Hey Russia, fuck your ships - France may scuttle the Mistral class ships meant for Russia.
79 replies, posted
Russia doesn't exactly need a huge navy because it never needs to attack anywhere that doesn't directly border them.
I mean when was the last time Russia directly fought in war that wasn't directly bordered to them or the Soviet Union?
Considering the size of Russia, it is simply unthinkable to even have a force on standby for immediate invasions outside of major population centers (where the military already is). If there is any invasion going through anywhere else, they would just drop the nukes and erase the civilian casualties. It's a viable defensive strategy, since dropping nukes on your own territory, isn't exactly end of the world. Obviously, you can't do it if an enemy attacks your population centers directly, but that's what the standard army is for.
[QUOTE=karimatrix;47674325]It has nothing to do with pride, it's a solution we got and we sticking with it, until there is something to obsolete nukes and bombs. Like it or not, it works how intended and nobody gives a damn about impression that it makes.
And it's not like those nukes exist with a stamp "use incase of invasion", this is silly.
Imagine if tomorrow somebody going to attack USA and say "Don't worry guys, they won't use nukes at all!"
Soo trying to shame us for having an arsenal that solved requirments for protecting coastal line means to dig all the way and shame us for having bombs in a first place.
Again, entire argument was just to explain why Russia does not pursue spending fuckton of resources on massive fleet.[/QUOTE]
You're making the assumption that there would be no consequences to nuking a conventional army. If Russia uses nukes then most likely the USA retaliates with nukes and everyone loses a whole lot more than the USA invades Russia, Russia loses a conventional war, and those in a position of power are killed or arrested.
Will those in power order a launch facing certain defeat, perhaps; but the real question is will those tasks with carrying out the order follow it, knowing the result?
[QUOTE=DaMastez;47676427]You're making the assumption that there would be no consequences to nuking a conventional army. If Russia uses nukes then most likely the USA retaliates with nukes and everyone loses a whole lot more than the USA invades Russia, Russia loses a conventional war, and those in a position of power are killed or arrested.
Will those in power order a launch facing certain defeat, perhaps; but the real question is will those tasks with carrying out the order follow it, knowing the result?[/QUOTE]
You miss the point - if USA starts an invasion that is not repelled by conventional means, then us forces would be nuked asap.
USA knows that and since they are not willing to send in suicide force just big enought to provoke nuclear holocaust, they won't. Call that a preventional paradox if you may.
Come on people, enough with navy boners, giant world war 3 scale offensive operations and other hyperbolic stuff. There is MAD, and nobody going to attack MAD players untill nuclear weapons are surpassed or turned obsolete, no matter how big is conventional army at your disposal. Period.
Also, check gufu's post.
And now back on track - if there are french users, waht do they think of sinking Mistrals as last resort?
Karimatrix let me put it like this.
Attacking the an invading army conventionally (which Russia has done repeatedly to great effect) isn't a guaranteed win, you can still lose. If you resort to nuking an attacking country then you have no chance of winning whatsoever.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;47676511]Karimatrix let me put it like this.
Attacking the an invading army conventionally (which Russia has done repeatedly to great effect) isn't a guaranteed win, you can still lose. If you resort to nuking an attacking country then you have no chance of winning whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
I think he was talking about the nukes being used as deterrence.
If A invades country B, then B will launch a nuclear strike against the invading troops
or against the nation of A. A will respond with more nukes against B, B answers
with even more nukes and both sides loose.
That's why A will never invade B and B will never invade A because they fear that they'll trigger doomsday for both sides and maybe the entire world.
The nukes are only an insurance and create a balance between the countries.
Of course, nothing stops A or B from invading C, because they have no nukes :v:
IMO the threat of nuclear holocaust is greatly overrated, as you can see in this Wikipedia article here:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_holocaust[/url]
The real threat is nuclear winter, and even that is overblown.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_debate[/url]
A nuclear war would be devastating but perfectly survivable regardless.
[QUOTE=amorax;47676673]IMO the threat of nuclear holocaust is greatly overrated, as you can see in this Wikipedia article here:
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_holocaust[/url]
The real threat is nuclear winter, and even that is overblown.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter#Criticism_and_debate[/url]
A nuclear war would be devastating but perfectly survivable regardless.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter which is more realistic on a long term or how you call it, you don't want to mess someone who has nukes and have your cities and bases in ashes.
