What would happen if Russia invaded a NATO country?

[noname223]

The most likely targets/countries would be Estonia and Latvia due to the fact there is a large Russian minority. The plan would be same as the Ukraine plan. Allegedly the minorities are threatened by a Nazi regime and urgently need help.

Noone in the West knows what is going on in Putin's head. How rational his planing actually is.

I think the reaction would depend who is in the White House. If Trump/Vance were in office Russia might be incentivized to do "whatever they want". At the same time Trump is totally erratic and we don't know who will be members of his cabinet.

Do you think NATO would risk a world war if Russia invaded a NATO member? There will come many replies well there is already a war between NATO and Russia. I think the big difference is that NATO countries could directly get attacked the same goes for Russian cities which was thus far rather seldom. Moreover, soldiers of NATO would take part in offensive actions at the front and die.

Actually, I think a war would/is not that unlikely. Obama did not act on the red line of chemical weapons in Syria. But I think the NATO promise (article 5) is way way more important for the stability of the West. At the same time I cannot imagine how the EU without the US could launch a counterattack we are fucked if the US turn their back on us. Poland spends 4% of their GDP on military the Eastern European countries never trusted Putin. My grandma who might die soon always warns me that one day Russia will come to bite us. Maybe she will be right. Maybe I will be already dead before that happens though.

 

[noname223]

Bump

 

[sserafim]

WW3

 

[Agon321]

I am afraid that the Germans will bomb Polish cities out of habit.

 

[DarkRange55]

Originally I think Russia only had 390,000 active combat troops to start with and thats the part I don't really appreciate, the narrative that NATO and Americans are pushing 390,000 troops to take over Poland, Ukraine and whatever comes afterwords. Are you serious? Thats the number you're working with and then you want to sell this narrative? That doesn't make any sense.
Russia has an economy like the size of Texas. They're hated by everybody rightly or wrongly in the entire western world.

How much damage could be done with the destruction of undersea fiber optic cables, cyber attacks?

If we go to war with the Russians there will be a nuclear exchange. We may "win" this nuclear exchange. It wont matter though because our lives will be ruined. Maybe we'll kill 80% of the Russian population and they'll only kill, I don't know, 20% of the US population. Maybe they'll only get a chance to destroy 25% of the major metropolitan areas, maybe they'll only destroy half of the ports and shipping capacity.
I can't speak for Europe because I don't live there but it doesn't look good from what I understand. I don't think our system can withstand the shock of that. And maybe the Russian couldn't either but that doesn't mean a pile of shit if we're dying. It doesn't matter if the Russians are shittier than we are.
I do believe that there are players on the world stage that if they believed they could win a nuclear exchange that they would do it they would try. I think they might try, if they thought could neutralize or their defenses were strong enough and there's been a lot of propaganda put about these ballistic missile defenses all this different kind of stuff and thats part of what interests me about this situation here is how effective are these defense systems because what our government seems to be putting out the idea that we have some really effective air defenses but I don't know that.
The same Intelligence apparatus that told you that fucking Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction is now going to tell us about the state of the Russian nuclear stockpile like they have any fucking clue or their not entirely bankrupt or they should be they're totally intellectually fucking bankrupt.
There are people on the internet that are talking about the capacity of our missile defense which I believe is highly questionable. But I've been reading people saying we can shoot down 85%-95% of their ballistic missiles. I don't know if thats true. Even if it was true, whats fucking 5% of a couple of thousand warheads getting through? How many tens millions of people will that kill?

The most likely targets/countries would be Estonia and Latvia due to the fact there is a large Russian minority. The plan would be same as the Ukraine plan. Allegedly the minorities are threatened by a Nazi regime and urgently need help.

Noone in the West knows what is going on in Putin's head. How rational his planing actually is.

I think the reaction would depend who is in the White House. If Trump/Vance were in office Russia might be incentivized to do "whatever they want". At the same time Trump is totally erratic and we don't know who will be members of his cabinet.

Do you think NATO would risk a world war if Russia invaded a NATO member? There will come many replies well there is already a war between NATO and Russia. I think the big difference is that NATO countries could directly get attacked the same goes for Russian cities which was thus far rather seldom. Moreover, soldiers of NATO would take part in offensive actions at the front and die.

Actually, I think a war would/is not that unlikely. Obama did not act on the red line of chemical weapons in Syria. But I think the NATO promise (article 5) is way way more important for the stability of the West. At the same time I cannot imagine how the EU without the US could launch a counterattack we are fucked if the US turn their back on us. Poland spends 4% of their GDP on military the Eastern European countries never trusted Putin. My grandma who might die soon always warns me that one day Russia will come to bite us. Maybe she will be right. Maybe I will be already dead before that happens though.

