Is NATO a Viable Military Organization?

[harmonica]

NATO has kept the peace for the past 70 plus years. So yes it is viable military organization despite the previous president's efforts to destroy it.

peace????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
do you know how many wars/conflicts/etc there have been??????!!!!

virtually none involving NATO.

1. ????..and??
--the poster said there has been peace since NATO formed = ''kept the peace'''
2. the US has been involved in MANY conflicts/WARS--it is a part of NATO
---a.. this is one of the main points: it's worthless because of the the politics
3. Falklands, 1956 Arab War ,etc
many NATO countries involved in wars/conflicts
4. 9-11 and the hundreds of terrorists attacks on NATO countries/citizens/etc--NATO is useless
= NATO UNDENIABLY has not kept the peace

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

‘Potential Imminent Crisis’: U.S. Military Warns Of Russian Military Buildup In Eastern Europe | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

It seems to me that this would be a good time for an American President (a real President) to approach our NATO "allies" and tell them that THEY have a problem here, and we are willing to HELP.

Remember that 2%of GDP that they promised to spend on mutual defense? There is no time like the present.

Of course that would require a President with balls.

NATO is the most powerful military force in history.

Russia is nowhere close

Only because of the involvement of the United States. If the US is not in play NATO is nothing

France, UK, Germany, Italy have modern militaries with well trained soldiers and pilots.
They have been preparing for decades

Are you kidding? NATO readiness is at an all time low. Germany only has 244 tanks, many of which are inoperable with no spares to fix them, it has 212 fighters, bombers and attack aircraft, again poorly maintained. It has a total of 215,000 military personnel counting every swinging Richard, cooks, clerks doctors, everyone. France has 406 tanks, 269 fighters, bombers and attack aircraft and 300,000 military personnel. The UK has 209 tanks, 134 fighters, bombers and attack aircraft and 280,000 military personnel. Those the Heavy hitters of NATO. NATO has drawn down from being the well equipped and well trained force of the Cold War. The NATO countries can’t defend themselves, let alone the Ukraine. Russia has serious problems, but it’s far stronger than the European NATO members and is right on the Ukraine’s border. NATO has to move troops and vehicles hundreds of miles to get to the Ukraine.

And Russia?
No, Russia is not stronger than the European NATO members.
Their military is a shell

According the Russian Military doctrine, "Regional wars" are nuclear wars. They have thousands of tactical nukes to fight Europeans and enough of strategical nukes for "in-war detterence" of the USA. Do you believe, that Biden is going to start all-out war (and to kill tens of millions of American citizens) to protect Ukraine, or even the whole Europe? He don't care about Europe, China is his only passion.

If Russia goes nuclear, so will we! BTW, learn to spell deterrence.

Yes, that's the problem. American plans are concentrated on the prevention of the war, not winning the war. "If the deterrence is failed, let's do "something", or, may be, "nothing"." All, what those military planners are thinking is psychology, facades, good look, and so on. Most of American "military" scenarios begin with tensions and finish by all-out nuclear exchange. Most of Russian military scenarios begin with nuclear exchange, and finish by the delimitation of the Canada-Mexican border (or sign of unconditional surrender by American government).
The last more or less realistic American conception of the "protracted war" was created in 1982.

Really? What is your expertise in this area instead of being an armchair quarterback?

Is the commander of the US Strategic Command, Adm. Charles Richard "an armchair quarterback", too?

Charles Richard, U.S. Strategic Command chief: Nuclear war with China or Russia ‘real possibility’

The United States must be ready for a nuclear war with China or Russia and seek new ways to deter both countries’ use of newly acquired advanced strategic weapons, the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command is warning in a major new review of the global balance of nuclear forces.

m.washingtontimes.com

He wrote:
"Government and military leaders need to better understand the new dangers of nuclear conflict and fashion new concepts of deterrence and — if needed — nuclear war-fighting strategies."

"Until we, as a [Defense] Department, come to understand, if not accept, what we are facing and what should be done about it, we run the risk of developing plans we cannot execute and procuring capabilities that will not deliver desired outcomes,” Adm. Richard argued. “In the absence of change, we are on the path, once again, to prepare for the conflict we prefer, instead of one we are likely to face."

Nuclear war is pretty possible, because there are ways to win (or loose) the nuclear war.

Ok. Let's play the game.
---------

1) While the USA are preparing their forces to send in Ukraine, Russia, prepares her own attack: secretly increasing amount of warheads at SSBNs (in violation of New Start, of course, but nobody cares), move tactical nukes to the regular forces, chaotise Ukraine by local agenda to slow down deployment of the US Forces. Putin calls Biden and ask: "Do you really gone bananas and really want to proceed? " If Baiden say yes, then both side proceed.
2) Russia start "civil defense drills" and particularly evactuate their cities.
3) 7 SSBNs of the Northern Fleet, simultaneously crush ice in the Canadian sector of Arctic and launch 7x16x10 - 1120 warheads (95% probability to kill each) in 224 seconds against, say, 500 military targets, including all 400 siloses, strategic air bases and some ports. Attack at "suppressed ballistic trajectory " from the blinking eyes distance, so there is no time to react.
Also, 56 Tu-95MS launch 16 Kontact-2 each (totaly - 896) anti-sat missiles with X-ray laser warheads (say, with 50% single-shot kill probability) US satellites (especially navigation and communication) significantly degraded.
4) Then, Putin declare in public: "You, American, just lost, say, five millions of people, most of them - just a collateral damage, because we avoided attack civilian targets. You still have 327 millions of people, but only few SSBNs with few hundreds of strategic nukes. We have effective ABD, our population is already evacuated and sheltered, our nukes are cocked, locked and ready to launch. The only result of your potentional attack will be death of few thousands of random Russian civilians and our economical losses. But then we'll start massive retaliation - for every launched warhead we'll destroy five your cities. We don't want to kill American civilians, but we definitely will, if you force us. Right now we suggest you cheasefire, and peace negotiations. All what we want (right now) is withdrawn of your forces from Eurasia. If a single missile is launched - we'll demand Alaska, too and your complete denuclearisation." This is called the "Postattack blackmail".
Then, he says to all other countries: "Hey, guys. If you want to join the game and be nuked - you may not intern American forces deployed on your lands. Otherwise, you should be good neutral states. Neutral states don't allow belligerent states to act freely in their territory, in their air and water. Of course, you may accept some of their wounded or refugees, but you should not send in the USA anything that looks like medicine, food, fuel, weapon, munitions and so on. Right now we had suggested them negotiations, try to use all your diplomatic power, to force them to accept our terms, pls".
This is called "in-war deterrence".
-------------

The one question I have is your pay that Vlad and the Kremlin are providing. Is it worth it? I mean after all, fully half of your facts and figures you are citing are flat out WRONG!

