Even with nuclear annihilation, NATO could still get to Moscow in a three day operation. It’s just a question of which cities back home are still standing.
Moscow is not the big prize you might think it is. Russia can just retreat hundreds of kilometers further east and carry on.
NATO can do the thunder run, but they are not equipped to win a massive land war in Asia. You really gotta listen to the Sicilian from Princess Bride on this one.
Russia can just retreat hundreds of kilometers further east and carry on.
Into what, a wasteland full of snow and bears? Russia might be massive, but it works like Canada. Everybody is huddled into very specific regions for a reason.
I’m just repeating what happened or what the plan was the last couple of go arounds, with Napoleon and Hitler.
Napoleon did occupy Moscow, but it didn’t help him very much.
Hitler was turned back just short of Moscow, but the Russian government had all sorts of continuity plans that involved moving further east. Entire factories were uprooted and shipped into the Urals.
Napoleon did occupy Moscow, but it didn’t help him very much.
Because he was trying to wait for the Tsar’s peace negotiations. Not because taking Moscow wasn’t a major victory. The issue is that Napoleon had no intention of pursuing the war any further, but the Tsar was not willing to give up at the point they were at, because the Tsar realized that Napoleon wanted a quick surrender, not a chase across the Asian steppes.
Occupying Moscow is like occupying DC. The politicians will fly to safety and you are left occupying a city of low level administrative personnel and restaurants. Nothing of military value is manufactured in Moscow just like DC.
If nukes started popping off, there’d be zero reason to send in ground forces until it was all over. Lastly, I’m not convinced Russia’s nuclear program is much better off than NATO’s. So many interviews with nuke watch officers talking about how old and decrepit our silos are. The DoD supposedly approved a modernization package a few years ago for all of them, but I’m still skeptical how efficient the targeting is on everything and how well they’ll avoid missile defense systems.
None of the current ICBM platforms were designed for missile defense. Missile defense simply did not exist at the time.
Sentinel is busting its budget because it’s renovating and rebuilding all of the ground segments: all of those decrepit silos and computer systems. It’s still money well spent in my opinion.
Missile guidance is not a computationally hard problem, and it hasn’t changed much since the 50s. Terminal missile defense is a fantastically hard problem, and wasn’t mastered until the last decade or two. And the current generation missile defense capabilities still haven’t all been demonstrated in combat.
Having said that, I would generally expect NATO’s missiles to work as advertised in a hot war. And I would plan for Russia’s missiles to be somewhat less effective than they advertise, but still a credible threat.
Regardless, I truly hope we never have to find out either way. The human species is capable of incredible things if we just set aside historical, cultural, and petty differences and worked towards a common goal of lifting everyone up. Wars of aggression are barbaric and unnecessary and I hope one day we all mentally evolve past such tendencies for mass violence. It’s a naive pipe dream, but one can always dream.
Even with nuclear annihilation, NATO could still get to Moscow in a three day operation. It’s just a question of which cities back home are still standing.
Moscow is not the big prize you might think it is. Russia can just retreat hundreds of kilometers further east and carry on.
NATO can do the thunder run, but they are not equipped to win a massive land war in Asia. You really gotta listen to the Sicilian from Princess Bride on this one.
Into what, a wasteland full of snow and bears? Russia might be massive, but it works like Canada. Everybody is huddled into very specific regions for a reason.
I’m just repeating what happened or what the plan was the last couple of go arounds, with Napoleon and Hitler.
Napoleon did occupy Moscow, but it didn’t help him very much.
Hitler was turned back just short of Moscow, but the Russian government had all sorts of continuity plans that involved moving further east. Entire factories were uprooted and shipped into the Urals.
Try doing that now
Soviets would’ve gotten their ass handed to them without lend lease.
Because he was trying to wait for the Tsar’s peace negotiations. Not because taking Moscow wasn’t a major victory. The issue is that Napoleon had no intention of pursuing the war any further, but the Tsar was not willing to give up at the point they were at, because the Tsar realized that Napoleon wanted a quick surrender, not a chase across the Asian steppes.
Occupying Moscow is like occupying DC. The politicians will fly to safety and you are left occupying a city of low level administrative personnel and restaurants. Nothing of military value is manufactured in Moscow just like DC.
Except there isn’t a California 1000 miles away, there is only Bumfuck Alabama.
Most of their industry is there, because it’s where most of people live.
No, it’s in the Urals
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motovilikha_Plants
If nukes started popping off, there’d be zero reason to send in ground forces until it was all over. Lastly, I’m not convinced Russia’s nuclear program is much better off than NATO’s. So many interviews with nuke watch officers talking about how old and decrepit our silos are. The DoD supposedly approved a modernization package a few years ago for all of them, but I’m still skeptical how efficient the targeting is on everything and how well they’ll avoid missile defense systems.
None of the current ICBM platforms were designed for missile defense. Missile defense simply did not exist at the time.
Sentinel is busting its budget because it’s renovating and rebuilding all of the ground segments: all of those decrepit silos and computer systems. It’s still money well spent in my opinion.
Missile guidance is not a computationally hard problem, and it hasn’t changed much since the 50s. Terminal missile defense is a fantastically hard problem, and wasn’t mastered until the last decade or two. And the current generation missile defense capabilities still haven’t all been demonstrated in combat.
Having said that, I would generally expect NATO’s missiles to work as advertised in a hot war. And I would plan for Russia’s missiles to be somewhat less effective than they advertise, but still a credible threat.
All valid and fair points.
Regardless, I truly hope we never have to find out either way. The human species is capable of incredible things if we just set aside historical, cultural, and petty differences and worked towards a common goal of lifting everyone up. Wars of aggression are barbaric and unnecessary and I hope one day we all mentally evolve past such tendencies for mass violence. It’s a naive pipe dream, but one can always dream.
It’s difficult to counter a MIRV regardless of how old it is.
Nobody has ever considered Russia a prize, or at least nobody that wasn’t a complete idiot.
It’s a festering shithole full of Russians, a nuke would improve it dramatically.
Nobody wants to win a war in Russia, but nobody has to.
Knock out Moscow, the rest of Russia hates them and will fracture instantly.
Many beautiful women that never smile.