World war 3

[BobG]

Thank you ch-ch. I didn't know that. I don't think it's been reported over here either.

And thank you too Brian. You know, in all these years, knowing where you were working, I never once thought to ask myself what the difference was/is between one organisation and the other.  I have entirely failed to comprehend the distinction, and its implications. Oh dear, oh dear.... That's a very deflated me! Thanks for putting me straight.

Bob

[hoolahoop]

How does the reported deployment of a Russian nuclear capability into Kaliningrad fit into this puzzle . The " tripwire" is of little use then surely .

What about the reaction time necessary to counter a Russian military assault in the Baltic States and Poland given that all heads of state presumably need to give a unanimous go ahead for an appropriate response ?

[Dutch Uncle]

Good questions Hools

I am absolutely not an expert on nuclear arms, but that is IMHO almost entirely separate from teh function of tripwire conventional units (my phrase). Both sides know there are still enough nuclear warheads to destroy the world many many times over, so in some sense the old MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy is still valid. It is in no-one's interest to use them, and the only problem would be if only one side had the capability and could constantly threaten the other. Hence IMHO the requirement to keep a nuclear deterrent, dreadful as it may be.

With regard to your second question, in principle you are right, but there will almost certainly be a threatening build-up phase giving NATO countries some time to discuss. Satellites pick up nearly all military movements real time. There would almost certainly be agreed resolutions passed, and warnings given to Russia of possible consquences.

[BobG]

The trick, as alwayss, will be to continue to ensure an opponent believes the nuclear deterrent would be used. And that gets difficult if, say, it's Estonia or somewhere similar, that gets attacked. Would you trigger WW3, with full on nuclear assaults, for Estonia? Because that's the only way the west could 'stop' an aggressor. In terms of conventional defences, we're worse off now than we were in 1990 - and even back then I think I'm right in saying the USSR was expected to have a decent chance of reaching the Atlantic coast inside a couple of weeks. Dutch will put me right if I'm imagining that.

Oh. And don't forget, if you don't trigger WW3, and decide to allow Estonia to go, NATO is then entirely, completely and irretrievably broken. Latvia next maybe?

Although it's kept the peace for 70 years it's still one scary doctrine.

Cheers

BobG

[hoolahoop]

A lot of that doctrine in recent years , like it or not, has been built on the added co- operation that the EU  brought to the table . That of course is now probably subject to some negotiation according to one or other of the Tory grandees . It seems our nuclear deterrent may well be used as a bargaining chip along with people .
How the hell have we reached this stage ?

[Dutch Uncle]

Bob

Your comments are on the nail.

We can't really compare now with Cold War days. The number of Warsaw Pact military forces in satellite countries was huge, but it was a very long frontier with NATO in central Europe from Denmark to Hungary. How NATO would have fared in conventional defence was usually seen as highly dependent on how much warning was available and how many US and other reinforcing units could be in place when the balloon went up. It didn't always look good. But the presence of the US in particular, and the maverick French with their independent nuclear decision, made the Sovierts fear a potential nuclear response.

In those days the only land frontiers with Russia itself and NATO countries were a small one in North Norway, and a mountainous one in North East Turkey.  There was no real comparison with the current situation in the Baltics.

If Trump and his comments regarding NATO are taken by Putin as a signal that the US at least might be reticent to respond, we could lend up in a very dangerous place.

[Sprotyrover]

We have a massive problem due to the so called Peace dividend,when he Wall came down Russia implode and its armed Forces were in a shambles.
Putin arrived on the scene and they re build their strength whilst Nato has a holiday we spend vast amounts on policing wars in the middle east and have lost our way Strategically,winding the army down to one effective Armoured division.and guess what everyone around us has been downsizing,
example the Canadian navy Boasts 4 Destroyers on Wiki, the reallity is that only one was operating and that one never went anywhere in 5 years without breaking down the 2 engines never worked together,it was scrapped last year as it was 40 years old and junk.
the rest of their navy is also a mess, one nackered Ice breaker! they have had several of Russia's 54 Ice breakers turning up in Hudsons Bay the crew barring their arses!

Them two white elephants we are building are a disgrace, somebody needs to be court martialed and shot over their procurement. they were laid down and building when we discover there is no such thing as a steam catapult manufacturer any more, so we have to change em to VSTOL and we are having to buy 42 Raptors from the Yanks at £70 million each.

We did try to get a British company to invent and build sonic catapults but the cost was unrealistic,
The next generation of Yank Carriers are waiting for sonic Catapults to be invented and built!
i could go on all night listing the catalogue of expensive procurement errors we have been making,
most were listed in last weeks Sunday Times

[MrFrost]

I'm more concerned about the potential for shit kicking off in the South China Sea.

[wilts rover]

In neither the South China Sea (which is a Chinese - Japanese dispute) or the Baltics (Russia - the former Soviet Republics) does the US have a direct personal or long term strategic interest. So any local difficulty in either of those areas will only escalate if the US decides it is in its own interest for it to intervene.

One other flashpoint where the US does have long term personal and strategic interests is Israel, where the government has given the clearest signal yet that it intends to occupy all of the West Bank and destroy any possibility of an independent Palestine and the so-called two state solution.

This certainly wont go down well in that area - and who knows what might happen next?

[RedJ]

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/23/trump-white-house-vows-to-stop-china-taking-south-china-sea-islands.html

[BobG]

I don't believe I am betraying any secrets if I point out that our belopved Royal Navy has exactly 6 destroyers to its name these days - and that every one of them was designed with an engine that was planned to last the life of the ship. So there was no need to design in any means to replace the engine. Cool eh? Only now that they're reaching half a dozen years of age they got to replace the engine in every one of the sods. And the only way to do it is to basically cut the ships in half and then glue them back together again.

How many ships will it take to escort our wonderful big shiny new toys? In addition to our 6 unreliably engined destroyers we have 13 frigates of assorted ages.  It's not hard to imagine our two new toys becoming another Task Force 57 is it?

And that chaps, minesweepers, motor boats and suchlike excepted, is the entire surface fleet of the Royal Navy. I think it's true, (though I'm not 100% sure), that we have more sailors employed on shore than at sea.

Cheers

BobG