I can't dispute them because this information is highly classified. Suffice it to say, you are a Russki plant talking out your ass!

Goodbye!

I suggest everyone else put your Communist ass on ignore also.

 

[Dayton3]

NATO has kept the peace for the past 70 plus years. So yes it is viable military organization despite the previous president's efforts to destroy it.

peace????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
do you know how many wars/conflicts/etc there have been??????!!!!

virtually none involving NATO.

1. ????..and??
--the poster said there has been peace since NATO formed = ''kept the peace'''
2. the US has been involved in MANY conflicts/WARS--it is a part of NATO
---a.. this is one of the main points: it's worthless because of the the politics
3. Falklands, 1956 Arab War ,etc
many NATO countries involved in wars/conflicts
4. 9-11 and the hundreds of terrorists attacks on NATO countries/citizens/etc--NATO is useless
= NATO UNDENIABLY has not kept the peace

NATO has largely prevented a major war in Europe. Which was part of its purpose. Not to mention NATO has prevented major wars between its own members such as Iceland/United Kingdom, Greece/Turkey,

 

[DGS49]

NATO was created to prevent the USSR from dominating and possibly taking Western Europe by force of arms.

The USSR no longer exists. To the extent that Russia is a threat to its neighbors, there is always the counterbalance of the U.S. nuclear capability, regardless of whether NATO exists or not. If Western Europe wants to band together to limit Russia, that's fine. Just leave us out of it.

Western Europe relying on the U.S. to defend it is no longer appropriate. They have the resources to defend themselves, but refuse to do so in any meaningful way. In fact, they are becoming more and more dependent on Russia for fuel.

 

[JLW]

NATO was created to prevent the USSR from dominating and possibly taking Western Europe by force of arms.

The USSR no longer exists. To the extent that Russia is a threat to its neighbors, there is always the counterbalance of the U.S. nuclear capability, regardless of whether NATO exists or not. If Western Europe wants to band together to limit Russia, that's fine. Just leave us out of it.

Western Europe relying on the U.S. to defend it is no longer appropriate. They have the resources to defend themselves, but refuse to do so in any meaningful way. In fact, they are becoming more and more dependent on Russia for fuel.

Yeah, Russia is racing towards the Arctic and quickly weaponizing the place, and what do these so-called conservatives want to do? They want to weaken an alliance that is helping to constrain the Russian bear. The Russians are smart enough to know that they need to target "conservatives" for their divide and conquer strategy because those folks will fold and bend at a whim. NATO is needed more than ever.

 

[Silver Cat]

‘Potential Imminent Crisis’: U.S. Military Warns Of Russian Military Buildup In Eastern Europe | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

It seems to me that this would be a good time for an American President (a real President) to approach our NATO "allies" and tell them that THEY have a problem here, and we are willing to HELP.

Remember that 2%of GDP that they promised to spend on mutual defense? There is no time like the present.

Of course that would require a President with balls.

NATO is the most powerful military force in history.

Russia is nowhere close

Only because of the involvement of the United States. If the US is not in play NATO is nothing

France, UK, Germany, Italy have modern militaries with well trained soldiers and pilots.
They have been preparing for decades

Are you kidding? NATO readiness is at an all time low. Germany only has 244 tanks, many of which are inoperable with no spares to fix them, it has 212 fighters, bombers and attack aircraft, again poorly maintained. It has a total of 215,000 military personnel counting every swinging Richard, cooks, clerks doctors, everyone. France has 406 tanks, 269 fighters, bombers and attack aircraft and 300,000 military personnel. The UK has 209 tanks, 134 fighters, bombers and attack aircraft and 280,000 military personnel. Those the Heavy hitters of NATO. NATO has drawn down from being the well equipped and well trained force of the Cold War. The NATO countries can’t defend themselves, let alone the Ukraine. Russia has serious problems, but it’s far stronger than the European NATO members and is right on the Ukraine’s border. NATO has to move troops and vehicles hundreds of miles to get to the Ukraine.

And Russia?
No, Russia is not stronger than the European NATO members.
Their military is a shell

According the Russian Military doctrine, "Regional wars" are nuclear wars. They have thousands of tactical nukes to fight Europeans and enough of strategical nukes for "in-war detterence" of the USA. Do you believe, that Biden is going to start all-out war (and to kill tens of millions of American citizens) to protect Ukraine, or even the whole Europe? He don't care about Europe, China is his only passion.

If Russia goes nuclear, so will we! BTW, learn to spell deterrence.

Yes, that's the problem. American plans are concentrated on the prevention of the war, not winning the war. "If the deterrence is failed, let's do "something", or, may be, "nothing"." All, what those military planners are thinking is psychology, facades, good look, and so on. Most of American "military" scenarios begin with tensions and finish by all-out nuclear exchange. Most of Russian military scenarios begin with nuclear exchange, and finish by the delimitation of the Canada-Mexican border (or sign of unconditional surrender by American government).
The last more or less realistic American conception of the "protracted war" was created in 1982.

Really? What is your expertise in this area instead of being an armchair quarterback?

Is the commander of the US Strategic Command, Adm. Charles Richard "an armchair quarterback", too?

