And let's not forget Russia is the aggressor in all of this, all they have to do is go back to Russia and Ukraine wouldn't be using any weapons against them. So what happens if Russia fires missiles at the UK, very likely the UK retaliates and fires missiles at Russia, potentially NATO also fires missiles at Russia in support of the UK, at the least NATO helps taking out the missiles fired at the UK, then very likely Russia retaliates and fires more missiles at the UK and potentially other NATO countries that are now seen to be supporting the UK and in a few strokes we could have a full scale war between NATO and Russia. Does Putin want that? You seems to be assuming that NATO will all join in on a suicidal attack on Russia. I seriously have my doubts. Infact I can tell you of 3 NATO countries I am absolutely certain would not attack Russia if it were to respond to the UK's use of missiles into Russia - Turkey, Hungary and Slovakia. I would also be highly doubtful Japan would get involved. A number of others I am sceptical about. You got the cart before the horse, I'm talking about potential NATO response to Russia firing missiles into the UK . I wouldn't expect all NATO countries to respond, some wouldn't even have the military capability, but the treaty provide for mutual protection from aggression. Russia expecting to be able to attack a NATO country and getting no response from NATO would seem a bit naive, which I'm sure Putin isn't.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000 
Likes: 5,139
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 22, 2024 13:20:34 GMT
Anyway, one thing that's being overlooked in all of this "imminent armageddon!" woe is the fine detail that the US and UK haven't actually fired any missiles at Russia. Not one.
Ukraine has. Again.
Sure, they're British and American supplied. No news there.
The ONLY difference here is a presumption that some technical assistance from the supply nations is required to point the things in the right direction - and that that right direction is back at where all the inbound Russian stuff's coming from, rather than just at the Russian cannon-fodder who are actually standing on Ukrainian soil. Because all the previous stuff Ukraine's fired into Russia has been bought elsewhere. China, mostly.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 2,981
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 22, 2024 13:53:10 GMT
You seems to be assuming that NATO will all join in on a suicidal attack on Russia. I seriously have my doubts. Infact I can tell you of 3 NATO countries I am absolutely certain would not attack Russia if it were to respond to the UK's use of missiles into Russia - Turkey, Hungary and Slovakia. I would also be highly doubtful Japan would get involved. A number of others I am sceptical about. You got the cart before the horse, I'm talking about potential NATO response to Russia firing missiles into the UK . I wouldn't expect all NATO countries to respond, some wouldn't even have the military capability, but the treaty provide for mutual protection from aggression. Russia expecting to be able to attack a NATO country and getting no response from NATO would seem a bit naive, which I'm sure Putin isn't. Yes but no but there is quite a gap between no response and dropping a 100megaton on NYC ! To your point about "that is the point" [of deterrence?] I'm not sure. I mean nukes obviously deter against a nuclear attack but do they deter against small scale skirmishes or small bomb killing a couple of soldiers? Russia is finding out that nukes don't protect it very well against that kind of "modest" (relatively speaking) aggression.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,139
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 22, 2024 13:58:51 GMT
Russia is finding out that nukes don't protect it very well against that kind of "modest" (relatively speaking) aggression. Russia is the aggress or... This is defence against their invasion.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 2,981
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 22, 2024 14:17:18 GMT
Russia is finding out that nukes don't protect it very well against that kind of "modest" (relatively speaking) aggression. Russia is the aggress or... This is defence against their invasion. Yes that's right Adrian. Run along now....
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,384
Likes: 2,784
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Nov 22, 2024 14:59:29 GMT
You got the cart before the horse, I'm talking about potential NATO response to Russia firing missiles into the UK . I wouldn't expect all NATO countries to respond, some wouldn't even have the military capability, but the treaty provide for mutual protection from aggression. Russia expecting to be able to attack a NATO country and getting no response from NATO would seem a bit naive, which I'm sure Putin isn't. To your point about "that is the point" [of deterrence?] I'm not sure. I mean nukes obviously deter against a nuclear attack but do they deter against small scale skirmishes or small bomb killing a couple of soldiers? Russia is finding out that nukes don't protect it very well against that kind of "modest" (relatively speaking) aggression. If you read my previous post (repeated below) I was theorising an escalating exchange of non-nuclear missiles, which although a 'skirmish' to start with could become very dangerous. No need for it to be a nuclear threat for it to be an undesirable outcome. And the threat of eventual escalation to nuclear is a very scary possibility. 'So what happens if Russia fires missiles at the UK, very likely the UK retaliates and fires missiles at Russia, potentially NATO also fires missiles at Russia in support of the UK, at the least NATO helps taking out the missiles fired at the UK, then very likely Russia retaliates and fires more missiles at the UK and potentially other NATO countries that are now seen to be supporting the UK and in a few strokes we could have a full scale war between NATO and Russia. Does Putin want that?'
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 10,000
Likes: 5,139
|
Post by adrianc on Nov 22, 2024 15:07:34 GMT
Russia is the aggress or... This is defence against their invasion. Yes that's right Adrian. Run along now.... What else would you call invading the next door neighbours in an attempt to colonise the entire country? Trying to destroy the airbases and supporting infrastructure for that invasion is defence. I know you're trying to paint Vlad as the victim here, but that's just a plain lie.
