Support NeoGAF

[4Tran]

lol Putin is such a good guy.

Hah, no, Putin is horrible. However, he was still pretty careful in terms of international relations up until the Crimea and Ukraine adventures. And even there, he's careful to not use full blown Russian units in combat. You can compare that to the US up and invading sovereign countries and not even receive a wrist slap from the international community.

A single nuclear strike on a major city would kill millions of people and destroy that country's economy. We're talking hundreds of nukes.

Yes, it is fucking over. There is no remote possibility of any invasion being worth that cost.

That's fiction talking again. Most warheads aren't aimed at cities; they're aimed at enemy military installations and other strategic targets. The primary goal isn't to kill the enemy population. Instead it's to destroy the enemy's ability to fight in a nuclear or conventional war. The exception to this is tactical nuclear weapons which are meant to destroy enemy military formations on the battlefield.

Nuclear targeteers have studied how to best defeat an opposing nation using nuclear weapons, and it really does require a lot of warheads to defeat most of the hardened targets, sometimes as much as 5-10 warheads for individual targets . And if you have to add extras to account for ABM, it gets very hairy.

 

[Toxi]

Primary targets would be military to try to prevent a 2nd strike. Some military targets are indeed close to cities. Most nukes would be used on missiles silos, military ports and airports.

You're right.

But it's still a possibility. Invading a country means they've got nothing to lose.

And as you mentioned, many of those places are close to major cities.

That's fiction talking again. Most warheads aren't aimed at cities; they're aimed at enemy military installations and other strategic targets. The primary goal isn't to kill the enemy population. Instead it's to destroy the enemy's ability to fight in a nuclear or conventional war. The exception to this is tactical nuclear weapons which are meant to destroy enemy military formations on the battlefield.

Nuclear targeteers have studied how to best defeat an opposing nation using nuclear weapons, and it really does require a lot of warheads to defeat most of the hardened targets, sometimes as much as 5-10 warheads for individual targets . And if you have to add extras to account for ABM, it gets very hairy.

You don't have to defeat an opposing nation that's invading you. If the cost of invasion is guaranteed to be obscenely high, then there's no point.

 

[reckless]

That's the point, if you can construe your purely defensive alliance to launch offensive invasions, it's not really purely a defensive alliance any more. That's just propaganda talking.

Pretty simple way to not get attacked by NATO
Don't attack a NATO country first (Seems simple enough)
Don't get the UN to approve military action against you (Russia never has to worry about this because that Veto power).

But in reality neither of those matter due to Russia having the largest nuclear stockpile on earth.

Funny you talk about propaganda while toeing that Putin line. Poor Russia being bullied by "encroaching" NATO.

 

[Pomerlaw]

Hah, no, Putin is horrible. However, he was still pretty careful in terms of international relations up until the Crimea and Ukraine adventures. And even there, he's careful to not use full blown Russian units in combat.

Yeah Putin is indeed 'rational'. But he respects force, that's why NATO should stay right where they are.

 

[jstripes]

Primary targets would be military to try to prevent a 2nd strike. Some military targets are indeed close to cities. Most nukes would be used on missiles silos, military ports and airports.

Directly nuking cities is a waste of nukes. But even then, as Japan and WW2 proven, countries can recover.

But you are right, the cost would always be way too much. No winners there.

If your city is a centre of industry, you're a target. They aim to take out anything that can be used to mass-produce vehicles and weaponry.

I guess that's one bright side of all those industrial jobs leaving the US.

 

[4Tran]

You don't have to defeat an opposing nation that's invading you. If the cost of invasion is guaranteed to be obscenely high, then there's no point.

Theoretically, that's true, but in a war against a peer opponent all bets are off, and you have to strive for as much advantage as you can. For most people the thought of how to actually fight a nuclear war is unthinkable, but that's precisely what military strategists have to do.

Pretty simple way to not get attacked by NATO
Don't attack a NATO country first (Seems simple enough)
Don't get the UN to approve military action against you (Russia never has to worry about this because that Veto power).

What about Iraq? Sure that's not technically a NATO operation, but it involves mostly the same players.

Or Libya? Russia and China didn't veto that one only because they thought that it wasn't an approval for military action.

If you're committed to NATO as a purely benign organization, you can find excuses for them. But a skeptic can see things very differently.

Funny you talk about propaganda while toeing that Putin line. Poor Russia being bullied by "encroaching" NATO.

Nah, I'll never defend anything that Russia did in Crimea or Ukraine. I can understand why they did it, but I think that they made an awful lot of mistakes. And in terms of domestic politics, Putin's authoritarianism is disgusting.

However, just because I can be skeptical of Russia in some ways doesn't mean that I'm going to buy everything that NATO says. No, NATO's encroaching isn't a form of bullying, but it is a threat to see an alliance of technologically superior powers gain bases closer and closer to your territory. Sure, a nuclear arsenal is a pretty good form of security, but it's not exactly one that you want to have to use just on the off chance.