Charles Richard, U.S. Strategic Command chief: Nuclear war with China or Russia ‘real possibility’

The United States must be ready for a nuclear war with China or Russia and seek new ways to deter both countries’ use of newly acquired advanced strategic weapons, the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command is warning in a major new review of the global balance of nuclear forces.

m.washingtontimes.com

He wrote:
"Government and military leaders need to better understand the new dangers of nuclear conflict and fashion new concepts of deterrence and — if needed — nuclear war-fighting strategies."

"Until we, as a [Defense] Department, come to understand, if not accept, what we are facing and what should be done about it, we run the risk of developing plans we cannot execute and procuring capabilities that will not deliver desired outcomes,” Adm. Richard argued. “In the absence of change, we are on the path, once again, to prepare for the conflict we prefer, instead of one we are likely to face."

Nuclear war is pretty possible, because there are ways to win (or loose) the nuclear war.

Ok. Let's play the game.
---------

1) While the USA are preparing their forces to send in Ukraine, Russia, prepares her own attack: secretly increasing amount of warheads at SSBNs (in violation of New Start, of course, but nobody cares), move tactical nukes to the regular forces, chaotise Ukraine by local agenda to slow down deployment of the US Forces. Putin calls Biden and ask: "Do you really gone bananas and really want to proceed? " If Baiden say yes, then both side proceed.
2) Russia start "civil defense drills" and particularly evactuate their cities.
3) 7 SSBNs of the Northern Fleet, simultaneously crush ice in the Canadian sector of Arctic and launch 7x16x10 - 1120 warheads (95% probability to kill each) in 224 seconds against, say, 500 military targets, including all 400 siloses, strategic air bases and some ports. Attack at "suppressed ballistic trajectory " from the blinking eyes distance, so there is no time to react.
Also, 56 Tu-95MS launch 16 Kontact-2 each (totaly - 896) anti-sat missiles with X-ray laser warheads (say, with 50% single-shot kill probability) US satellites (especially navigation and communication) significantly degraded.
4) Then, Putin declare in public: "You, American, just lost, say, five millions of people, most of them - just a collateral damage, because we avoided attack civilian targets. You still have 327 millions of people, but only few SSBNs with few hundreds of strategic nukes. We have effective ABD, our population is already evacuated and sheltered, our nukes are cocked, locked and ready to launch. The only result of your potentional attack will be death of few thousands of random Russian civilians and our economical losses. But then we'll start massive retaliation - for every launched warhead we'll destroy five your cities. We don't want to kill American civilians, but we definitely will, if you force us. Right now we suggest you cheasefire, and peace negotiations. All what we want (right now) is withdrawn of your forces from Eurasia. If a single missile is launched - we'll demand Alaska, too and your complete denuclearisation." This is called the "Postattack blackmail".
Then, he says to all other countries: "Hey, guys. If you want to join the game and be nuked - you may not intern American forces deployed on your lands. Otherwise, you should be good neutral states. Neutral states don't allow belligerent states to act freely in their territory, in their air and water. Of course, you may accept some of their wounded or refugees, but you should not send in the USA anything that looks like medicine, food, fuel, weapon, munitions and so on. Right now we had suggested them negotiations, try to use all your diplomatic power, to force them to accept our terms, pls".
This is called "in-war deterrence".
-------------

The one question I have is your pay that Vlad and the Kremlin are providing. Is it worth it? I mean after all, fully half of your facts and figures you are citing are flat out WRONG!

I can't dispute them because this information is highly classified. Suffice it to say, you are a Russki plant talking out your ass!

Goodbye!

I suggest everyone else put your Communist ass on ignore also.

Yes, this is exactly the problem, highlighted by the Admiral. Ignorance and wishful thinking. "We don't want to solve the problem, we don't want even to see the existence of the problem, so let's close our eyes and ears and repeat mantras about Russian propaganda".
This is the most dangerous treat. If we see a problem - we can try to find a solution. If we are actively denying it - there will be no solution. And then... You know:

 

[harmonica]

NATO has kept the peace for the past 70 plus years. So yes it is viable military organization despite the previous president's efforts to destroy it.

peace????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
do you know how many wars/conflicts/etc there have been??????!!!!

virtually none involving NATO.

1. ????..and??
--the poster said there has been peace since NATO formed = ''kept the peace'''
2. the US has been involved in MANY conflicts/WARS--it is a part of NATO
---a.. this is one of the main points: it's worthless because of the the politics
3. Falklands, 1956 Arab War ,etc
many NATO countries involved in wars/conflicts
4. 9-11 and the hundreds of terrorists attacks on NATO countries/citizens/etc--NATO is useless
= NATO UNDENIABLY has not kept the peace

NATO has largely prevented a major war in Europe. Which was part of its purpose. Not to mention NATO has prevented major wars between its own members such as Iceland/United Kingdom, Greece/Turkey,

1. if you think NATO has prevented wars in Europe, you are way ''off base''
there's no proof of that
2. didn't prevent the Kosovo War or any of all the many conflicts and GENOCIDE there
3. 50,000 dead in Korea...50,000 dead in Vietnam--NATO didn't help there
..Beirut, etc etc etc = US in many conflicts/war

 

[Silver Cat]

‘Potential Imminent Crisis’: U.S. Military Warns Of Russian Military Buildup In Eastern Europe | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

It seems to me that this would be a good time for an American President (a real President) to approach our NATO "allies" and tell them that THEY have a problem here, and we are willing to HELP.

Remember that 2%of GDP that they promised to spend on mutual defense? There is no time like the present.

Of course that would require a President with balls.

NATO is the most powerful military force in history.