Starting a nuclear war with another nation capable of launching nukes is self destructive.
[QUOTE=DMGaina;47676591]I think he was talking about the nukes being used as deterrence.
If A invades country B, then B will launch a nuclear strike against the invading troops
or against the nation of A. A will respond with more nukes against B, B answers
with even more nukes and both sides loose.
[/QUOTE]
The very point of having good conventional forces is to make nukes a weapon of last resort. I can barely imagine anyone would launch nukes just for the sake of wiping a couple of tanks (or even a couple of regiments) from the face of the earth. I believe nukes may start flying around only if it becomes obvious that some side doesn't have a single chance of winning conventionally (and even considering this completely desperate situation i'd estimate the probablitity of nuclear war at like 50% or even less). People in charge understand perfectly well that launching nukes essentially means a goddamn end of the world, and it's obvious no one wants this to happen.
[QUOTE=karimatrix;47676442]You miss the point - if USA starts an invasion that is not repelled by conventional means, then us forces would be nuked asap.
USA knows that and since they are not willing to send in suicide force just big enought to provoke nuclear holocaust, they won't. Call that a preventional paradox if you may.
[/QUOTE]
It's truly terrifying that you view the use of nukes, even with the guarantee of MAD, to somehow be an acceptable option when facing a conventional invasion force. That somehow, if the USA was going to win the war via a conventional invasion of Russia, it's far better to just have all of Russia be turned into a gigantic radiation fill crater rather than surrender?
[QUOTE=gufu;47676254]Considering the size of Russia, it is simply unthinkable to even have a force on standby for immediate invasions outside of major population centers (where the military already is). If there is any invasion going through anywhere else, they would just drop the nukes and erase the civilian casualties. It's a viable defensive strategy, since dropping nukes on your own territory, isn't exactly end of the world. Obviously, you can't do it if an enemy attacks your population centers directly, but that's what the standard army is for.[/QUOTE]
And let's not forget that eldritch horrors that the old monarchs made a pact with, the beings we know as General Mud and General Winter. General Mud is probably less of a problem thanks to aircraft and offroad vehicles, but it'd take the combined efforts several Finlands, including polar bear cavalry, to try and break the bulwark that General Winter would build up.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;47671439]Give it to us, we're close enough to russia[/QUOTE]
It is funny mate, but fuck ruining our economy with even more useless defense costs just to keep that ship, lest buy one.
[editline]7th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=opaali;47673571]Russia doesn't have the economy attack anyone anyway[/QUOTE]
Tell that to Ukraine and Georgia.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;47676752]It's truly terrifying that you view the use of nukes, even with the guarantee of MAD, to somehow be an acceptable option when facing a conventional invasion force.[/QUOTE]
The idea is the threat of nuclear retaliation to conventional war will prevent conventional war.
[QUOTE]That somehow, if the USA was going to win the war via a conventional invasion of Russia, it's far better to just have all of Russia be turned into a gigantic radiation fill crater rather than surrender?[/QUOTE]
You talk about "what is best" . What is best is to have no war, global cooperation, cancelling third world debt, solving world hunger, abandoning greedy profit seeking and instead persue wellbeing for people and the environment. Sadly war exists, sadly armies exist, sadly nukes exist, but lucky for the nations with nukes and underwhelming conventional forces nukes can help protect a nation from invasion by another with overwhelming conventional forces.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;47676752]It's truly terrifying that you view the use of nukes, even with the guarantee of MAD, to somehow be an acceptable option when facing a conventional invasion force. That somehow, if the USA was going to win the war via a conventional invasion of Russia, it's far better to just have all of Russia be turned into a gigantic radiation fill crater rather than surrender?[/QUOTE]
There is vast space between acceptance of certain stance and understanding of one. I suggest you cover that distance soo that next time somebody for example explains you historical reason for existance of nazi germany you won't call him a fascist.
Besides, If you'd read few posts back, there should be something among the lines ''it works and nobody gives a damn about impression'' that was mentioned in regard for goverment rather than myself.
To make it short - abscence of personal opinion when trying to explain motivations and reasons behind someone's actions does not make you automatically sympathyser of them.
