What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?

[lordtiberius]

Hi!
I'm sorry for being mean to you all the time but you deserve it!! 
Fathertime!

Keep your day job and if that don't apply.  Get one.

[Faux Pas]

Psst! It is Peso. The Peseta was the currency in Spain before the Euro.

I think that was his point in pointing out my error of the Chinese  Japanese yen

[lordtiberius]

Duh

[cc3]

Quite often, subtlety goes unrecognized and, consequently, unappreciated.

[SANDRO43]

I stand corrected. Of course that doesn't move the Eyetalians into the civilized world but I digress 

OK, but we shall be wary of welcoming you as our currency-trading advisor .

[SANDRO43]

The Peseta was the currency in Spain before the Euro.

As was the dollar, before somebody stole the copyright .

[Faux Pas]

OK, but we shall be wary of welcoming you as our currency-trading advisor .

And a very wise choice that would be 

[mendeleyev]

Psst! It is Peso. The Peseta was the currency in Spain before the Euro.

Muzh, and isn't pasta the currency of Italy?   

[Muzh]

Muzh, and isn't pasta the currency of Italy?   

Nope, Pesto is. 

[mendeleyev]

Muzh:

Nope, Pesto is.

Sandro will accuse us both for being cheesy!

[AkMike]

But maybe if they're combined you'll have supper? 

[jone]

Instant dinner?  That would be 'Presto'.

Sorry.  Couldn't resist.

[AkMike]

Not bad!


 Not good but not bad either.!

[SANDRO43]

How about a pasto in un bel posto (a meal in a nice place) ?

Amalfi

[JayH]

The Kremlin is worried about not just what the American troops are teaching the Ukrainians, but what they may be learning from them and the Donbas battlefield.

“Putin is ready to fight with NATO, as he seriously believes that the U.S. wants to occupy Russia.”

There is no doubt that Putin is crazy!

American Paratroopers in Ukraine Have Putin Rattled



YAVORIV, Ukraine — The clatter of rifle fire, the thud of mortars, and the thunder of grenades echoed across this military training ground near the Polish border.

It was nothing that many of the Ukrainian soldiers arriving here hadn’t heard before in the eastern regions of their country, and it was familiar music, as well, to the Americans who have come here to try to make them even better fighters.

The Ukrainians brought stories from the front about the enemy, the arms, and the firepower used against Ukrainian troops. For American soldiers, listening to these members of former Soviet forces talking about their adversaries, also from the former Soviet army, this has been an education. It has given them a chance to study in granular detail a great deal about the evolution of Russian combat forces in the last quarter-century.

Indeed, U.S. troops and Ukrainian troops learning from each other seems to be just the kind of thing that Russian President Vladimir Putin was worrying about when he called an emergency meeting of his security council on Wednesday.

As the pace of fighting in eastern Ukraine picks up (with each side blaming the other, as usual), one of Moscow’s stated concerns is about Ukraine’s new defense doctrine, officially released this week.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/13/american-paratroopers-in-ukraine-have-putin-rattled.html

[oso]

I sent my wife this article. It baffled her. It shows the way they interpret English, and I had to laugh.

Para means couples
Trooper means corpse

Her question to me was, why was the USA sending a couple of corpses ....I had to laugh and explain it to her

[Rick4G]

I dont even need bother reading 80+ pages af banter.  Simple fact is while this muslim bozo is in charge of America there is NOTHING but Ukrainian willpower to stop the Russian agression.  The USA under Obama is content to let Putin have Ukraine if the price is right as long as he can claim victory in Iran and Syria.
Ukraine means absolutely nothing to the Obama regime.  If Ukraine was a muslim country there would already be 100,000 US troops in Ukraine to defend it.
IF, stressing the IF here, the US had a president with balls to stand up to Russia and actually help Ukraine then it would be a simple defeat for the Russian Donbas.

[Darth_Budda]

I do not think the USA could get into a major war right now...

