User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/15/2014 2:51:38 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WWIII started a while back. Nobody has the balls to call it that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How dare they want out from under the Russian boot. If I were them I'd want out of the Russian boot as well, but it is foolish for the US to guarantee it with NATO Article 5 protection. The US should have given them a Nuclear Submarine and then said 'you're on your own', to risk WWIII over Estonia is retarded. I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but WWIII isn't going to be over Estonia. Estonia may be the final straw though Nonsense. You will know when WWIII starts when the draft is re-instated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2014 2:51:56 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Honest question... Is there a scenario for a ground war in Europe against Russia in which NATO wouldn't have to attack targets inside Russia? Wouldn't we have to at least bomb targets in Russia to cut off their supply lines and force them to retreat? Wouldn't that provoke the Russkies to launch? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I have no idea how it plays out now... This time next year Russian troops can take r&r in Paris?  I think the nukes come out in Poland, either by NATO when we need to stop an offensive we don't reasonable have hope to reverse, or by the Russian when we reverse their offensive and start rolling East. Poland is the new Fulda Gap. Poland is indeed the new Fulda gap, but no NATO country will not resort to nukes unless Russia does. Russia probably won't unless we threatened their borders, but we have no desire to do so. The only real sticky wicket these days is Crimea - as Russia now considers it to be within their borders. But that's more a Naval issue than a ground forces one, and nobody has the stomach for trying to take it back by force, even if Ukraine should join NATO. Honest question... Is there a scenario for a ground war in Europe against Russia in which NATO wouldn't have to attack targets inside Russia? Wouldn't we have to at least bomb targets in Russia to cut off their supply lines and force them to retreat? Wouldn't that provoke the Russkies to launch? I wouldn't think you could fight a war against Russia without taking out their manufacturing and infrastructure in Russia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2014 2:54:18 PM EDT
[#3]
nvmd-
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 1:09:50 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: While I completely agree, the U.S. threw Ukraine under the bus so I don't hold out much hope for a "red line" at the Estonian border. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I would hope that if Russia invaded Estonia we'd find some loophole to get out of our obligations... Seriously, we should never have expanded NATO to Russia's borders. It was short sighted and dangerous. We should have given the Baltic states a Nuke or two and said "Your security is your own business" and have been done with it. You dot throw your friends under the bus. Have a back bone. I'm sorry, when the consequence is a nuclear exchange you throw your friends under a bus. Are millions of dead Americans worth a little over a million Estonians. Seriously, I want you to answer that question. The population of Estonia is 1,300,000. Is that worth a nuclear exchange? We should have never let them into NATO in the first place. I agree we shouldn't have let them but the promise must be kept. While I completely agree, the U.S. threw Ukraine under the bus so I don't hold out much hope for a "red line" at the Estonian border. The Ukrainian government prior to the recent election was a puppet gov of Russia and was steering away from Europe and the West. Now Georgia in 2008, yeah we through them under the bus or rather the T-90 treads. That was with Bush and Cheney at the wheel too. Georgia went to Iraq with us. We didn't so much as warn them about massing Russian combat forces on their border. Or worse, we were too busy watching the Olympics to notice. Do you suppose we sent Putin a bill for the US equipment destroyed/captured in Georgia back in 2008?    I think we had left some equipment behind in the port city of Poti after a USMC unit had recently completed training. This stuff was supposedly going to be shipped back to the US. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 1:37:02 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wouldn't think you could fight a war against Russia without taking out their manufacturing and infrastructure in Russia. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Honest question... Is there a scenario for a ground war in Europe against Russia in which NATO wouldn't have to attack targets inside Russia? Wouldn't we have to at least bomb targets in Russia to cut off their supply lines and force them to retreat? Wouldn't that provoke the Russkies to launch? I wouldn't think you could fight a war against Russia without taking out their manufacturing and infrastructure in Russia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 1:39:54 AM EDT
[#6]
Germany needs to rebuild their military, while there is still a chance to.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 10:12:26 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They dont have much manufacturing capability anymore. For Russia it would be a "run what you brung" fight which is what ever they can get to turnover from the cold war. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honest question... Is there a scenario for a ground war in Europe against Russia in which NATO wouldn't have to attack targets inside Russia? Wouldn't we have to at least bomb targets in Russia to cut off their supply lines and force them to retreat? Wouldn't that provoke the Russkies to launch? I wouldn't think you could fight a war against Russia without taking out their manufacturing and infrastructure in Russia. Still gotta take out the gun and bullet factories, rail lines, bridges, power stations, communication hubs, military bases, etc. You can't win a war without taking out the ability of the enemy to wage war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 10:22:04 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still gotta take out the gun and bullet factories, rail lines, bridges, power stations, communication hubs, military bases, etc. You can't win a war without taking out the ability of the enemy to wage war. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honest question... Is there a scenario for a ground war in Europe against Russia in which NATO wouldn't have to attack targets inside Russia? Wouldn't we have to at least bomb targets in Russia to cut off their supply lines and force them to retreat? Wouldn't that provoke the Russkies to launch? I wouldn't think you could fight a war against Russia without taking out their manufacturing and infrastructure in Russia. Still gotta take out the gun and bullet factories, rail lines, bridges, power stations, communication hubs, military bases, etc. You can't win a war without taking out the ability of the enemy to wage war. That all depends on what your objective is, and how determined the enemy is in preventing you from meeting it. Hanoi won their war against the US, and they hardly removed our ability to wage war. They never once even attacked our homeland. Make an incursion painful enough, force the actual invasion force to return home, and you can "win" a war as long as the enemy in question decides the costs of further pushing the issue are not worth it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 10:38:54 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The U.K., France or the U.S. would have to contribute. http://17tqdc78lol2a4cj23uooc0k03.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/NATOnukes2014.jpg http://natocouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/el-1b1.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nato doesn't have immediate access to nuclear weapons. http://17tqdc78lol2a4cj23uooc0k03.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/NATOnukes2014.jpg http://natocouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/el-1b1.jpg You do know the U.S. maintains custody of the nukes, not the host country. There's also this thing called a PAL... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 10:43:24 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Our foreign policy has been neutered. It will take a WW2 level demonstration of mobilization and commitment to regain the credibility we've lost. We're backing ourselves into a corner that will eventually force us into a major conflict. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Unfortunately.......Your post sums it up...... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 10:55:16 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Russia won't move on Europe, they'll just let Islam move on Europe, and pick over the leavings. Yep, gonna liberate the fuck out of Europe!