You should know when they say "NATO," they mean the US intelligence agencies. Because its quite clear that the US intelligence agencies and embedded bureaucracy runs the federal government of the United States. And the federal government of the United States is what runs NATO. Of course supported by other European states but it doesn't really matter whether they go along with it voluntarily or if we force them into it.
Europe is a cultural/economic/military/maybe even political/diplomatic power but they must exist under the nuclear umbrella of the US like Japan and Korea. Whether the Europeans admit it or not.

Nuclear umbrella - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I did an internship with NATO (and the USTR) and later worked with in Europe…

 

[sash]

If russia invaded a NATO country then its Article 5 would be invoked, & all hell breaks loose.
As Einstein said after WW2 has passed:
"I know not with what weapons WW3 will be fought, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"

 

[tezw]

Hopefully our extinction, I feel the planet would be better served anyhoo, here is hoping, we would al get our wish , and we wouldnt have even have to have done the deed ourselves, bonus, I mean with the weapons at there disposal nowadays they could cause utter mayhem on such a huge scale, it doesnt bare thinking about, when you consider the lives lost during ww2 and the relative primitive technology compared to the modern era, unless your suicidal as we are, I would welcome it I dont know about you op, I keep hoping and preying it escalates to that, anything that leads to our demise I guess.

 

[DarkRange55]

In the Cold War, the US, Soviet Union, and China all had war plans. Years ago, the Poles leaked the Soviet War Plan, called Seven Days to the River Rhine. Based on what we know of the Chinese and American doctrines, the broad strokes of those nations plans were probably similar. The Soviet war plan involved nuking a vast stretch of urban territory in Central Europe, and striking enemy conventional forces with nukes, before penetrating through North Germany to reach the River Rhine. Initially, France and Britain would not be nuked in hopes they could be persuaded to declare neutrality. The US ran a study on Soviet military positioning and its implications on WW3, and concluded that the Soviets would likely follow up with an invasion of Iran, then the rest of the Middle East to cut off the Sino-American oil supply.

Today (how it would start):
Massive cyber attacks on government and civilian infrastructure. Power grid attack.
And surgical strikes trying to gain an overall strategic advantage over the other, and simply one side trying to starve the other off from resources they need. That being said NATO stands more likely to survive the starving attempts.
(For example when the US first invaded Iraq, they used stealth bombers to rake out all of their anti-aircraft radar and stuff to help gain air dominance).


#1
No drones, no nukes, no soldiers. Pure manipulation of currencies and hacking power-stations. Driving the countries to such devastation they wouldn't be able to recover. Previously the losers of wars recover to countries with great economy, see Germany and Japan. They built their countries from within.

#2
Conventional - think world war 2 super saiyan mode. Large countries with a fully mobilized workforce and economy for war will create an extremely bloody war, especially with our new technology. I imagine right off the bat every non-nuclear ICBM will target as much key installations as possible such as oil refineries in order to cripple their force projections. In WW3 all gloves are off so I expect biological warfare too. Nuclear ICBM will be fired as their last option. Invasion like we witnessed against Iraq won't happened till late the ball game as they don't want to overstretch their precious supply lines.

- It's also likely WWIII wouldn't be a total war. There would be no final invasion of the loosing side, as the nuclear threat would be too great, and we don't have the stomach for the casualties any more. More likely, after defanging the military capability, the winner would just blockage the looser until they surrendered. I don't think nuclear weapons will be brought in especially when you're claiming a piece of land for your own, not to mention that is geographically beside you. Maybe chemical weapons that lasts a few months though.

#3
Nuclear - everything dies lmao


@noname223 are you asking how likely the US would be the to actually commit?
Was I too verbose on the other thread for you?

 

[DarkRange55]

U.S. rushes to revive nuclear weapons industry as global tensions mount

Atomic arsenal built in Cold War needs modern revamp

asia.nikkei.com

"The SRS was virtually the country's sole producer of plutonium and tritium for nuclear weapons, something it did until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991… The budget earmarked $19.1 billion for boosting atomic weapons production and stockpiles, with a focus on modernizing so-called plutonium pits -- a key component in these weapons that actually causes a nuclear explosion… The Donald Trump administration took notice of the half-built MOX plant and decided to start operating the facility by 2030 as a weapons factory that would produce 50 plutonium pits a year. The administration of President Joe Biden has inherited the plan and quietly started upgrading and expanding the production equipment."

"The U.S. possesses more than 5,000 nuclear warheads, but many of them were manufactured during the Cold War. Plutonium pits, which are mounted on warheads, may have deteriorated over time. Washington considers replacing them with new ones to be an urgent task, as the country has no plant that can mass-produce the pits. Expectations for the SRS are high.
On top of that, China is rapidly catching up.
The U.S. Defense Department estimates that China will possess over 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030, more than double its current 500. If the U.S. takes too much time replacing the plutonium pits, China could overtake it by deploying state-of-the-art weapons."


Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance | Arms Control Association



The US is currently developing the Sentinel ICBM to replace the Minuteman III.