The American Public got their fill in Iraq and Afghanistan...

The next major US War will be against ISIS... Iraq 2.0

[JayH]

The evidence since 2012 is that Putin’s nuclear moves are becoming even more dangerous, including a reported doctrinal innovation that ironically envisions Russia’s first use of nuclear weapons as a form of nuclear “de-escalation” — that is, if Russia uses nuclear weapons in a local conflict, opponents will cease resistance, thus de-escalating the crisis.

 Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work rightfully stated this month in open testimony before Congress that with this doctrinal innovation, Russia “is literally playing with fire.” These are not Cold War musings; they are a description of contemporary reality. 



Putin Wields the Nuclear Threat — and Plays with Fire



During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union established a nuclear relationship commonly called Mutual Assured Destruction, known by the pejorative acronym MAD. The basic notion was that Washington and Moscow each possessed sufficient nuclear capability to destroy the other’s society, however a war might start. This mutual vulnerability was expected to ensure that each would be deterred from severely provoking the other.

 This condition of mutual deterrence, enforced by mutual nuclear vulnerability, was thought to create a “stable balance of terror” that would help prevent large-scale war. That hope was expressed by Sir Winston Churchill when he suggested that “safety will be the sturdy child of terror, and survival the twin brother of annihilation.”

Although the United States never actually adopted MAD as a formal policy, most of the public debate and discussion of nuclear weapons in the United States revolved around the MAD notion of a balance of terror. The father of the atomic bomb, Robert Oppenheimer, for example, described the U.S.–Soviet relationship as akin to “two scorpions in a bottle, each capable of killing the other, but only at the risk of his own life.” While grisly-sounding, MAD and a “stable” balance of terror suggested fundamentally defensive U.S. and Soviet positions, with each side presumably compelled to stay in its lane lest it risk unleashing a nuclear holocaust.    With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, MAD and the balance of terror were relegated to the role of historical footnotes, or so it seemed. Absent the Cold War, most commentators, including senior U.S. military officers, decreed that nuclear weapons, MAD, and nuclear deterrence were increasingly irrelevant.

 Great-power relations supposedly had become more amicable and law-abiding: Nuclear strategy was old-think; nuclear crises were history; and nuclear war was now inconceivable. As the retired commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, General James Cartwright, argued in a 2012 study promoting “nuclear zero”: MAD no longer occupies a central psychological or political space in the U.S.–Russian relationship. . . . The risk of nuclear confrontation between the United States and either Russia or China belongs to the past, not the future. This cheery view became accepted wisdom in Washington, and the Obama administration identified the pursuit of nuclear disarmament (“nuclear zero”) as a high-priority goal. As is often the case, however, the reality of international relations has proven far harsher than accepted wisdom would admit. The stark fact in this third post–Cold War decade is that Russia’s approach to grand strategy and nuclear weapons is more aggressive and indeed more dangerous than ever was envisaged by those who set forth the notions of MAD and a stable balance of terror. Russia’s posture is not the essentially defensive position implicit in notions of MAD and mutual nuclear deterrence. Putin has what Hitler lacked: nuclear weapons.

With these, he attempts to pressure neighboring states to timidly accept Moscow’s desires, including the redrawing of European borders and ‘Russification.’ Instead, Russian president Vladimir Putin has taken a page from Nazi Germany’s playbook of the 1930s and early 1940s. He claims responsibility for ethnic Russian minorities in neighboring countries. We saw this gambit in Russia’s war against Georgia in 2008, in the military occupation of Crimea in 2014, and in its ongoing military operations in Eastern Ukraine. “Ethnic cleansing” and “Russification” of key areas have followed some of these military operations. But Putin has what Hitler lacked: nuclear weapons. With these, he attempts to pressure neighboring states to timidly accept Moscow’s desires, including the redrawing of European borders and “Russification.”