Russia is nowhere close

Only because of the involvement of the United States. If the US is not in play NATO is nothing

France, UK, Germany, Italy have modern militaries with well trained soldiers and pilots.
They have been preparing for decades

Are you kidding? NATO readiness is at an all time low. Germany only has 244 tanks, many of which are inoperable with no spares to fix them, it has 212 fighters, bombers and attack aircraft, again poorly maintained. It has a total of 215,000 military personnel counting every swinging Richard, cooks, clerks doctors, everyone. France has 406 tanks, 269 fighters, bombers and attack aircraft and 300,000 military personnel. The UK has 209 tanks, 134 fighters, bombers and attack aircraft and 280,000 military personnel. Those the Heavy hitters of NATO. NATO has drawn down from being the well equipped and well trained force of the Cold War. The NATO countries can’t defend themselves, let alone the Ukraine. Russia has serious problems, but it’s far stronger than the European NATO members and is right on the Ukraine’s border. NATO has to move troops and vehicles hundreds of miles to get to the Ukraine.

And Russia?
No, Russia is not stronger than the European NATO members.
Their military is a shell

According the Russian Military doctrine, "Regional wars" are nuclear wars. They have thousands of tactical nukes to fight Europeans and enough of strategical nukes for "in-war detterence" of the USA. Do you believe, that Biden is going to start all-out war (and to kill tens of millions of American citizens) to protect Ukraine, or even the whole Europe? He don't care about Europe, China is his only passion.

If Russia goes nuclear, so will we! BTW, learn to spell deterrence.

Yes, that's the problem. American plans are concentrated on the prevention of the war, not winning the war. "If the deterrence is failed, let's do "something", or, may be, "nothing"." All, what those military planners are thinking is psychology, facades, good look, and so on. Most of American "military" scenarios begin with tensions and finish by all-out nuclear exchange. Most of Russian military scenarios begin with nuclear exchange, and finish by the delimitation of the Canada-Mexican border (or sign of unconditional surrender by American government).
The last more or less realistic American conception of the "protracted war" was created in 1982.

Really? What is your expertise in this area instead of being an armchair quarterback?

Is the commander of the US Strategic Command, Adm. Charles Richard "an armchair quarterback", too?

Charles Richard, U.S. Strategic Command chief: Nuclear war with China or Russia ‘real possibility’

The United States must be ready for a nuclear war with China or Russia and seek new ways to deter both countries’ use of newly acquired advanced strategic weapons, the commander of the U.S. Strategic Command is warning in a major new review of the global balance of nuclear forces.

m.washingtontimes.com

He wrote:
"Government and military leaders need to better understand the new dangers of nuclear conflict and fashion new concepts of deterrence and — if needed — nuclear war-fighting strategies."

"Until we, as a [Defense] Department, come to understand, if not accept, what we are facing and what should be done about it, we run the risk of developing plans we cannot execute and procuring capabilities that will not deliver desired outcomes,” Adm. Richard argued. “In the absence of change, we are on the path, once again, to prepare for the conflict we prefer, instead of one we are likely to face."

Nuclear war is pretty possible, because there are ways to win (or loose) the nuclear war.

Ok. Let's play the game.
---------

1) While the USA are preparing their forces to send in Ukraine, Russia, prepares her own attack: secretly increasing amount of warheads at SSBNs (in violation of New Start, of course, but nobody cares), move tactical nukes to the regular forces, chaotise Ukraine by local agenda to slow down deployment of the US Forces. Putin calls Biden and ask: "Do you really gone bananas and really want to proceed? " If Baiden say yes, then both side proceed.
2) Russia start "civil defense drills" and particularly evactuate their cities.
3) 7 SSBNs of the Northern Fleet, simultaneously crush ice in the Canadian sector of Arctic and launch 7x16x10 - 1120 warheads (95% probability to kill each) in 224 seconds against, say, 500 military targets, including all 400 siloses, strategic air bases and some ports. Attack at "suppressed ballistic trajectory " from the blinking eyes distance, so there is no time to react.
Also, 56 Tu-95MS launch 16 Kontact-2 each (totaly - 896) anti-sat missiles with X-ray laser warheads (say, with 50% single-shot kill probability) US satellites (especially navigation and communication) significantly degraded.
4) Then, Putin declare in public: "You, American, just lost, say, five millions of people, most of them - just a collateral damage, because we avoided attack civilian targets. You still have 327 millions of people, but only few SSBNs with few hundreds of strategic nukes. We have effective ABD, our population is already evacuated and sheltered, our nukes are cocked, locked and ready to launch. The only result of your potentional attack will be death of few thousands of random Russian civilians and our economical losses. But then we'll start massive retaliation - for every launched warhead we'll destroy five your cities. We don't want to kill American civilians, but we definitely will, if you force us. Right now we suggest you cheasefire, and peace negotiations. All what we want (right now) is withdrawn of your forces from Eurasia. If a single missile is launched - we'll demand Alaska, too and your complete denuclearisation." This is called the "Postattack blackmail".
Then, he says to all other countries: "Hey, guys. If you want to join the game and be nuked - you may not intern American forces deployed on your lands. Otherwise, you should be good neutral states. Neutral states don't allow belligerent states to act freely in their territory, in their air and water. Of course, you may accept some of their wounded or refugees, but you should not send in the USA anything that looks like medicine, food, fuel, weapon, munitions and so on. Right now we had suggested them negotiations, try to use all your diplomatic power, to force them to accept our terms, pls".
This is called "in-war deterrence".
-------------

Again you have a vivid imagination.

Any military planner must have it. You know: "What will the enemy does at the answer on our extremely provocative actions? What they can do? What is the position from their points of view? What are their interests? What can we do in response? Etc..."

Even today the best of your subs are noiser than ours and every Typhoon has an American SSN shadowing it as soon as it leaves port. The SSN’s orders are to kill the SSBN as soon as it shows any sign of making launch preparations.

Actually no. The USA usually, in any given moment, have only one (sometimes - two) attack submarine in the Barents sea. And their orders are recon-only (at least at DEFCON 5-2). Nobody want to start the all-out nuclear war, just because the captain of attacking submarine was not informed that the Russians are performing drills. For example, week ago three Russian SSBNs simultaneously crushed ice and surfaced.

