Russian Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
Well, it is the only language the US seems to understand, though it looks like the increasingly senile leadership wants to test their luck
escobar
Brigadier
Nah, it is the only tool Putin has in this GPC. US not going to nuke Moscow so not impressed.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
And the reason that the US won't nuke Moscow or bring any other military action against it is because of that tool. Not impressed by what you're trying to say.
I wonder who US will nuke with their new "Sentinel" ICBM ?
I don’t believe “literally” means what you think it means.
If it is, then North Korea’s capital should be on the Moskva river and little Kim should have the ability to drop a nuclear bomb on every US city, town, or village with a population equal to or greater than 4,292.
Last edited:
The issue is win or lose in Ukraine, Russia can annihilate the US. Win or lose in any conflict North Korea can plausibly engage in, North Korean can not annihilate the US.
Treating a country that can annihilate you as if it is merely a country that could not is not the most optimal recipe for avoiding annihilation.
Treating a country that can annihilate you as if it is merely a country that could not is not the most optimal recipe for avoiding annihilation.
Last edited:
So it is angle dependent based on the literature. This is not surprising because from some angles, the satellite can actually look at the engine nozzle itself, not just the plume. That would occur when the satellite is very low on the horizon.
It is the same principle by which microwave relays can be tapped, even highly directional ones over short distances in secured territory: a SIGINT satellite can be very low on the horizon and have a line of sight to the transmitter rather than relying on scatter or side lobes.
The neglect of the Pacific Fleet is no accident. Russian Navy needs to scale back it's ambitions. It can't have an offensive blue water navy, a top tier ground force and a top tier air force in 5 different theaters (Europe, Arctic, Central Asia, East Asia, Middle East) while maintaining it's other responsibilities as a state.
Russia already spends more than the US in defense as %GDP. But one thing to note is that Russian infrastructure is much more expensive than it needs to be because like the US it is spread out.
But unlike the US, it will have infrastructure problems due to global warming since much of their infrastructure was built on ice.
Russia has to decide what to focus on. It has to decide what to give up and what to keep otherwise it will just get degraded everything.
Pacific Fleet was the least important for Russian core interests (protecting European and Arctic Russia) since Russian Far East is extremely remote and inaccessible.
Going forward I think Russia really should shelve the Lider class and just focus on being a small, defensive European style navy and focus forces in the Arctic.
Uh, no. Nuclear weapons are the equalizer for the side weak on conventional forces. So Moscow would like to clearly retain the option to nuke some US or US supported forces by making it clear the US would not be able to survive doing anything about it.
Putin’s strategic ICBM means US and NATO conventional superiority can be safely nullified by Russian tactical nukes if push really come to shove. “No I won’t be annihilated if I nuke your conventional forces, so I can gain by nuking your conventional forces, unless you wanted to be annihilated with me”
If Russia really is losing Ukraine otherwise, using tactical nukes to salvage the situation is actually a very rational and sensible thing for Russian to do.
If Ukraine wasn’t worth using tactical nukes to prevail over, then Ukraine was not worth going to war over. Since Russia decided Ukraine is worth going to war over, it would be foolish to discount the possibility that Russia will use a tactical nuke to make the effort pay.