Russia now wields nuclear weapons and threats not only to protect its territory but also to intimidate and coerce its neighbors into submission. Moscow’s crude nuclear threats to its neighbors, including American allies, vividly demonstrate its aggressive nuclear strategy. Those threats are intended to stoke such fear in the U.S. and its allies that all will hesitate to respond strongly to Russian military aggression. For Putin, the fruits of this grand strategy include approval ratings within Russia that are the envy of the world: 89 percent. In short, Russia’s strategy is now one of nuclear coercion, not stable mutual deterrence. How far Putin will push this strategy remains an open question, but recent history does not suggest a comforting answer. As Secretary of Defense Ash Carter observed in a speech to American allies this month: “Moscow’s nuclear sabre-rattling raises questions about Russia’s commitment to strategic stability and causes us . . . to wonder whether . . . they share the profound caution . . . that world leaders in the nuclear age have shown over decades to the brandishing of nuclear weapons.”

 Precisely so, which is why Russia’s nuclear policies are now so dangerous.   Claims that Russia, or any rational country, could use nuclear weapons and strategy in this manner — that they are not merely Cold War relics — continue to be dismissed in most Western quarters as the musings of Cold Warriors. The dangerous reality, however, has been obvious for several years. As the U.S. National Intelligence Council observed in 2012: Nuclear ambitions in the U.S. and Russia over the last 20 years have evolved in opposite directions. Reducing the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security strategy is a U.S. objective, while Russia is pursuing new concepts and capabilities for expanding the role of nuclear weapons in its security strategy.

The evidence since 2012 is that Putin’s nuclear moves are becoming even more dangerous, including a reported doctrinal innovation that ironically envisions Russia’s first use of nuclear weapons as a form of nuclear “de-escalation” — that is, if Russia uses nuclear weapons in a local conflict, opponents will cease resistance, thus de-escalating the crisis. Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work rightfully stated this month in open testimony before Congress that with this doctrinal innovation, Russia “is literally playing with fire.” These are not Cold War musings; they are a description of contemporary reality.   What to do about Russia’s imperialistic and coercive nuclear strategy? The first step is for Washington to awaken from its post–Cold War nuclear stupor and recognize that the world does not conform to the cheery visions put forth by those who continue to oppose U.S. nuclear programs and press for deeper and deeper reductions in America’s nuclear stockpile.

 In recent congressional testimony, Admiral James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, rightly described the situation regarding U.S. nuclear forces: “The choice right now is modernizing or losing deterrent capability. . . . That’s the stark choice we’re faced with.” There no longer is any reasonable argument about the prudent choice.


: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420510/russias-nuclear-strategy-coercion-and-intimidation?target=topic&tid=2402

[Rick4G]

The evidence since 2012 is that Putin’s nuclear moves are becoming even more dangerous, including a reported doctrinal innovation that ironically envisions Russia’s first use of nuclear weapons as a form of nuclear “de-escalation” — that is, if Russia uses nuclear weapons in a local conflict, opponents will cease resistance, thus de-escalating the crisis.

 Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work rightfully stated this month in open testimony before Congress that with this doctrinal innovation, Russia “is literally playing with fire.” These are not Cold War musings; they are a description of contemporary reality. 



Putin Wields the Nuclear Threat — and Plays with Fire



During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union established a nuclear relationship commonly called Mutual Assured Destruction, known by the pejorative acronym MAD. The basic notion was that Washington and Moscow each possessed sufficient nuclear capability to destroy the other’s society, however a war might start. This mutual vulnerability was expected to ensure that each would be deterred from severely provoking the other.

 This condition of mutual deterrence, enforced by mutual nuclear vulnerability, was thought to create a “stable balance of terror” that would help prevent large-scale war. That hope was expressed by Sir Winston Churchill when he suggested that “safety will be the sturdy child of terror, and survival the twin brother of annihilation.”

