Let's Invade Russia!

[LordKiran]

Sure but that's not what I'm talking about. Napoleon at least had the excuse that armies still largely depended on foraging for supplies in his time. What's Hitler's excuse for advancing well past his own supply lines?

The same as his excuse for not providing adequate winter clothing for his armies; and for not using tanks with wide tracks that could cope with the Russian mud; and for attacking on too many fronts simultaneously; and for not making tactical withdrawals to save his armies from annihilation - He thought that sheer force of will and German racial superiority could lead to victory, regardless of any considerations of mere reality.

To add to this convincing list, I'd like to throw in Hitler's general indecision when it came to overall strategy.

 

[bilby]

The same as his excuse for not providing adequate winter clothing for his armies; and for not using tanks with wide tracks that could cope with the Russian mud; and for attacking on too many fronts simultaneously; and for not making tactical withdrawals to save his armies from annihilation - He thought that sheer force of will and German racial superiority could lead to victory, regardless of any considerations of mere reality.

To add to this convincing list, I'd like to throw in Hitler's general indecision when it came to overall strategy.

And his diversion of resources to projects not immediately required for victory, such as Einsatzgruppen, Vergeltungswaffen, the diversion of Bombing efforts to target civilian populations rather than military objectives, Death camps, The capture of Stalingrad, etc...

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Your stance presumes that the US would be the aggressor.

It doesn't, in terms of who starts the war. My point is that realistically, there will be no attempt to invade Russia. If - say - Russia were to attempt an invassion of the Baltic states, NATO might react and even temporarily take some Russian territory, but it's not realistic that they'd attempt to keep it for long, let alone to invade Russia. One of the reasons is that they know Putin would very probably go nuclear if he can't win otherwise.

Even then, all the US need do is wait for another provocative military action from the Russian Government on the scale of the Ukraine invasion as a pretext for an ultimatum. "Get out or else."

Yes, but that's only enough for war. It's not enough for invassion.

As for the question of battlefield nukes, it really depends on where those nukes hit. If they're within US gains then that's really just another form of losing isn't it? Kill a few ten thousand men and poison your own lands for generations to come?

1. The extent of the effects of radiation from nukes over time and over large areas has been wildly exaggerated. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit by nukes much bigger than tactical ones. They're still large cities, with quality of life much better than most cities in the world (clearly, since they're in Japan).
2. Even if you were right about the poisoning, Putin would still do it since he cares a lot more about his own survival and the survival of his regime (closely linked) than he cares about keeping some areas in Russia clean from radiation.

If they're dropped within allied territories then Putin is just digging his own grave at that point and will only ensure a less secure position in peace talks at best.

Nukes might be used against military bases in Western Europe, Ukraine, etc., since small groups of special forces probably can get close enough by various infiltration means (e.g., submarines, small boats), and carry small tactical nukes. I'm not sure whether Putin would use them in that way at first when he decides to go nuclear, or at first only in Russian territory, and then escalate a bit more if - unlikely - the use of tactical nukes fails to deter an American invasion.

In any case, I don't think Putin would be digging his grave. On the contrary, if Russia is in fact being invaded by US forces, it would be in his interest to use tactical nukes, as that would increase his chances of survival in the long run, rather than decrease them. I don't think the invasion would be successful by the way, and precisely for that reason (tactical nukes).

Additionally, I'm pretty sure Putin would throw everything he has at American and other NATO satellites. If he only has ballistic missiles with big nukes for that (I don't know), then so be it. Satellites in many cases are quite easy to spot, have predictable orbits, and no defenses. Losing their satellites is a serious problem for NATO forces. But I think tactical nukes are probably much more decisive.

 

[Rayschism]

America might have stealth nuclear missiles.

However, this is just speculation.

 

[Sarpedon]

Which is why the Russians have the "Dead Hand."

 

[LordKiran]

It doesn't, in terms of who starts the war. My point is that realistically, there will be no attempt to invade Russia. If - say - Russia were to attempt an invassion of the Baltic states, NATO might react and even temporarily take some Russian territory, but it's not realistic that they'd attempt to keep it for long, let alone to invade Russia. One of the reasons is that they know Putin would very probably go nuclear if he can't win otherwise.

Even then, all the US need do is wait for another provocative military action from the Russian Government on the scale of the Ukraine invasion as a pretext for an ultimatum. "Get out or else."

Yes, but that's only enough for war. It's not enough for invassion.

