War between NATO and Russia=Nuclear war

mapuc · 01-10-18, 05:56 PM

I know some of you have a lot more knowledge about warfare and doctrines when it comes to war.

I'm in a few discussion with my FB-friends where we discuss:

Posting of Danish soldiers in Estonia
and
the discussion of a report from The Defense Committee
Said following in their report
An armed attack from Russia against Sweden kan not be ruled out

In both of these discussion friends friend have said

NATO will help Sweden
And
If Russia attack Estland it means war with NATO

In both of these discussion I have said

A war between NATO(including USA) and Russia means Nuclear war.

Some of my friends and others said this will not happen.

Maybe they are right about that
I hope I'm wrong and all I have learned about military doctrines and other things are wrong.

Markus

u crank · 01-10-18, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc

A war between NATO(including USA) and Russia means Nuclear war.

Some of my friends and others said this will not happen.

I don't know if they are right or not but nobody wins a nuclear war.

mapuc · 01-10-18, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by u crank

I don't know if they are right or not but nobody wins a nuclear war.

You are 500 % right about that-There is only losers

The question is if Nukes in one way or other will be used if it comes to a War between Russia and NATO.

Or if the diplomats will have success in their effort and create a ceasefire before it happens.

Markus

Commander Wallace · 01-11-18, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc

I know some of you have a lot more knowledge about warfare and doctrines when it comes to war.

A war between NATO(including USA) and Russia means Nuclear war.

Some of my friends and others said this will not happen.

Maybe they are right about that
I hope I'm wrong and all I have learned about military doctrines and other things are wrong.

Markus

I'm thinking cooler heads would hopefully prevail before that happens.

Jimbuna · 01-11-18, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

I'm thinking cooler heads would hopefully prevail before that happens.

AMEN

Skybird · 01-11-18, 10:47 AM

If Russia goes on a shopping tour all of a sudden, the most likely consequence is that European NATO states will start to gobble about whether this now means article 15 or not, and while they may agree that an attack on a NATO member in the Baltic means activating NATO article 5, they will also find that Sweden is no NATO member, and/or the lawyers will take over, because: the famous article 5 is not at all an adamant self-obligation of all NATO memebers to now go to war and fight united and send troops. It indeed only indicates that an attack on one should be considered as an attack on all (that means it is it desirable that states see it like this). This does not mean that all states necessarily must see it like this.

Article 5: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

Also, there is article 11 of the NATO treaty, which says that in case of article 5 becoming active, every state still has the right to base its decision (of joining the party yes or no) on its assessment in how far doing so indeed is in compliance with the national constitution of this state.

Excerpt article 11: "Treaty provisions (shall be) carried out by the parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.”