With their track record you know it will be interesting... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 11:18:08 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That all depends on what your objective is, and how determined the enemy is in preventing you from meeting it. Hanoi won their war against the US, and they hardly removed our ability to wage war. They never once even attacked our homeland. Make an incursion painful enough, force the actual invasion force to return home, and you can "win" a war as long as the enemy in question decides the costs of further pushing the issue are not worth it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Honest question... Is there a scenario for a ground war in Europe against Russia in which NATO wouldn't have to attack targets inside Russia? Wouldn't we have to at least bomb targets in Russia to cut off their supply lines and force them to retreat? Wouldn't that provoke the Russkies to launch? I wouldn't think you could fight a war against Russia without taking out their manufacturing and infrastructure in Russia. Still gotta take out the gun and bullet factories, rail lines, bridges, power stations, communication hubs, military bases, etc. You can't win a war without taking out the ability of the enemy to wage war. That all depends on what your objective is, and how determined the enemy is in preventing you from meeting it. Hanoi won their war against the US, and they hardly removed our ability to wage war. They never once even attacked our homeland. Make an incursion painful enough, force the actual invasion force to return home, and you can "win" a war as long as the enemy in question decides the costs of further pushing the issue are not worth it. An actual goal is required. Out military performed admirably in Vietnam. The politicians just didn't have the stomach for actually fighting with the intention of destroying the enemy. If the war had been fought with the goal of destroying the enemy we wouldn't have had a political defeat but there was no such goal. That is what made the Vietnam War such a clusterfuck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 11:20:41 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sometimes I wonder if this was what it was like, prior to WW1. Lots of little BS, treaties, alliances. And then one spark, and bam, before anyone realizes what happens, we are at war. We sure have the media dropping the ball and glossing over the important shit, that is for sure. Domino effect creeps right up on you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 11:21:36 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the US is in trouble on the mainland, then nobody else in NATO will be in a position to help. By letting the Baltic States into NATO we deliberately provoked the Russians. NATO is in essence an anti-Russian alliance, just as the Warsaw pact was an anti-US alliance. Having the Baltic states join NATO is the equivalent of the state of New York joining the Warsaw Pact. It was so short sighted it is laughable. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 11:29:03 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An actual goal is required. Out military performed admirably in Vietnam. The politicians just didn't have the stomach for actually fighting with the intention of destroying the enemy. If the war had been fought with the goal of destroying the enemy we wouldn't have had a political defeat but there was no such goal. That is what made the Vietnam War such a clusterfuck. Removing an invading force from the territory of another country is a goal. We achieved it in Vietnam. We just failed to follow-up, as we decided to declare it over for political reasons. You now, same reason we declared the war in Iraq over and let ISIL show up like they did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 11:33:01 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You dont throw your friends under the bus. Have a back bone. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I would hope that if Russia invaded Estonia we'd find some loophole to get out of our obligations... Seriously, we should never have expanded NATO to Russia's borders. It was short sighted and dangerous. We should have given the Baltic states a Nuke or two and said "Your security is your own business" and have been done with it. You dont throw your friends under the bus. Have a back bone. This. Grow a pair Nancy |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:37:43 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Removing an invading force from the territory of another country is a goal. We achieved it in Vietnam. We just failed to follow-up, as we decided to declare it over for political reasons. You now, same reason we declared the war in Iraq over and let ISIL show up like they did. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
An actual goal is required. Out military performed admirably in Vietnam. The politicians just didn't have the stomach for actually fighting with the intention of destroying the enemy. If the war had been fought with the goal of destroying the enemy we wouldn't have had a political defeat but there was no such goal. That is what made the Vietnam War such a clusterfuck. Removing an invading force from the territory of another country is a goal. We achieved it in Vietnam. We just failed to follow-up, as we decided to declare it over for political reasons. You now, same reason we declared the war in Iraq over and let ISIL show up like they did. I am not sure that was the goal in Vietnam. I believe that the only reason we fought in Vietnam was to counter communist expansion. Only thing was that we were not committed to destroying the enemy. Destroying the enemy is the only goal you should have when you commit your military to combat. By destroy I mean something like we did to the Axis powers in WW2. Every other use of our military since then has yielded, at best, less than optimal results. It was not because our military forces did not do their job, it is because our political leaders had no will to utterly destroy our enemies. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