As for the question of battlefield nukes, it really depends on where those nukes hit. If they're within US gains then that's really just another form of losing isn't it? Kill a few ten thousand men and poison your own lands for generations to come?

1. The extent of the effects of radiation from nukes over time and over large areas has been wildly exaggerated. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit by nukes much bigger than tactical ones. They're still large cities, with quality of life much better than most cities in the world (clearly, since they're in Japan).
2. Even if you were right about the poisoning, Putin would still do it since he cares a lot more about his own survival and the survival of his regime (closely linked) than he cares about keeping some areas in Russia clean from radiation.

If they're dropped within allied territories then Putin is just digging his own grave at that point and will only ensure a less secure position in peace talks at best.

Nukes might be used against military bases in Western Europe, Ukraine, etc., since small groups of special forces probably can get close enough by various infiltration means (e.g., submarines, small boats), and carry small tactical nukes. I'm not sure whether Putin would use them in that way at first when he decides to go nuclear, or at first only in Russian territory, and then escalate a bit more if - unlikely - the use of tactical nukes fails to deter an American invasion.

In any case, I don't think Putin would be digging his grave. On the contrary, if Russia is in fact being invaded by US forces, it would be in his interest to use tactical nukes, as that would increase his chances of survival in the long run, rather than decrease them. I don't think the invasion would be successful by the way, and precisely for that reason (tactical nukes).

Additionally, I'm pretty sure Putin would throw everything he has at American and other NATO satellites. If he only has ballistic missiles with big nukes for that (I don't know), then so be it. Satellites in many cases are quite easy to spot, have predictable orbits, and no defenses. Losing their satellites is a serious problem for NATO forces. But I think tactical nukes are probably much more decisive.

Sort of off-topic but the topic of satellites being vulnerable has come up multiple times for me so I have to ask: Why don't satellites have point defense?

 

[Sarpedon]

It is expensive to launch things into space. The more heavy they are, the more expensive. Satellites are designed to be as light as possible to fulfill their function. Doubtless the defense industry engineers studied whether such systems were worth the weight, and decided not.

 

[LordKiran]

It is expensive to launch things into space. The more heavy they are, the more expensive. Satellites are designed to be as light as possible to fulfill their function. Doubtless the defense industry engineers studied whether such systems were worth the weight, and decided not.

I mean if a bunch of satellites are destroyed in a war, that's sort of our problem too...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

 

[Sarpedon]

Military planners are notorious for disregarding the environmental cost of conflict.

 

[funinspace]

This discussion got me thinking about the 1st Gulf war to expel Iraq out of Kuwait. At the time, I was in the Silly Service working for the Navy. I remember so much misplaced fear about how we would have so many casualties in pushing Iraq out with shades of Vietnam mentioned quite a bit. I didn't see it that way, but I wasn't 100% sure. It turned out that the fish that swallowed a guppy, got shredded by a white shark. The US coalition was insanely over-prepared and it showed. It also probably saved more than a few lives.

Amazing how times change, as this much clearer war cause barely got thru the Senate. Though at least there was a Congressional vote...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Military_means

The story was an influence in tipping both the public and Congress towards a war with Iraq: six Congressmen said the testimony was enough for them to support military action against Iraq and seven Senators referenced the testimony in debate. The Senate supported the military actions in a 52–47 vote.

 

[funinspace]

It is expensive to launch things into space. The more heavy they are, the more expensive. Satellites are designed to be as light as possible to fulfill their function. Doubtless the defense industry engineers studied whether such systems were worth the weight, and decided not.

The below is probably a decent article on the (non) militarization of space. The US probably has far more satellites in higher orbit, which will make them harder to destroy. The US along with Russia and China all say they aren't militarizing space, but...
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...military-is-preparing-for-the-real-star-wars/

Where the United States can count on allies to host parts of a global sensor network, China has few formal allies and can only deploy space-awareness systems inside its own borders, on ships at sea or in space. The Chinese military can watch the skies over East Asia, but is mostly blind elsewhere.

By contrast, Russia inherited an impressive space-awareness network from the Soviet Union. Russia’s allies in Europe — in particular, the former Soviet and Eastern Bloc states — extend the network’s field of view. As a result, Moscow possesses “a relatively complete catalog of space objects,” the Secure World Foundation concluded.

But Russia is still far behind the United States and China as far as space weaponry is concerned. There was a 31-year gap between the Soviet Union’s last anti-satellite test and Russia’s first post-Soviet orbital-weapon experiment. On Christmas Day in 2013, Russia quietly launched a small, maneuverable inspection spacecraft into low orbit, hiding the tiny spacecraft among a cluster of communications satellites.