Three submarines is lesser than seven, but anyway - it is, potentially, 3x16x10 = 480 warheads. From another hand, if Russians are going to attack USA - they will cover their SSBNs with their own attacking submarines, and even SSBNs have their own torpedoes for sudden attack against one SSN at the close distance.

Your blackmail idea simply won’t work.

Ok. Brave move. May be stupid, but brave.
Are going to attack Vladivostok in some sort of "Doolittle Raid" or you prefer another target? Do you order immediate attack, or you'll give your citizens some time to evacuate themselves from the cities? Don't forget - fifteen minutes after Vladivostok is damaged - five big American cities will be FUBARed.

And the idea of evacuation shelters in your cities just means the survivors die of radiation and starvation after emerging.

Primorski Krai is a rather big region (164 673 sq km) . There is enough food in it, and if you don't order surface bursts - there will be no fallouts at all. One or two 90kt bursts will cause significant devastation in Vladivostok, but not "totally catastrophic" - it will be almost rebuilt in a month.

Putin is a bully running a bluff.

May be. May be not. The only question is in the price of mistake.
If he is bluffing and we take it seriously - we can lost Ukraine. If he is not bluffing and we didn't take it seriously - we can lost the USA.

 

[Silver Cat]

Second - we need the Credible First Strike Capability, which depends on our possibility to counter their retaliation strike. (Detterence Type II).

We have the ability to target thousands of nukes with deadly accuracy.
No need to worry about that

No. Ability to target thousands of nukes with deadly accuracy in the normal situation does not mean possibility to achieve all those goals:
1) to destroy significant part of their strategic and tactical nukes to minimize their retaliation strike to the acceptable level;
2) kill at least 30 millions of Russians and 100 millions of Chineses in situation when their cities are particularly evacuated and population is sheltered;
3) destroy their recuperation potential, including conventional military forces and storage facilities.

All of this US Forces must be able to do in the situation of their active counteractions, including sabotage, espionage, active ABD, erzatz-ABD, etc...

I'm pretty sure, that right now the USA, isn't even at half-way to such possibility (even if we are talking only about Russia and China, not the whole Shanghai Pact).

You’re really funny, delusional, but funny. Exactly where do you think Russia and China are going to evacuate those tens or hundreds of millions of civilians to ride out a nuclear war?

Good question. Russian analog of FEMA - MChS, have roughly 300 thousands of men and women, nearly 38 times more than FEMAFEMA (for the much lesser population), there are NCB-protection troops, there are deputies of chiefs for emergency situations at any significant businesses, who create and twice a year clarify plans of evacuation (for different circumstances), there are plans for police, National Guard, there are school programs of Security, Safety and Survivalnce (more advanced and militarized version of Health and Life Safety) and Initial Military Trainings, etc... The Russians take it really serious. China in 2019 started reforms of their Civil Defense based at the Russian system.

Russian NBC Protection Troops - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ministry of Emergency Situations (Russia) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What will they eat and drink afterwards?

They have the Federal Agency of State Reserves, there are enough of food to feed all Russians for three years.

Federal Agency for State Reserves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What is even more important - they have the Army, and rich and defenseless neighbours to blackmail or simply rob them.

Nuclear war is unsurvivable and any US president who allowed a attack on the USA without retaliation would be torn limb from limb instead of merely being impeached.

Nuclear war is survivable and even winnable, but only if you are well prepared for it. Russia is prepared. China is increasing its readiness. The US politicians prefer to ignore the problem.

The Russians have more FEMA type personnel because its a typical Russian centrally controlled organization. FEMA has very few real employees and they are managers and coordinators, not laborers. FEMA contracts out all real work to local and regional companies on short term emergency contracts. It’s far better and cheaper than the failed Russian idea of government employees doing the work.

Oh, yes... Try to repeat it to the people of New Orleans, how effective FEMA (and their local and regional companies) was in the pretty predictable situation of Hurricane Katrina. Another question is how well prepared are those "local companies" for actions in the post-attack environment.

 

[Dayton3]

NATO has kept the peace for the past 70 plus years. So yes it is viable military organization despite the previous president's efforts to destroy it.

peace????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
do you know how many wars/conflicts/etc there have been??????!!!!

virtually none involving NATO.

1. ????..and??
--the poster said there has been peace since NATO formed = ''kept the peace'''
2. the US has been involved in MANY conflicts/WARS--it is a part of NATO
---a.. this is one of the main points: it's worthless because of the the politics
3. Falklands, 1956 Arab War ,etc
many NATO countries involved in wars/conflicts
4. 9-11 and the hundreds of terrorists attacks on NATO countries/citizens/etc--NATO is useless
= NATO UNDENIABLY has not kept the peace

NATO has largely prevented a major war in Europe. Which was part of its purpose. Not to mention NATO has prevented major wars between its own members such as Iceland/United Kingdom, Greece/Turkey,

1. if you think NATO has prevented wars in Europe, you are way ''off base''
there's no proof of that
2. didn't prevent the Kosovo War or any of all the many conflicts and GENOCIDE there
3. 50,000 dead in Korea...50,000 dead in Vietnam--NATO didn't help there
..Beirut, etc etc etc = US in many conflicts/war

Kosovo War didn't involve NATO nations for the most part.

Korea and Vietnam were never supposed to involve NATO. NATO is the "NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION.

 

[harmonica]

NATO has kept the peace for the past 70 plus years. So yes it is viable military organization despite the previous president's efforts to destroy it.

peace????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
do you know how many wars/conflicts/etc there have been??????!!!!

virtually none involving NATO.

