Thanato, on 08 November 2009 - 12:03 PM, said:
You miss understand me, I am talking logisticly. We have moutines, Rivers, lakes (by the dozen in some small areas) so that if Russia was going to steam roll through Canada to reach the US they would have to deal with heavily foristed areas, or sparsly forested areas, Flat open terrain (easy for retalitory strikes from the CAF, the USAF and USAAF. Then we also have ruged moutininous terran through out the nation. Yes we have well developed highways and roads through these areas but it wouldnt take much to cause a hold up by taking out bridges, blowup cratores into roads causing rockslides... Then you have the vast distance and mechanical issues to worry about.
It would be a logistial nighmare for hte Russians to project power that far other then Air power.
~Thanato
This is the logic of WW2! WW3 would not be anyhow resembling it at all. There would be no massive armies operating, no fronts, no pits - as any massive army is visible from the satellites, so as soon as over a 1000 people get together, a 5 kt nuke would terminate them on a spot. Small mobile groups would be most likely operating autonomously, coordinated from remote locations or by the satellites (if these survive the first week). There is no more need in the land battles - nukes clear the root, and the groups move another 100 km ahead. No need in precise munitions too, a nuke may miss half a kilometre and would still do the job. Any "organised resistance" would only last the time needed to call artillery support. 10 troopers would be enough to control a town with 10,000 population, because it would be empty.
There would be no CAF too, if more exact there would be no airfields and no supplies for them to use. During Cold War the time needed to defeat Western Europe was in some plans estimated as 45 minutes plus a couple of days for occupation. It is another century around. The worst part since 1998 (attack on Serbia) is that since that moment Russia is reducing the army from year to year. What only slows them is the need to build apartments and provide employment for the redundant personnel, as otherwise they would have a riot. This only means they are not prepared to enter any conventional war and suffer any losses of it - the smaller army they have, the higher is probability of the nuclear war. Poland is not Poland anymore, it is EU and NATO - and if Poland seeks American missile defences installed, then it is EU and NATO who would be hold responsible (by Russia's 1999 Law if one NATO country attacks it, Russia would consider itself in the state of war with entire NATO, and AMD accounts for a preparation to an attack) and just recently they have officially dropped the threshold, after which the usage of nuclear weapons would be seen as justified and even allowed the president to call a preventative strike. As I said, the exact number of tactical weapons they have is unknown, because there never was any international treaty which controls or limits them. I only know that They have some city in Siberia (forgot the name) in which they have to keep 4 reactors going for many years, as the city has no other sources of heat and power. The population has no employment chances except for working for Mr Burns. All 4 reactors bake a new nuke every 3.5 days (Plutonium cycle!), so they have 8 more every week, just over 400 a year - US was trying to force them stopping the operations since 1990s... Makes it 8000 made just recently and only in one place. This is 8000 cities of Hiroshima size! All charges can be delivered by a cropduster, artillery or a short range missile, as such device contains about 16 kg of active material and ranges only from 5 to 25 kiloton. An aircraft-carrier group needs only one like that... No wonder Germany is so friendly!
Given that Russia would get appropriate response from NATO, we can expect Northern Hemisphere to become depopulated in the event of such war. Russia only relies on its vast territory and low density of population. No one in this world wants a war like that, even Osama bin Laden (as this war would evaporate his money too) - so they are only rising the bar in the international relationships, but this cannot be done indefinitely. I am 99% sure this would never happen (EU would give in), and the only thing which really concerns me is the presence of little ambitious NATO members near Russia's border, particularly of Poland, which is (as it is seen in historical retrospective) a completely loose cannon. As soon as it gets US ABM, it may start to provoke the confrontation BEFORE Russia claims some retribution. I doubt that US has some real malicious intentions here, but the problem with USA is that the policies of this country are naturally based on the national game of favour, poker - while this game is barely known in Russia, so the bluff can be taken there at face value and cause some unexpected response, as they got used to complex political games, based on chess. They may once notice the Queen exposed and take it! They have already taken the game seriously once - after discovering themselves unable to defend Serbia, they immediately removed drunk Yeltsin and appointed a KGB Colonel to run the show. So it is better to see those exercises in the full context. We are talking about absolutely giant scale of the events, in which such country as Canada would not even be considered a country, but just as "land" by all participants.
Sign In
Register
Help
Board Index
have a good one.
Top
MultiQuote