If your city is a centre of industry, you're a target. They aim to take out anything that can be used to mass-produce vehicles and weaponry.

I guess that's one bright side of all those industrial jobs leaving the US.

Industry isn't a very good target because it's pretty distributed. Dams, power stations, rail head, air bases, missile bases, naval ports would be the kind of things that are on the target priority list. Basically anything that you'd normally hit with non-nuclear strategic bombing.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

NATO has been setting itself up primarily as an instrument of the American Empire, and as an anti-Russia alliance. Of course Putin is going to want to dismantle it. The invasion of the Baltics to destabilize NATO is not quite as farcical as NATO using the Baltics as a staging ground to invade Russia, but it's pretty close.

"Instrument of the American Empire" is incredibly vague. NATO provides a lot more to the Europeans than it does to the Americans, whom are very capable of launching interventions and invasions without their help.

The most prominent NATO operations have been in the former Yugoslavia, with extensive United Nations backing (until 1999), Afghanistan, with moderate United Nations backing, Anti-piracy duties near Somalia with UN backing, and Libya, with moderate United Nations backing. The Libyan campaign was spearheaded not by America, but by France and Britain. America was willing to help (and needed desperately as it turned out when the poor stockpiles maintained by other NATO forces were exhausted), but it was not really "their" operation, in the same way that Afghanistan was. NATO is not directly equivalent to American foreign policy.

I would describe NATO's foreign commitments as an instrument of western consensus, it acts when the interests of many of its members align. When a consensus cannot be reached, countries tend to act individually instead of through the NATO framework.

Bad actor as in a player that's responsible for ratcheting up tensions. Yeah, I can see Russia getting the brunt of that for their military adventures since 2014 in Crimea and Ukraine, but the bad blood has been getting worse ever since about 2008, and NATO was probably more at fault back then.

The only notable flashpoint in 2008 was the Russian action in South Ossetia / Georgia, which pissed off several NATO member states. Still, even after this it was not inevitable that relations permanently decline. Circa 2011-2012 things were pretty stable and even looked to be improving somewhat. 2014 is where things tank irrevocably. That's when it went beyond strongly worded letters of disapproval.

If you want to talk about NATO provocations that weren't themselves in response to something Russia was doing, the only notable ones were missile defense proposals (eventually scrapped in part or whole with Obama's first year in office), and the enlargement of NATO in general. I call the latter a provocation only in the loosest sense, Russia was provoked, but it wasn't really a "wrong" thing to do. Post-soviet states were petitioning for NATO membership almost immediately, because of their desire to integrate tightly with Europe and guarantee their independence from Russia.

What they're designed for is less important than what Russia's strategic command needs to worry about. Another thing to note is that a lot of Russia's rhetoric isn't primarily intended for the outside world - it can well be an excuse for Putin to grab more power for himself.

Oh, there's definitely a lot of propaganda designed mainly for domestic consumption. Framing Russia as a state under siege by "the west" helps keep him popular even in times of economic trouble. It's an interesting balance of positions - Russia is simultaneously strong for taking action in Crimea and Syria, righteous for condemning military adventurism the west, but very concerned about the expansion of NATO.

 

[reckless]

What about Iraq? Sure that's not technically a NATO operation, but it involves mostly the same players.

So not NATO, actually pretty much just the U.S, cue jokes about the "coalition of the willing".

Or Libya? Russia and China didn't veto that one only because they thought that it wasn't an approval for military action.

How would a no fly zone be enforced without military action?

Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory,

Seems pretty clear that it's approval for military action.

If you're committed to NATO as a purely benign organization, you can find excuses for them. But a skeptic can see things very differently.

Nah, I'll never defend anything that Russia did in Crimea or Ukraine. I can understand why they did it, but I think that they made an awful lot of mistakes. And in terms of domestic politics, Putin's authoritarianism is disgusting.

However, just because I can be skeptical of Russia in some ways doesn't mean that I'm going to buy everything that NATO says. No, NATO's encroaching isn't a form of bullying, but it is a threat to see an alliance of technologically superior powers gain bases closer and closer to your territory. Sure, a nuclear arsenal is a pretty good form of security, but it's not exactly one that you want to have to use just on the off chance.

NATO isn't purely benign, but trying to say that there is a chance of them just deciding to invade Russia isn't just being skeptical.
If Russia stopped trying to bully with economic means or just straight up attacking other countries then NATO wouldn't have expanded as quickly as it has. They don't get to play victim when they have caused the situation at hand.
Even though nukes are enough to stop this crazy fantasy of NATO invading, they also have the second most powerful military in the world.

 

[4Tran]

"Instrument of the American Empire" is incredibly vague. NATO provides a lot more to the Europeans than it does to the Americans, whom are very capable of launching interventions and invasions without their help.