1. ????..and??
--the poster said there has been peace since NATO formed = ''kept the peace'''
2. the US has been involved in MANY conflicts/WARS--it is a part of NATO
---a.. this is one of the main points: it's worthless because of the the politics
3. Falklands, 1956 Arab War ,etc
many NATO countries involved in wars/conflicts
4. 9-11 and the hundreds of terrorists attacks on NATO countries/citizens/etc--NATO is useless
= NATO UNDENIABLY has not kept the peace

NATO has largely prevented a major war in Europe. Which was part of its purpose. Not to mention NATO has prevented major wars between its own members such as Iceland/United Kingdom, Greece/Turkey,

1. if you think NATO has prevented wars in Europe, you are way ''off base''
there's no proof of that
2. didn't prevent the Kosovo War or any of all the many conflicts and GENOCIDE there
3. 50,000 dead in Korea...50,000 dead in Vietnam--NATO didn't help there
..Beirut, etc etc etc = US in many conflicts/war

Kosovo War didn't involve NATO nations for the most part.

Korea and Vietnam were never supposed to involve NATO. NATO is the "NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION.

you don't get it
1. the idiotic quote was '''KEPT THE PEACE '''
get it NOW????!!! Korean and Vietnam/ETC were WARS--not PEACE
....the US, UK, France, etc did NOT have peace --they had various wars --doesn't matter WHERE that war was
2. you said it kept the peace in Europe --wrong-
not only did it not keep the peace , it started the Cuban Missile Crisis/etc
3. hahahhahahahahahahhahha

 

[Dayton3]

NATO has kept the peace for the past 70 plus years. So yes it is viable military organization despite the previous president's efforts to destroy it.

peace????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
do you know how many wars/conflicts/etc there have been??????!!!!

virtually none involving NATO.

1. ????..and??
--the poster said there has been peace since NATO formed = ''kept the peace'''
2. the US has been involved in MANY conflicts/WARS--it is a part of NATO
---a.. this is one of the main points: it's worthless because of the the politics
3. Falklands, 1956 Arab War ,etc
many NATO countries involved in wars/conflicts
4. 9-11 and the hundreds of terrorists attacks on NATO countries/citizens/etc--NATO is useless
= NATO UNDENIABLY has not kept the peace

NATO has largely prevented a major war in Europe. Which was part of its purpose. Not to mention NATO has prevented major wars between its own members such as Iceland/United Kingdom, Greece/Turkey,

1. if you think NATO has prevented wars in Europe, you are way ''off base''
there's no proof of that
2. didn't prevent the Kosovo War or any of all the many conflicts and GENOCIDE there
3. 50,000 dead in Korea...50,000 dead in Vietnam--NATO didn't help there
..Beirut, etc etc etc = US in many conflicts/war

Kosovo War didn't involve NATO nations for the most part.

Korea and Vietnam were never supposed to involve NATO. NATO is the "NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION.

you don't get it
1. the idiotic quote was '''KEPT THE PEACE '''
get it NOW????!!! Korean and Vietnam/ETC were WARS--not PEACE
....the US, UK, France, etc did NOT have peace --they had various wars --doesn't matter WHERE that war was
2. you said it kept the peace in Europe --wrong-
not only did it not keep the peace , it started the Cuban Missile Crisis/etc
3. hahahhahahahahahahhahha

The Cuban Missile Crisis had nothing to do with NATO.

And it matters a great deal "where the war was".

The bottom line is that NATO prevented major war in Europe and KEPT THE PEACE.

Whining about Korea and Vietnam doesn't change that.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Second - we need the Credible First Strike Capability, which depends on our possibility to counter their retaliation strike. (Detterence Type II).

We have the ability to target thousands of nukes with deadly accuracy.
No need to worry about that

No. Ability to target thousands of nukes with deadly accuracy in the normal situation does not mean possibility to achieve all those goals:
1) to destroy significant part of their strategic and tactical nukes to minimize their retaliation strike to the acceptable level;
2) kill at least 30 millions of Russians and 100 millions of Chineses in situation when their cities are particularly evacuated and population is sheltered;
3) destroy their recuperation potential, including conventional military forces and storage facilities.

All of this US Forces must be able to do in the situation of their active counteractions, including sabotage, espionage, active ABD, erzatz-ABD, etc...

I'm pretty sure, that right now the USA, isn't even at half-way to such possibility (even if we are talking only about Russia and China, not the whole Shanghai Pact).

You’re really funny, delusional, but funny. Exactly where do you think Russia and China are going to evacuate those tens or hundreds of millions of civilians to ride out a nuclear war?

Good question. Russian analog of FEMA - MChS, have roughly 300 thousands of men and women, nearly 38 times more than FEMAFEMA (for the much lesser population), there are NCB-protection troops, there are deputies of chiefs for emergency situations at any significant businesses, who create and twice a year clarify plans of evacuation (for different circumstances), there are plans for police, National Guard, there are school programs of Security, Safety and Survivalnce (more advanced and militarized version of Health and Life Safety) and Initial Military Trainings, etc... The Russians take it really serious. China in 2019 started reforms of their Civil Defense based at the Russian system.

Russian NBC Protection Troops - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ministry of Emergency Situations (Russia) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What will they eat and drink afterwards?

They have the Federal Agency of State Reserves, there are enough of food to feed all Russians for three years.

Federal Agency for State Reserves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What is even more important - they have the Army, and rich and defenseless neighbours to blackmail or simply rob them.

Nuclear war is unsurvivable and any US president who allowed a attack on the USA without retaliation would be torn limb from limb instead of merely being impeached.

Nuclear war is survivable and even winnable, but only if you are well prepared for it. Russia is prepared. China is increasing its readiness. The US politicians prefer to ignore the problem.

The Russians have more FEMA type personnel because its a typical Russian centrally controlled organization. FEMA has very few real employees and they are managers and coordinators, not laborers. FEMA contracts out all real work to local and regional companies on short term emergency contracts. It’s far better and cheaper than the failed Russian idea of government employees doing the work.

Oh, yes... Try to repeat it to the people of New Orleans, how effective FEMA (and their local and regional companies) was in the pretty predictable situation of Hurricane Katrina. Another question is how well prepared are those "local companies" for actions in the post-attack environment.