Although the United States never actually adopted MAD as a formal policy, most of the public debate and discussion of nuclear weapons in the United States revolved around the MAD notion of a balance of terror. The father of the atomic bomb, Robert Oppenheimer, for example, described the U.S.–Soviet relationship as akin to “two scorpions in a bottle, each capable of killing the other, but only at the risk of his own life.” While grisly-sounding, MAD and a “stable” balance of terror suggested fundamentally defensive U.S. and Soviet positions, with each side presumably compelled to stay in its lane lest it risk unleashing a nuclear holocaust.    With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, MAD and the balance of terror were relegated to the role of historical footnotes, or so it seemed. Absent the Cold War, most commentators, including senior U.S. military officers, decreed that nuclear weapons, MAD, and nuclear deterrence were increasingly irrelevant.

 Great-power relations supposedly had become more amicable and law-abiding: Nuclear strategy was old-think; nuclear crises were history; and nuclear war was now inconceivable. As the retired commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, General James Cartwright, argued in a 2012 study promoting “nuclear zero”: MAD no longer occupies a central psychological or political space in the U.S.–Russian relationship. . . . The risk of nuclear confrontation between the United States and either Russia or China belongs to the past, not the future. This cheery view became accepted wisdom in Washington, and the Obama administration identified the pursuit of nuclear disarmament (“nuclear zero”) as a high-priority goal. As is often the case, however, the reality of international relations has proven far harsher than accepted wisdom would admit. The stark fact in this third post–Cold War decade is that Russia’s approach to grand strategy and nuclear weapons is more aggressive and indeed more dangerous than ever was envisaged by those who set forth the notions of MAD and a stable balance of terror. Russia’s posture is not the essentially defensive position implicit in notions of MAD and mutual nuclear deterrence. Putin has what Hitler lacked: nuclear weapons.

With these, he attempts to pressure neighboring states to timidly accept Moscow’s desires, including the redrawing of European borders and ‘Russification.’ Instead, Russian president Vladimir Putin has taken a page from Nazi Germany’s playbook of the 1930s and early 1940s. He claims responsibility for ethnic Russian minorities in neighboring countries. We saw this gambit in Russia’s war against Georgia in 2008, in the military occupation of Crimea in 2014, and in its ongoing military operations in Eastern Ukraine. “Ethnic cleansing” and “Russification” of key areas have followed some of these military operations. But Putin has what Hitler lacked: nuclear weapons. With these, he attempts to pressure neighboring states to timidly accept Moscow’s desires, including the redrawing of European borders and “Russification.”

Russia now wields nuclear weapons and threats not only to protect its territory but also to intimidate and coerce its neighbors into submission. Moscow’s crude nuclear threats to its neighbors, including American allies, vividly demonstrate its aggressive nuclear strategy. Those threats are intended to stoke such fear in the U.S. and its allies that all will hesitate to respond strongly to Russian military aggression. For Putin, the fruits of this grand strategy include approval ratings within Russia that are the envy of the world: 89 percent. In short, Russia’s strategy is now one of nuclear coercion, not stable mutual deterrence. How far Putin will push this strategy remains an open question, but recent history does not suggest a comforting answer. As Secretary of Defense Ash Carter observed in a speech to American allies this month: “Moscow’s nuclear sabre-rattling raises questions about Russia’s commitment to strategic stability and causes us . . . to wonder whether . . . they share the profound caution . . . that world leaders in the nuclear age have shown over decades to the brandishing of nuclear weapons.”

 Precisely so, which is why Russia’s nuclear policies are now so dangerous.   Claims that Russia, or any rational country, could use nuclear weapons and strategy in this manner — that they are not merely Cold War relics — continue to be dismissed in most Western quarters as the musings of Cold Warriors. The dangerous reality, however, has been obvious for several years. As the U.S. National Intelligence Council observed in 2012: Nuclear ambitions in the U.S. and Russia over the last 20 years have evolved in opposite directions. Reducing the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. security strategy is a U.S. objective, while Russia is pursuing new concepts and capabilities for expanding the role of nuclear weapons in its security strategy.