U.S. Department of Defense (.gov)https://www.defense.gov › ArticleSentinel Land-Based Nuclear Modernization Program Will Continue ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-35_Sentinel

Air Force Global Strike Command (.mil)https://www.afgsc.af.mil › L...PDFLGM-35A Sentinel Fact Sheet

 

[noname223]

In the Cold War, the US, Soviet Union, and China all had war plans. Years ago, the Poles leaked the Soviet War Plan, called Seven Days to the River Rhine. Based on what we know of the Chinese and American doctrines, the broad strokes of those nations plans were probably similar. The Soviet war plan involved nuking a vast stretch of urban territory in Central Europe, and striking enemy conventional forces with nukes, before penetrating through North Germany to reach the River Rhine. Initially, France and Britain would not be nuked in hopes they could be persuaded to declare neutrality. The US ran a study on Soviet military positioning and its implications on WW3, and concluded that the Soviets would likely follow up with an invasion of Iran, then the rest of the Middle East to cut off the Sino-American oil supply.

Today (how it would start):
Massive cyber attacks on government and civilian infrastructure. Power grid attack.
And surgical strikes trying to gain an overall strategic advantage over the other, and simply one side trying to starve the other off from resources they need. That being said NATO stands more likely to survive the starving attempts.
(For example when the US first invaded Iraq, they used stealth bombers to rake out all of their anti-aircraft radar and stuff to help gain air dominance).


#1
No drones, no nukes, no soldiers. Pure manipulation of currencies and hacking power-stations. Driving the countries to such devastation they wouldn't be able to recover. Previously the losers of wars recover to countries with great economy, see Germany and Japan. They built their countries from within.

#2
Conventional - think world war 2 super saiyan mode. Large countries with a fully mobilized workforce and economy for war will create an extremely bloody war, especially with our new technology. I imagine right off the bat every non-nuclear ICBM will target as much key installations as possible such as oil refineries in order to cripple their force projections. In WW3 all gloves are off so I expect biological warfare too. Nuclear ICBM will be fired as their last option. Invasion like we witnessed against Iraq won't happened till late the ball game as they don't want to overstretch their precious supply lines.

- It's also likely WWIII wouldn't be a total war. There would be no final invasion of the loosing side, as the nuclear threat would be too great, and we don't have the stomach for the casualties any more. More likely, after defanging the military capability, the winner would just blockage the looser until they surrendered. I don't think nuclear weapons will be brought in especially when you're claiming a piece of land for your own, not to mention that is geographically beside you. Maybe chemical weapons that lasts a few months though.

#3
Nuclear - everything dies lmao


@noname223 are you asking how likely the US would be the to actually commit?
Was I too verbose on the other thread for you?

I had to go to sleep this is why I did not answer yet. My question in this thread was whether NATO would chicken out if one of the Baltic NATO members was attacked. Would they risk WW3 for that small territory.

 

[DarkRange55]

U.S. rushes to revive nuclear weapons industry as global tensions mount

Atomic arsenal built in Cold War needs modern revamp

asia.nikkei.com

"The SRS was virtually the country's sole producer of plutonium and tritium for nuclear weapons, something it did until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991… The budget earmarked $19.1 billion for boosting atomic weapons production and stockpiles, with a focus on modernizing so-called plutonium pits -- a key component in these weapons that actually causes a nuclear explosion… The Donald Trump administration took notice of the half-built MOX plant and decided to start operating the facility by 2030 as a weapons factory that would produce 50 plutonium pits a year. The administration of President Joe Biden has inherited the plan and quietly started upgrading and expanding the production equipment."

"The U.S. possesses more than 5,000 nuclear warheads, but many of them were manufactured during the Cold War. Plutonium pits, which are mounted on warheads, may have deteriorated over time. Washington considers replacing them with new ones to be an urgent task, as the country has no plant that can mass-produce the pits. Expectations for the SRS are high.
On top of that, China is rapidly catching up.
The U.S. Defense Department estimates that China will possess over 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030, more than double its current 500. If the U.S. takes too much time replacing the plutonium pits, China could overtake it by deploying state-of-the-art weapons."


Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance | Arms Control Association

View attachment 146451

The US is currently developing the Sentinel ICBM to replace the Minuteman III.

U.S. Department of Defense (.gov)https://www.defense.gov › ArticleSentinel Land-Based Nuclear Modernization Program Will Continue ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-35_Sentinel

Air Force Global Strike Command (.mil)https://www.afgsc.af.mil › L...PDFLGM-35A Sentinel Fact Sheet

There is basically a projected failure rate, 100% of them aren't going to go. There are going to be mechanical failures, maybe they wont detonate on impact, some may miss their target. Some wont leave the platform. With the United States thats a very small number. The US does have the best upkeep (overseen largely by the Department of Energy). With Russia given the amount of corruption, lack of proper maintenance and basically incompetence it would be a much higher number.

 

[yellowjester]

Putin would be toppled overnight.