I hope this is enough for you to fix first impression and stop expecting blant negative barrages when dealing with topic you might not be most qualified to critisize without double thinking. no offense.
[QUOTE=ironman17;47676760]And let's not forget that eldritch horrors that the old monarchs made a pact with, the beings we know as General Mud and General Winter. General Mud is probably less of a problem thanks to aircraft and offroad vehicles, but it'd take the combined efforts several Finlands, including polar bear cavalry, to try and break the bulwark that General Winter would build up.[/QUOTE]
Russia is about as bad of an invasion target as US, but entirely for different reasons. Even if you win, everything of value would glow in the dark for a few centuries, while everything else would be entirely in such ways off, that getting through those places to get value of them, would not be worth it in any way.
[QUOTE=antianan;47676732]The very point of having good conventional forces is to make nukes a weapon of last resort. I can barely imagine anyone would launch nukes just for the sake of wiping a couple of tanks (or even a couple of regiments) from the face of the earth. I believe nukes may start flying around only if it becomes obvious that some side doesn't have a single chance of winning conventionally (and even considering this completely desperate situation i'd estimate the probablitity of nuclear war at like 50% or even less). People in charge understand perfectly well that launching nukes essentially means a goddamn end of the world, and it's obvious no one wants this to happen.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much the plot of red dawn there, the US higher ups knew they could push back the soviets so they didn't go full nuclear, MAD only holds up if both sides don't do anything, but if one side actually did make a move and the other believes they can counter it without a full nuclear exchange, it leaves them open for a countervalue option after they have repelled the attack, which would reset the balance since both sides have now played their hands and have expended their conventional militaries.
Wouldn't be the first time France scuttled perfectly good working ships.
[QUOTE=Mabus;47677005]Wouldn't be the first time France scuttled perfectly good working ships.[/QUOTE]
Didn't Britain have to do it for them though?
[QUOTE=ewitwins;47674191]Why not just sell them to the Indian government?
They use Russian technology and Russian helicopters, and I don't see anything wrong with giving them a larger naval presence to balance out the extra influence China's been pushing these days.[/QUOTE]
Problem is, they've already got their own carriers, which one of them actually happens to be a former Russian aircraft carrier (a converted Kiev-class carrier, was once known as the Baku, now as the INS Vikramaditya) and a Centaur-class carrier (was once the Royal Navy's HMS Hermes, served as the flagship in the Falklands campaign, now known as the INS Viraat). So it'd kinda be pointless, unless the Indian Government put in a said bid for the ships to further bolster their blue/green water navy capabilities in the subcontinent.
As for the PRC, that'd be unsurprising but unlikely, in that the PLA Navy has been actively seeking to form a blue-water navy to counter the US Navy plus the JMSDF (Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force) and the ROK Navy. They already have one aircraft carrier, the re-purposed Kuznetsov-class carrier Varyag, now known as the Liaoning. Whether or not the CMC (Central Military Commission) will move in such a way to actually begin talks to possibly purchase these ships is doubtful, as they would probably rather prefer to build an indigenously-designed aircraft carrier (most likely taking most of the design from the Liaoning and possibly from other sources.)
Russia may or may not need these carriers, as most people outside of Russia & most who are not top-tier general officers & politicians within Russia any ways don't know the current military doctrine used by them & would most likely come down to a decision to be made by Putin himself. Not to forget they do have a large amount of cargo aircraft, albeit not as much as USAF's AMC (Air Mobility Command) and the majority of NATO combined air forces transport contingent.
IMO, the most likely ending will be that the French government either scraps them or manages to find a country that is NATO-aligned that will pay the sum to buy & operate said ships.
[QUOTE=GunFox;47673177][url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_Navy_ships[/url]
Actually it looks like you need them pretty bad. This navy is pretty sad.
You are picking a fight with NATO and this pathetic list isn't even enough to fight France. Mind you, France is relatively well equipped for their size, but they are far smaller than Russia and have far less coastline to defend.
You have a loooooong coastline to defend.
[url]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_length_of_coastline[/url]
Your media lies to you in order to make your government look better.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but Russia doesn't need to defend coast. The strategy they use since forever is to bait you then attrition warfare to hell. That's why they never had a huge navy because it's unneeded as the richest areas are away from the coast
Heck that money could be better spent in crating top-secret biological weapons to achieve world state
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.