The evidence since 2012 is that Putin’s nuclear moves are becoming even more dangerous, including a reported doctrinal innovation that ironically envisions Russia’s first use of nuclear weapons as a form of nuclear “de-escalation” — that is, if Russia uses nuclear weapons in a local conflict, opponents will cease resistance, thus de-escalating the crisis. Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work rightfully stated this month in open testimony before Congress that with this doctrinal innovation, Russia “is literally playing with fire.” These are not Cold War musings; they are a description of contemporary reality.   What to do about Russia’s imperialistic and coercive nuclear strategy? The first step is for Washington to awaken from its post–Cold War nuclear stupor and recognize that the world does not conform to the cheery visions put forth by those who continue to oppose U.S. nuclear programs and press for deeper and deeper reductions in America’s nuclear stockpile.

 In recent congressional testimony, Admiral James Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, rightly described the situation regarding U.S. nuclear forces: “The choice right now is modernizing or losing deterrent capability. . . . That’s the stark choice we’re faced with.” There no longer is any reasonable argument about the prudent choice.


: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420510/russias-nuclear-strategy-coercion-and-intimidation?target=topic&tid=2402

this article is dead on accurate.  Russia right now has no qualms about using tactical nuclear weapons to achieve their goals because they know that the west will bow down and capitulate to thier demands if they go there.  lets face the facts. Obama only gives a fuck about muslims.  Ukraine is not a muslim country so its only an inconvenient point to him.
Syria is more important.  His muslim brotherhood friends must be allowed to remove Assad and set up shop in Syria since they failed in Egypt and Libya.
Obama will support the Iranian plan for Syria

[Muzh]

this article is dead on accurate.  Russia right now has no qualms about using tactical nuclear weapons to achieve their goals because they know that the west will bow down and capitulate to thier demands if they go there.  lets face the facts. Obama only gives a fuck about muslims.  Ukraine is not a muslim country so its only an inconvenient point to him.
Syria is more important.  His muslim brotherhood friends must be allowed to remove Assad and set up shop in Syria since they failed in Egypt and Libya.
Obama will support the Iranian plan for Syria

Do you really think Russia would use their nukes and the US would do nothing?


Put down that cup of kool aid and stand back.

[calmissile]

Do you really think Russia would use their nukes and the US would do nothing?

It would depend if your buddy Obama is still Commander In Chief!

[Brasscasing]

It would depend if your buddy Obama is still Commander In Chief!

I'm going to use your comment as a segue, Cal. I'm no conspiracy theorist. However, an open question...

Off the top of my head my understanding of the 22nd Amendment is to secure a third term there has to be exceptional circumstances confronting the nation (US) and the sitting president has to gain approval of 75% of Congress, is this correct?

Or are there any other circumstances a President could secure a third term. For instance, like declaring martial law under threat of a pre-emptive strategic attack?

Brass

[KenInUtah]

You are correct but here are the two problems that Obama would have if that was his plan.
1) There is no way he'd get enough approval from Congress
2) If he declared Martial Law, he'd be overthrown in minutes as the government would not agree, the States would not agree and the military (which hates him) would not enforce it.  Declaring Martial Law would basically start a civil war on the homefront that would be over very quick once Obama was arrested.

[Muzh]

You are correct but here are the two problems that Obama would have if that was his plan.
1) There is no way he'd get enough approval from Congress
2) If he declared Martial Law, he'd be overthrown in minutes as the government would not agree, the States would not agree and the military (which hates him) would not enforce it.  Declaring Martial Law would basically start a civil war on the homefront that would be over very quick once Obama was arrested.

Oh for heavens sake. Why would President Obama would declare martial law? 


Second, who gives a rat's ass if the military hates him. They are bound by an oath to defend the constitution of the US and obey the CinC. This is NOT a theocracy a la Iran, no matter how much the conservatives would love to install.


How's the cave with survival gear coming up, dude?