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S
Posts: 1,326
Likes: 784
Member is Online
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Nov 22, 2024 15:37:19 GMT
You seems to be assuming that NATO will all join in on a suicidal attack on Russia. I seriously have my doubts. Infact I can tell you of 3 NATO countries I am absolutely certain would not attack Russia if it were to respond to the UK's use of missiles into Russia - Turkey, Hungary and Slovakia. I would also be highly doubtful Japan would get involved. A number of others I am sceptical about. I suspect you are on very solid ground with Japan not getting involved if there was an attack on a NATO member! Well ok it is a NATO partner along with Australia, New Zealand and South Korea. What I want to know is whether Starmer and Lammy are going to continue to lead the charge against the Russians when Trump comes into office or are they going to take a massive U-Turn and look like idiots. I hope they take a U-Turn, and they already look like idiots as far as I am concerned. The UK* is a third rate military power at best in 2024 and has no business getting into a war with anyone - even the Houthis let alone the Russians with their 500m Tsunami Death Drones and Mach 10 Missiles. * - even the UKs nuclear weapons are basically borrowed from the US (and possibly are under US control), unlike France that has its own nuclear weapons.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 2,981
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 22, 2024 15:39:39 GMT
Yes that's right Adrian. Run along now.... What else would you call invading the next door neighbours in an attempt to colonise the entire country? Trying to destroy the airbases and supporting infrastructure for that invasion is defence. I know you're trying to paint Vlad as the victim here, but that's just a plain lie. Do we actually speak the same language? What is it you don't understand about that which I have bolded above in response to your comment "Russia is the aggressor" comment ? I mean why do you bother making the same comment over and over again without anything else to add?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 2,981
|
Post by michaelc on Nov 22, 2024 17:05:42 GMT
I suspect you are on very solid ground with Japan not getting involved if there was an attack on a NATO member! Well ok it is a NATO partner along with Australia, New Zealand and South Korea. What I want to know is whether Starmer and Lammy are going to continue to lead the charge against the Russians when Trump comes into office or are they going to take a massive U-Turn and look like idiots. I hope they take a U-Turn, and they already look like idiots as far as I am concerned. The UK* is a third rate military power at best in 2024 and has no business getting into a war with anyone - even the Houthis let alone the Russians with their 500m Tsunami Death Drones and Mach 10 Missiles. * - even the UKs nuclear weapons are basically borrowed from the US (and possibly are under US control), unlike France that has its own nuclear weapons. And if we need permission from the US to fire our own SS missiles, what are the chances of any else in our aging arsenal being used without US approval ?
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 22, 2024 17:30:55 GMT
You got the cart before the horse, I'm talking about potential NATO response to Russia firing missiles into the UK . I wouldn't expect all NATO countries to respond, some wouldn't even have the military capability, but the treaty provide for mutual protection from aggression. Russia expecting to be able to attack a NATO country and getting no response from NATO would seem a bit naive, which I'm sure Putin isn't. ... To your point about "that is the point" [of deterrence?] I'm not sure. I mean nukes obviously deter against a nuclear attack but do they deter against small scale skirmishes or small bomb killing a couple of soldiers? Russia is finding out that nukes don't protect it very well against that kind of "modest" (relatively speaking) aggression. The short answer to that is: mostly....and historically almost entirely Russia and the US/NATO countries have avoided direct confrontation with each other since the second world war. Since the Soviet Union first acquired nuclear weapons in 1949, the risk / threat of escalation to a nuclear conflict has been the single dominant factor in managing their relationship. That's 75 years. I don't think it is going too far to say that it is almost inconceivable that there would not have been direct conflict up to now if it wasn't for that particular elephant in the room. Sure there has been war by proxies. But avoiding direct conflict, even to avoid entirely inadvertent, has been an overriding objective in Western and NATO thinking - and for most of that time Russian/Soviet Union - since '49. The fact that both India and China are nuclear powers has for sure provided incentive for both parties to deescalate border conflicts that otherwise could have grown into something much worse. Similar considerations almost certainly now apply to playing down/de-escalating.off-ramping Pakistan/Indian "skirmishes".
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,436
|
Post by registerme on Nov 22, 2024 17:39:19 GMT
let alone the Russians with their 500m Tsunami Death Drones and Mach 10 Missiles. Gotta love a bit of hyperbole.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,328
Likes: 11,544
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 22, 2024 17:57:38 GMT
let alone the Russians with their 500m Tsunami Death Drones and Mach 10 Missiles. Gotta love a bit of hyperbole. Understated ... according to Ukr it went full Spinal Tap ... turned up to Mach 11
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,328
Likes: 11,544
|
Post by ilmoro on Nov 22, 2024 18:05:11 GMT
You got the cart before the horse, I'm talking about potential NATO response to Russia firing missiles into the UK . I wouldn't expect all NATO countries to respond, some wouldn't even have the military capability, but the treaty provide for mutual protection from aggression. Russia expecting to be able to attack a NATO country and getting no response from NATO would seem a bit naive, which I'm sure Putin isn't. Yes but no but there is quite a gap between no response and dropping a 100megaton on NYC ! To your point about "that is the point" [of deterrence?] I'm not sure. I mean nukes obviously deter against a nuclear attack but do they deter against small scale skirmishes or small bomb killing a couple of soldiers? Russia is finding out that nukes don't protect it very well against that kind of "modest" (relatively speaking) aggression. I'm sorry ... what 'modest' aggression is Russian finding out that nukes don't protect it against? That's like Medusa complaining having snakes for hair doesn't protect you against being turned to stone when a mirror reflects back on you.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Nov 22, 2024 18:10:37 GMT
Gotta love a bit of hyperbole. Understated ... according to Ukr it went full Spinal Tap ... turned up to Mach 11 whisper it gently but my sources* tell me they are close to making operational the first Transphasic torpedo. It'll make those 500m tsunami mega death torpedoes look about as scary as a half charged Phased Polaron cannon. *some guy on YouTube
|
|