Ostensibly, this is true, but realistically it's almost always going to be the US invoking NATO because they're involved in more parts of the world, and they're the most belligerent. The other big advantage that NATO contributes to the American Empire is that just about any action that the US undertakes against an outside party is going to be assumed to be done with the consent, spoken or otherwise, of the other Alliance members. And even in the case where the Alliance members disagree, like with Iraq, the amount of condemnation is going to be minimal.

The only notable flashpoint in 2008 was the Russian action in South Ossetia / Georgia, which pissed off several NATO member states. Still, even after this it was not inevitable that relations permanently decline. Circa 2011-2012 things were pretty stable and even looked to be improving somewhat. 2014 is where things tank irrevocably. That's when it went beyond strongly worded letters of disapproval.

The two big events in 2008 are the recognition of Kosovo as an independent country and the Georgian War. I'd also add the war against Libya as a permanent souring of relations with both Russia and China.

If you want to talk about NATO provocations that weren't themselves in response to something Russia was doing, the only notable ones were missile defense proposals (eventually scrapped in part or whole with Obama's first year in office), and the enlargement of NATO in general. I call the latter a provocation only in the loosest sense, Russia was provoked, but it wasn't really a "wrong" thing to do. Post-soviet states were petitioning for NATO membership almost immediately, because of their desire to integrate tightly with Europe and guarantee their independence from Russia.

The problem with accepting these countries into NATO is that it puts NATO more and more into the position of being an anti-Russia alliance.

So not NATO, actually pretty much just the U.S, cue jokes about the "coalition of the willing".

When it's military forces of NATO members acting in alliance to perform an operation, the distinction of whether it's a formal NATO operation is fairly meaningless.

How would a no fly zone be enforced without military action?

Seems pretty clear that it's approval for military action.

It doesn't say anything about destroying the Libyan Army.

 

[NHale]

Russia has been fairly judicious in the use of naked aggression, they've only done it three times while Putin has been in charge: in Chechnya, in Georgia, and in Syria. And of these, they could have punished Georgia much more than they did. There's no indication that Russia is trying to win back all of the old Soviet Union territories.

Hey guys don't worry about Russia, they only used agression in 3 countries. Nothing to see here!

By the way Crimea didn't happened, right?

 

[Joni]

It doesn't say anything about destroying the Libyan Army.

It allows all necessary means. It is why Russia and China wanted to veto but abstained at the request of the Arab League. Everyone knew it would be about military action, including them, but they listened to their own allies that would have protested quite heavily if Russia vetoed.

The resolution, adopted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter:

• demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;
• imposes a no-fly zone over Libya;
• authorizes all necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas, except for a "foreign occupation force";
• strengthens the arms embargo and particularly action against mercenaries, by allowing for forcible inspections of ships and planes;
• imposes a ban on all Libyan-designated flights;
• imposes an asset freeze on assets owned by the Libyan authorities, and reaffirms that such assets should be used for the benefit of the Libyan people;
• extends the travel ban and assets freeze of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 to a number of additional individuals and Libyan entities;
• establishes a panel of experts to monitor and promote sanctions implementation.

 

[4Tran]

Hey guys don't worry about Russia, they only used agression in 3 countries. Nothing to see here!

It's only two countries. Do you really want to know how many countries force was used against by the US in the same period? Or the UK? Or even peaceful Canada?

By the way Crimea didn't happened, right?

That was a fait accompli, not naked aggression. And do note that I've already acknowledged that Crimea and Ukraine are egregious actions. However, they're also technically clandestine ones. You don't see full blown Russian divisions pouring over the Ukraine border and wiping out the Ukranian Army even though that would immediately end the conflict.

It allows all necessary means. It is why Russia and China wanted to veto but abstained at the request of the Arab League. Everyone knew it would be about military action, including them, but they listened to their own allies that would have protested quite heavily if Russia vetoed.

"Necessary means to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas" does not mean "Utterly destroy the Libyan Army", and it's a massive contortion to interpret it that way. What China and Russia expected was that NATO would use limited attacks to keep the Libyan Army at bay from civilian enclaves, not a wholesale strategic bombing campaign. It was an overreach and it ensures that anything even vaguely similar is guaranteed to be vetoed at the UNSC.

 

[tiredheadcrab]

A confined Russia is a happy Europe. I will gladly take the happy Europe.

 

[appaws]

Hey guys don't worry about Russia, they only used agression in 3 countries. Nothing to see here!

By the way Crimea didn't happened, right?

The question at the bottom of this whole thing is "what are you willing to go to war for?"

As an American, I ask myself, am I willing to give American lives to stop the Russians from taking Crimea? A place that has been Russian since Catherine the Great, is almost 60% self-identified as Russian, and hosts a super crucial naval installation for them. Why would it be a part of Ukraine? The people are not Ukrainian there...is it because Khrushchev moved it from one Soviet administrative area to another...?

Ukraine? Estonia? Georgia?

The answer is no. Why should we be so interested in dominating people on the other side of the world? I admit the calculation may be different if you are a Western European, but for us it is time to go back to being a friend among equals with all the nations of the world and stop throwing our weight around so much.