New Orleans was a goat fuck by the local government that had inadequate plans and didn’t even follow the plans they did have. For instance, the city was depending on the school bus fleet to help evacuate those without personal transportation. The problem with that is they didn’t bother to tell either the drivers or managers of the school busses about the plan and despite being in hurricane alley New Orleans never even bother to have disaster drills. Contrast that to Los Angeles’ Northridge earthquake. LA had a plan, had rehearsed it every year and it worked. There was no panic,so starvation and despite being in the middle of a desert with at least ten times the population of NO, adequate water and food. FEMA had people in place within hours and had a fully functional headquarters filling a two story fifty thousand square foot headquarters within four days. I know that because I installed the phone system and helped install the expanded telephone cables for the building.

 

[Dayton3]

NATO has kept the peace for the past 70 plus years. So yes it is viable military organization despite the previous president's efforts to destroy it.

peace????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
do you know how many wars/conflicts/etc there have been??????!!!!

virtually none involving NATO.

1. ????..and??
--the poster said there has been peace since NATO formed = ''kept the peace'''
2. the US has been involved in MANY conflicts/WARS--it is a part of NATO
---a.. this is one of the main points: it's worthless because of the the politics
3. Falklands, 1956 Arab War ,etc
many NATO countries involved in wars/conflicts
4. 9-11 and the hundreds of terrorists attacks on NATO countries/citizens/etc--NATO is useless
= NATO UNDENIABLY has not kept the peace

NATO has largely prevented a major war in Europe. Which was part of its purpose. Not to mention NATO has prevented major wars between its own members such as Iceland/United Kingdom, Greece/Turkey,

1. if you think NATO has prevented wars in Europe, you are way ''off base''
there's no proof of that
2. didn't prevent the Kosovo War or any of all the many conflicts and GENOCIDE there
3. 50,000 dead in Korea...50,000 dead in Vietnam--NATO didn't help there
..Beirut, etc etc etc = US in many conflicts/war

Kosovo War didn't involve NATO nations for the most part.

Korea and Vietnam were never supposed to involve NATO. NATO is the "NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION.

you don't get it
1. the idiotic quote was '''KEPT THE PEACE '''
get it NOW????!!! Korean and Vietnam/ETC were WARS--not PEACE
....the US, UK, France, etc did NOT have peace --they had various wars --doesn't matter WHERE that war was
2. you said it kept the peace in Europe --wrong-
not only did it not keep the peace , it started the Cuban Missile Crisis/etc
3. hahahhahahahahahahhahha

You are wrong on all counts. Especially regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Let me guess. You're one of the idiots that thinks that the Soviets put missiles in Cuba due to U.S. missiles in Turkey.

 

[harmonica]

NATO has kept the peace for the past 70 plus years. So yes it is viable military organization despite the previous president's efforts to destroy it.

peace????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
do you know how many wars/conflicts/etc there have been??????!!!!

virtually none involving NATO.

1. ????..and??
--the poster said there has been peace since NATO formed = ''kept the peace'''
2. the US has been involved in MANY conflicts/WARS--it is a part of NATO
---a.. this is one of the main points: it's worthless because of the the politics
3. Falklands, 1956 Arab War ,etc
many NATO countries involved in wars/conflicts
4. 9-11 and the hundreds of terrorists attacks on NATO countries/citizens/etc--NATO is useless
= NATO UNDENIABLY has not kept the peace

NATO has largely prevented a major war in Europe. Which was part of its purpose. Not to mention NATO has prevented major wars between its own members such as Iceland/United Kingdom, Greece/Turkey,

1. if you think NATO has prevented wars in Europe, you are way ''off base''
there's no proof of that
2. didn't prevent the Kosovo War or any of all the many conflicts and GENOCIDE there
3. 50,000 dead in Korea...50,000 dead in Vietnam--NATO didn't help there
..Beirut, etc etc etc = US in many conflicts/war

Kosovo War didn't involve NATO nations for the most part.

Korea and Vietnam were never supposed to involve NATO. NATO is the "NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION.

you don't get it
1. the idiotic quote was '''KEPT THE PEACE '''
get it NOW????!!! Korean and Vietnam/ETC were WARS--not PEACE
....the US, UK, France, etc did NOT have peace --they had various wars --doesn't matter WHERE that war was
2. you said it kept the peace in Europe --wrong-
not only did it not keep the peace , it started the Cuban Missile Crisis/etc
3. hahahhahahahahahahhahha

You are wrong on all counts. Especially regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Let me guess. You're one of the idiots that thinks that the Soviets put missiles in Cuba due to U.S. missiles in Turkey.

1. insults = you are childish/don't know what you are talking about
2. undeniably you are wrong --there hasn't been peace since NATO originated---there have been many wars = you are out of your mind for saying there has been peace
--50,000 dead Korea...50,000 dead Vietnam..etc etc = NATO hasn't helped the US

 

[Dayton3]

1. insults = you are childish/don't know what you are talking about
2. undeniably you are wrong --there hasn't been peace since NATO originated---there have been many wars = you are out of your mind for saying there has been peace
--50,000 dead Korea...50,000 dead Vietnam..etc etc = NATO hasn't helped the US

Utterly irrelevant. And I didn't insult you.

 

[harmonica]

1. insults = you are childish/don't know what you are talking about
2. undeniably you are wrong --there hasn't been peace since NATO originated---there have been many wars = you are out of your mind for saying there has been peace
--50,000 dead Korea...50,000 dead Vietnam..etc etc = NATO hasn't helped the US

Utterly irrelevant. And I didn't insult you.

there hasn't been a war since 1949 involving NATO countries????!!!??
..yes you did

 

[Dayton3]

1. insults = you are childish/don't know what you are talking about
2. undeniably you are wrong --there hasn't been peace since NATO originated---there have been many wars = you are out of your mind for saying there has been peace
--50,000 dead Korea...50,000 dead Vietnam..etc etc = NATO hasn't helped the US

Utterly irrelevant. And I didn't insult you.

there hasn't been a war since 1949 involving NATO countries????!!!??
..yes you did

Never said that.

