Putin up's the ante!

a reply to: nwtrucker

That has been his template measurement for imperialistic seizures. But sobfar no one has shown any backbone, Europe needs to call his bluff. After the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait the US sent a Small force of Marines and airborne troops immediately to Saudi Arabia. That was a tripwire to keep Saddam from moving any further.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Mister_Bit
I thought you might've got tactical nukes and Intercontinental ballistic missiles Mixed up no big deal. The problem is there's not much of a difference if the Russians launch a tactical nuke hypothetically and take out Kiev or any other city. NATO 's response is written in stone.
There will be retaliation. That's why the US doesn't have many tactical nuke's as soon as Any nuke goes off there will be an exchange.

I don't believe that to be true. First off, Kiev isn't a NATO country and NATO has already shown it isn't willing to lay down lives for Ukraine. So a tactical nuke on Ukrainian territory would not see a nuclear response from NATO. Same goes for Finland, despite nice ATS posters. Their situation is much closer to Ukraine's than it is to Latvia, Lithuania or Estonia.

Secondly there are lots of ways a nuke could be used that would not generate a nuclear response. If minimal NATO forces were involved a nuclear response would likely be limited to a similar sized target within Russia. Lots of ways nukes get used without MAD.

People put too much reliance on MAD doctrine. When it goes to crunch time a careful analysis is done, not a knee jerk fire them all response.

Putin is in way over his head on Finland. It would take the entire arsenal of Russia, China AND NATO to take down Jukka, Jarppi, Jarno & HP. Even then, the Dudesons would ransack the capitals of each country.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

I'll Star you because I like your position and I probably shouldn't have mentioned Keiv. But Putin is not threatening Kiev he is threatening NATO.

But NATO response is clear. If a tactical nuke is used on a NATO country. NATO will respond in kind on a Russian city. If you let someone use nukes without response they will use them again.

a reply to: Greathouse

IF he's bluffing......

a reply to: nwtrucker

I've been hearing continually since the 70s about nuclear war. No one has been crazy enough to start it not even Pakistan. While putin's threat is still ringing in my ears. I myself cannot believe anyone would be crazy enough to use nukes again.

a reply to: dollukka

I'm in no way implying that Finland isn't defenseless. Sorry if I came across that way. I'm just under the impression that it would take a cooperative effort to stop Russia if they decided to go all out militarily.

a reply to: Greathouse

I highly doubt Putin will use those nukes, its all for show, and I find Putin's recent disappearance to be highly suspicious. I dont think this is his game. It appears to me that (just like WWII), the plans have already been layed out. What if Putin's absence was a result of him going to some secret globalist meeting, where he was given his orders. Literally right after his re-appearance, Putin put some 40,000 soldiers on standby for "war games" lasting thru 3/21. And now, there are rumors that Al Baghdadi is ordering ISIS to just drop what their doing and leave Mosul, based on a "vision" he had in a dream.

Things are just a little too weird for this to be the natural progression of war. There has to be someone behind the scenes pulling the strings....someone who has plans to solidify the NWO.

All this while Netanyahu (the war mongering Zionist) gets re-elected.

Finland is an interesting case. The reality is that Ukraine will settle down shortly and Russia will be reloading and searching for the next confrontation with the West. It won't take Putin more than a few years to pick his next spot.

www.independent.co.uk...

Illarionov is a bit crazy now, but the reality is that he was a close personal adviser to Putin. That means he has more knowledge on the guy than almost everybody else. In that story he puts forward that Finland could very well be a target for Russian aggression.

Many will just dismiss it out of hand. Putin wouldn't dare! Finland has a modern military that is well armed. Well let's consider a few minor details:
www.globalfirepower.com...

www.globalfirepower.com...

Russia has more than twice the ACTIVE military personnel than Finland could even call up with all it's reserves. However it wouldn't even get to that point because Russia has 15,000 tanks to Finland's 250. If you look back to the Russia-Georgia war than you see what would happen in Finland. A massive wave of Russian armor would storm through the country. It would be over in a week or 2 at the most.