We are not talking morals, loyalties or ethics here, but juristic wording, and that means no phrase is like it is by chance, and no word has been choosen by random. Its hairsplitting. But that is what it is. Both article 5 and 11 leave the gates wide open for widely varying interpretation sand givenrments finding exycuses for why they would not see a valid reason for activating article 5 and joining the fight. As a matter of fact, even the US congress must pass a declaration of war before the US government/POTUS can send troops to the defence of a European state that got rolled over by a sudden Russian invasion. And congress is under no obligation at all to honour the noble intentions of article 5. It owes to the people that elected it, not Europe.Article 5 and 11 do not imply an automatism in that if one NATO member gets attacked, all others come to its rescue. Maybe not the US, but I could imagine quite some countries in Europe who may prefer to weasel around their deciison to commit troops. Due to mentlaity. Due to costs. Due internal NATO animosities. Due to the fact that any serious Russian aggression committed with detmeirnation and full strength Russia is capable of, means NATO committing to a fight that it most likely currentl y cannot win anyway with conventional wepaons anyway, with regard to Eastern Europe, Baltic states, or befriended non-NATO members like Sweden (which makes calling article 5 even more difficult, and practically: impossible). To join a defensive case of NATO, remains to be an individual and sovereign decision by every single member state. I would not automatically count on loyalty suddenly breaking out in case of article 5, if I look at the way European states behave and act in the EU over the past 20 years. Whether or not the US would stand by its claimed intention to defend Europe with all costs and losses that would mean - we will get a hint on that, ironically on the other side of the planet, in the South Chinese sea. The US and Trump have boasted with words how adamant and deermined their pact is with other states there to defend against the Chinese land-taking in international waters by building artifical islands. If America means it serious and China does not pull back, then war is inevitable. But Trump's behaviour in his meeting with the Chinese leader in last Novembre, was surprisingly benevolent, even docile. See, this is why it is so important to form a much strionger ilitary strength in Europe again, and put it face to face with the Russians on the other side of the NATO-.Russian border. So that such decisions on all out war and article 5 must not be dealt with and a Russian attack do not even arise. That is what deterrence really is about. Currently, NATO's deterrance in Eastern Europe and the Baltic, is almostnon-existent. And that is why I just alugh about European and Germna debates about this all, and the low budgets for defence, the low perosnnel levels. No, I do not think that NATO would seriously embark on all out war once it finds that Russia has annexed the Baltic, as an example, and that is why I can very well understand the nervousness of the Baltic states and in Poland. NATO would be way too late to the party, and then any effort to retake it would be extremely costly in lives, material and money, and the outcome would be uncertain. Many will find many excuses for arguing of why it is unreasonable to put all of Europe at risk and send so many into a useless death, just to defend late in a war that Russia at that time already will have decided.
Sweden, is no NATO member. Fact. And a land invasion is difficult. The non-membership may be countered by the better chance to send reinforcements in time than it is like in case of the Baltic states. Also, why would Russia want to invade Sweden? Any war with Sweden probably is over the Baltic sea and the airspace above it. I think the most likly scenario foundign a Russian deciison to strike Sweden is that they want to close a potentially open flank in case they start aciton in the Baltic and Easteuopean states, so to secure their operaiton via the Batlic sea without risking then Swedish airforce and navy falling into their flank. Lerad nation to defend the Baltic sea , probbaly wouold be Germany. Its navy is too small and outdated for that task, I think, its airforce anyway. Of all our famous - and few!! - Type 212 submarines, none, ha sbeen at sea for many months, they are all non-operational currently. ALL. Status according to early Decembre 2017.

01-10-18, 05:56 PM	#1
mapuc Fleet Admiral Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Denmark Posts: 17,837 Downloads: 37 Uploads: 0	War between NATO and Russia=Nuclear war I know some of you have a lot more knowledge about warfare and doctrines when it comes to war. I'm in a few discussion with my FB-friends where we discuss: Posting of Danish soldiers in Estonia and the discussion of a report from The Defense Committee Said following in their report An armed attack from Russia against Sweden kan not be ruled out In both of these discussion friends friend have said NATO will help Sweden And If Russia attack Estland it means war with NATO In both of these discussion I have said A war between NATO(including USA) and Russia means Nuclear war. Some of my friends and others said this will not happen. Maybe they are right about that I hope I'm wrong and all I have learned about military doctrines and other things are wrong. Markus