 

[Silver Cat]

NATO has kept the peace for the past 70 plus years. So yes it is viable military organization despite the previous president's efforts to destroy it.

peace????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
do you know how many wars/conflicts/etc there have been??????!!!!

virtually none involving NATO.

1. ????..and??
--the poster said there has been peace since NATO formed = ''kept the peace'''
2. the US has been involved in MANY conflicts/WARS--it is a part of NATO
---a.. this is one of the main points: it's worthless because of the the politics
3. Falklands, 1956 Arab War ,etc
many NATO countries involved in wars/conflicts
4. 9-11 and the hundreds of terrorists attacks on NATO countries/citizens/etc--NATO is useless
= NATO UNDENIABLY has not kept the peace

NATO has largely prevented a major war in Europe. Which was part of its purpose. Not to mention NATO has prevented major wars between its own members such as Iceland/United Kingdom, Greece/Turkey,

1. if you think NATO has prevented wars in Europe, you are way ''off base''
there's no proof of that
2. didn't prevent the Kosovo War or any of all the many conflicts and GENOCIDE there
3. 50,000 dead in Korea...50,000 dead in Vietnam--NATO didn't help there
..Beirut, etc etc etc = US in many conflicts/war

Kosovo War didn't involve NATO nations for the most part.

Korea and Vietnam were never supposed to involve NATO. NATO is the "NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION.

you don't get it
1. the idiotic quote was '''KEPT THE PEACE '''
get it NOW????!!! Korean and Vietnam/ETC were WARS--not PEACE
....the US, UK, France, etc did NOT have peace --they had various wars --doesn't matter WHERE that war was
2. you said it kept the peace in Europe --wrong-
not only did it not keep the peace , it started the Cuban Missile Crisis/etc
3. hahahhahahahahahahhahha

You are wrong on all counts. Especially regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Let me guess. You're one of the idiots that thinks that the Soviets put missiles in Cuba due to U.S. missiles in Turkey.

Did you read "The Lost Chance of Khrushchev", too? Nice version, pretty possible, but a bit controversial and speculative, isn't it?

 

[Silver Cat]

Second - we need the Credible First Strike Capability, which depends on our possibility to counter their retaliation strike. (Detterence Type II).

We have the ability to target thousands of nukes with deadly accuracy.
No need to worry about that

No. Ability to target thousands of nukes with deadly accuracy in the normal situation does not mean possibility to achieve all those goals:
1) to destroy significant part of their strategic and tactical nukes to minimize their retaliation strike to the acceptable level;
2) kill at least 30 millions of Russians and 100 millions of Chineses in situation when their cities are particularly evacuated and population is sheltered;
3) destroy their recuperation potential, including conventional military forces and storage facilities.

All of this US Forces must be able to do in the situation of their active counteractions, including sabotage, espionage, active ABD, erzatz-ABD, etc...

I'm pretty sure, that right now the USA, isn't even at half-way to such possibility (even if we are talking only about Russia and China, not the whole Shanghai Pact).

You’re really funny, delusional, but funny. Exactly where do you think Russia and China are going to evacuate those tens or hundreds of millions of civilians to ride out a nuclear war?

Good question. Russian analog of FEMA - MChS, have roughly 300 thousands of men and women, nearly 38 times more than FEMAFEMA (for the much lesser population), there are NCB-protection troops, there are deputies of chiefs for emergency situations at any significant businesses, who create and twice a year clarify plans of evacuation (for different circumstances), there are plans for police, National Guard, there are school programs of Security, Safety and Survivalnce (more advanced and militarized version of Health and Life Safety) and Initial Military Trainings, etc... The Russians take it really serious. China in 2019 started reforms of their Civil Defense based at the Russian system.

Russian NBC Protection Troops - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ministry of Emergency Situations (Russia) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What will they eat and drink afterwards?

They have the Federal Agency of State Reserves, there are enough of food to feed all Russians for three years.

Federal Agency for State Reserves - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What is even more important - they have the Army, and rich and defenseless neighbours to blackmail or simply rob them.

Nuclear war is unsurvivable and any US president who allowed a attack on the USA without retaliation would be torn limb from limb instead of merely being impeached.

Nuclear war is survivable and even winnable, but only if you are well prepared for it. Russia is prepared. China is increasing its readiness. The US politicians prefer to ignore the problem.

The Russians have more FEMA type personnel because its a typical Russian centrally controlled organization. FEMA has very few real employees and they are managers and coordinators, not laborers. FEMA contracts out all real work to local and regional companies on short term emergency contracts. It’s far better and cheaper than the failed Russian idea of government employees doing the work.

Oh, yes... Try to repeat it to the people of New Orleans, how effective FEMA (and their local and regional companies) was in the pretty predictable situation of Hurricane Katrina. Another question is how well prepared are those "local companies" for actions in the post-attack environment.

New Orleans was a goat fuck by the local government that had inadequate plans and didn’t even follow the plans they did have. For instance, the city was depending on the school bus fleet to help evacuate those without personal transportation. The problem with that is they didn’t bother to tell either the drivers or managers of the school busses about the plan and despite being in hurricane alley New Orleans never even bother to have disaster drills. Contrast that to Los Angeles’ Northridge earthquake. LA had a plan, had rehearsed it every year and it worked. There was no panic,so starvation and despite being in the middle of a desert with at least ten times the population of NO, adequate water and food. FEMA had people in place within hours and had a fully functional headquarters filling a two story fifty thousand square foot headquarters within four days. I know that because I installed the phone system and helped install the expanded telephone cables for the building.

Yes. That's the point. When you have good plans, enough of material reserves, if your people are well trained - ok, there is no problem in the case of earthquake, flood or a nuclear strike. If you have not - ok, it's going to be something really bad. How many of "local companies" are really prepared for the nuclear war? Almost nothing.

The Russian Emercom is ready.