Two more space inspectors followed, one in May 2014 and another in March 2015. Moscow hasn’t said much about them, but amateur satellite spotters have tracked the vehicles performing the kinds of maneuvers consistent with orbital attack craft

 

[Rayschism]

Stealth satellites.

Maybe Aliens is prophetic.

 

[bilby]

It is expensive to launch things into space. The more heavy they are, the more expensive. Satellites are designed to be as light as possible to fulfill their function. Doubtless the defense industry engineers studied whether such systems were worth the weight, and decided not.

I mean if a bunch of satellites are destroyed in a war, that's sort of our problem too...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

This answers your first question though - point defense against even small numbers of high speed projectiles would need to be massive and/or power-hungry. To install a defense system on a satellite that could reasonably protect it against even small projectiles traveling at high speed would be impractical - and even debris not intended to be offensive is encountered at high closing speeds in orbit.

Space isn't hard to get to because it's a long way off (it isn't); Space is hard to get to because to stay there you have to be going very fast indeed. And kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity. Which means that satellites can't afford to carry needless mass; and that even low-mass projectiles are going to be deadly at the sorts of speeds that are inevitable in orbit.

In orbital warfare, the attackers will always have a massive advantage over the defenders, so the only likely result of orbital war would be nobody left with any satellites at all.

 

[LordKiran]

I mean if a bunch of satellites are destroyed in a war, that's sort of our problem too...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

This answers your first question though - point defense against even small numbers of high speed projectiles would need to be massive and/or power-hungry. To install a defense system on a satellite that could reasonably protect it against even small projectiles traveling at high speed would be impractical - and even debris not intended to be offensive is encountered at high closing speeds in orbit.

Space isn't hard to get to because it's a long way off (it isn't); Space is hard to get to because to stay there you have to be going very fast indeed. And kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity. Which means that satellites can't afford to carry needless mass; and that even low-mass projectiles are going to be deadly at the sorts of speeds that are inevitable in orbit.

In orbital warfare, the attackers will always have a massive advantage over the defenders, so the only likely result of orbital war would be nobody left with any satellites at all.

How about supporting orbitals which tail the orbits of other, vulnerable satellites?

 

[bilby]

This answers your first question though - point defense against even small numbers of high speed projectiles would need to be massive and/or power-hungry. To install a defense system on a satellite that could reasonably protect it against even small projectiles traveling at high speed would be impractical - and even debris not intended to be offensive is encountered at high closing speeds in orbit.

Space isn't hard to get to because it's a long way off (it isn't); Space is hard to get to because to stay there you have to be going very fast indeed. And kinetic energy is proportional to the square of velocity. Which means that satellites can't afford to carry needless mass; and that even low-mass projectiles are going to be deadly at the sorts of speeds that are inevitable in orbit.

In orbital warfare, the attackers will always have a massive advantage over the defenders, so the only likely result of orbital war would be nobody left with any satellites at all.

How about supporting orbitals which tail the orbits of other, vulnerable satellites?

That doesn't help; it's essentially the same cost as adding shielding directly to the satellite itself (ie a shitload of cost); and is slightly less effective (ie not much use). Plus it entails the risk of taking out your own satellite if the orbital placement is even slightly imperfect.

 

[barbos]

Just reverse polarity, it always works.

 

[bilby]

Just reverse polarity, it always works.

Indeed. Or you can route the flux from the warp core through the main deflector dish. That one is always surprisingly effective, despite the chief engineer's protestations that the engines cannae take it.

 

[Sarpedon]

The back up plan for the USA seems to be to use our reusable robot space plane to substitute for destroyed satellites. It just completed a 2-year classified mission.

Since it is capable of maneuvering, it will be less vulnerable to interception, and may even be able to avoid debris.

 

[LordKiran]

The back up plan for the USA seems to be to use our reusable robot space plane to substitute for destroyed satellites. It just completed a 2-year classified mission.

Since it is capable of maneuvering, it will be less vulnerable to interception, and may even be able to avoid debris.

or failing that, smaller drones deployed locally

 

[whichphilosophy]

The US has caused havoc around the world with its attempts at regime change. The Russians should not be underestimated, where an attempt to invade it would potentially be a disaster in the face of the use of Nuclear weapons which can be launched within a very few minutes.