01-11-18, 10:47 AM	#6
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 40,460 Downloads: 9 Uploads: 0	If Russia goes on a shopping tour all of a sudden, the most likely consequence is that European NATO states will start to gobble about whether this now means article 15 or not, and while they may agree that an attack on a NATO member in the Baltic means activating NATO article 5, they will also find that Sweden is no NATO member, and/or the lawyers will take over, because: the famous article 5 is not at all an adamant self-obligation of all NATO memebers to now go to war and fight united and send troops. It indeed only indicates that an attack on one *should* be considered as an attack on all (that means it is it desirable that states see it like this). This does not mean that all states necessarily must see it like this. Article 5: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area." Also, there is article 11 of the NATO treaty, which says that in case of article 5 becoming active, every state still has the right to base its decision (of joining the party yes or no) on its assessment in how far doing so indeed is in compliance with the national constitution of this state. Excerpt article 11: "Treaty provisions (shall be) carried out by the parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes.” We are not talking morals, loyalties or ethics here, but juristic wording, and that means no phrase is like it is by chance, and no word has been choosen by random. Its hairsplitting. But that is what it is. Both article 5 and 11 leave the gates wide open for widely varying interpretation sand givenrments finding exycuses for why they would not see a valid reason for activating article 5 and joining the fight. As a matter of fact, even the US congress must pass a declaration of war before the US government/POTUS can send troops to the defence of a European state that got rolled over by a sudden Russian invasion. And congress is under no obligation at all to honour the noble intentions of article 5. It owes to the people that elected it, not Europe.Article 5 and 11 do not imply an automatism in that if one NATO member gets attacked, all others come to its rescue. Maybe not the US, but I could imagine quite some countries in Europe who may prefer to weasel around their deciison to commit troops. Due to mentlaity. Due to costs. Due internal NATO animosities. Due to the fact that any serious Russian aggression committed with detmeirnation and full strength Russia is capable of, means NATO committing to a fight that it most likely currentl y cannot win anyway with conventional wepaons anyway, with regard to Eastern Europe, Baltic states, or befriended non-NATO members like Sweden (which makes calling article 5 even more difficult, and practically: impossible). To join a defensive case of NATO, remains to be an individual and sovereign decision by every single member state. I would not automatically count on loyalty suddenly breaking out in case of article 5, if I look at the way European states behave and act in the EU over the past 20 years. Whether or not the US would stand by its claimed intention to defend Europe with all costs and losses that would mean - we will get a hint on that, ironically on the other side of the planet, in the South Chinese sea. The US and Trump have boasted with words how adamant and deermined their pact is with other states there to defend against the Chinese land-taking in international waters by building artifical islands. If America means it serious and China does not pull back, then war is inevitable. But Trump's behaviour in his meeting with the Chinese leader in last Novembre, was surprisingly benevolent, even docile. See, this is why it is so important to form a much strionger ilitary strength in Europe again, and put it face to face with the Russians on the other side of the NATO-.Russian border. So that such decisions on all out war and article 5 must not be dealt with and a Russian attack do not even arise. That is what deterrence really is about. Currently, NATO's deterrance in Eastern Europe and the Baltic, is almostnon-existent. And that is why I just alugh about European and Germna debates about this all, and the low budgets for defence, the low perosnnel levels. No, I do not think that NATO would seriously embark on all out war once it finds that Russia has annexed the Baltic, as an example, and that is why I can very well understand the nervousness of the Baltic states and in Poland. NATO would be way too late to the party, and then any effort to retake it would be extremely costly in lives, material and money, and the outcome would be uncertain. Many will find many excuses for arguing of why it is unreasonable to put all of Europe at risk and send so many into a useless death, just to defend late in a war that Russia at that time already will have decided. Sweden, is no NATO member. Fact. And a land invasion is difficult. The non-membership may be countered by the better chance to send reinforcements in time than it is like in case of the Baltic states. Also, why would Russia want to invade Sweden? Any war with Sweden probably is over the Baltic sea and the airspace above it. I think the most likly scenario foundign a Russian deciison to strike Sweden is that they want to close a potentially open flank in case they start aciton in the Baltic and Easteuopean states, so to secure their operaiton via the Batlic sea without risking then Swedish airforce and navy falling into their flank. Lerad nation to defend the Baltic sea , probbaly wouold be Germany. Its navy is too small and outdated for that task, I think, its airforce anyway. Of all our famous - and few!! - Type 212 submarines, none, ha sbeen at sea for many months, they are all non-operational currently. ALL. Status according to early Decembre 2017. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.