NATO would watch Finland get steam rolled and use the time they bought with their lives to organize themselves for battle. If Russia stopped and left Helsinki alone taking only the northern 80% of Finland I suspect NATO would not go to war over it. They would impose harsh sanctions and build up their military forces as fast as possible. All the while Finns would fight bravely and die.

a reply to: EternalSolace

I didnt think so, what i ment is that we are not really expecting much help from them if SHTF. There has been discussions of nordic defence union but Sweden is having doubts of it, even that Sverke Göransson ( Commander of Swedish defence forces ) said that Sweden will lose the game within a week if it would need defend its borders against Russia alone. So the possible scenario if Finland is attacked would immidiately require their counter action.. seems to scare them so they want Finland out of the pact... not really surpricing, they just dont have SISU.

a reply to: noeltrotsky

Dont freak me out. Stalin tried that and it didnt end like he wished and he tried again.. same result. I doubt Putin could live with similar shame, because it would not be that easy.
Finland has been training US soldiers for artic warfare, i wonder why US is so thrilled about arctic warfare. They also train in Alaska but they say finnish training is harder.

a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

One thing I didn't connect earlier is. That there is massive navel exercises going on on one side of The Baltics while Putin just announced a mobilization of Land born troops on the other side.

He definitely has the little man's syndrome he's full of threats.

a reply to: dollukka

Not trying to freak you out. But spring is coming and Spring has always brought warfare for thousands of years.

Putin isn't a madman just a man.

People forget what men unencumbered by political correctness are capable of including nuclear bluffing.

Any nukes that hit Russia would be met with automatic large scale retaliation, that's his only play.

a reply to: circuitsports

Any nukes that hit Russia would be met with automatic large scale retaliation, that's his only play.

Yep and that would be the correct response the same from us. But we would never I repeat never launch a preemptive strike.

Putin has also announced that he was issuing a "nuclear stance" to the Russian military during the Crimea situation.

It's back to the cold war before long folks.

Time to start getting your kids to help you build a bomb shelter.

If anyone in Canada needs any Shipping Containers to bury underground, let me know ! A network of 4-5 40 ft shipping containers would make a kick a$$ underground survival bunker.

I only see three possible events that might lead to world war. Either the US uses a pursuit against ISIS to justify going after Assad, which would provoke Russia, or something goes horribly wrong with the Ukraine or the war games. I dont see Putin starting a fight.

originally posted by: noeltrotsky
NATO would watch Finland get steam rolled and use the time they bought with their lives to organize themselves for battle.

I'm going to disagree with you on this.
Although several countries are not in NATO, they still have strong ties with all NATO member states, and there would be a coalition of nations wanting to take action to defend it, even without being a member of the organization.

It's important to remember that we haven't experienced a military threat like this since the Cold War. Although we're slowly warming up like frogs in a boiling pan, it was only six months ago that nations were talking about a return to Cold War mentality, and already we've got considerable troop movements and assets being put in place.

It's almost like no one has been paying any attention while the speed of this has picked up.

I firmly believe that if Russia attacked Finland NATO would act, and they would justify it by suggesting that if Finland were to become occupied it increases the threat to other NATO members. Their neighbours would be demanding NATO involvement to protect them from Russian aggression too.

Think back to WW2 and the opportunities missed to stop Hitler, I very much doubt we would allow that to happen again just because a country isn't a member of NATO.

It should also be pointed out that agreements, treaties and organizations are extremely flexible in times of war. Prior to WW2 there were numerous examples of the same, and various pacts, agreements, treaties and so on were all created and/or modified, or even abandoned entirely. Germany made plenty of commitments it then breached and entirely ignored, as did other nations.

If we did dive into WW3, NATO would probably be forgotten as an "entity" pretty quickly, and instead it would a mess of allegiances and alliances, with a majority against Russia.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
I'm going to disagree with you on this.
Although several countries are not in NATO, they still have strong ties with all NATO member states, and there would be a coalition of nations wanting to take action to defend it, even without being a member of the organization.

Fair enough...it's debatable no doubt!

I just don't know what you're basing your opinion on. Personally I think Ukraine has sent more troops in recent NATO actions than Finland has. Ukraine is arguably much more valuable to NATO as a member...and they haven't been given much help at all. That's likely due to the long standing ties Ukraine has had with Russia, but nonetheless NATO doesn't seem at all eager to put any red lines in the sand except Article 5. That doesn't cover Finland.

Besides the friendly people in Finland and great ATS posters what strategic value is it to NATO? Losing Finland to Russia doesn't open up a new angle of attack really. Finland isn't nuclear so strategic missiles aren't a concern. I just don't see a military reason for NATO to be worried about Finland being lost. It would tie up lots of Russian forces and buy NATO countries months to pump up military production and desperately needed preparations after decades of reduced funding.

I could be wrong of course, but military planners are practical people. They don't got to war because they like Finns. They don't go to war if they aren't losing something important. Can you sell me why NATO would defend Finland?

I REALLY hope that I get a chance to play No Man's Sky, before all hell breaks loose.