Matrix Games Forums

NATO doesn't need to use nuclear weapons to attack the Russian nuclear balance. My point is that if you have to respond to a nuclear use, the best way to ensure that there will not be a counterattack against NATO countries is to render Russian nuclear forces unresponsive, and that is only achieved by attacking strategic targets such as SSBN's. While it may be impossible to disrupt the entire Russian nuclear capability, eliminating their second strike capability is feasible.

As you mention, other more discrete operations are also possible. But given the situation in North Korea, do you think it is feasible to do nothing in the face of a nuclear first use?

No. The response and extent of the response would depend highly on the nature of the WMD attack. But some military response would be made if only as a political show of collective force against the current regime. What I see on the ground is Ukraine's military adeptly maneuvering Russia out of the occupied areas in a way as to lessen the probability of a Russian societal collapse. A collapse might set up a "use them or lose them mentality" within Putin's inner circle. We talked about a cornered rat. That's OK if it's done internally and NATO come across as the good guy merely helping Ukraine liberate their nation. We also have to prevent WMD falling into the hands of third parties. Now there something for the world to think hard about.

BDukes wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 2:13 pm As SQ said, there aren't really targets that can be bombed to solve this.

I didn't say that. I said that whether or not NATO would bomb things or not depends on whether they could knock Russia out of the war so fast that the risk of escalation would be minimal. If Russia can't handle Ukraine, they're going to be crushed under the combined forces of Europe. There definitely are targets NATO could hit to make Russia unable to continue their campaign in Ukraine with any chance of success. That's not really the point, though. The real question is, can we either avoid getting hit in return while we're doing it? I don't know that we can.

SeaQueen wrote: Thu Oct 06, 2022 10:44 pm

BDukes wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2022 2:13 pm As SQ said, there aren't really targets that can be bombed to solve this.

I didn't say that. I said that whether or not NATO would bomb things or not depends on whether they could knock Russia out of the war so fast that the risk of escalation would be minimal. If Russia can't handle Ukraine, they're going to be crushed under the combined forces of Europe. There definitely are targets NATO could hit to make Russia unable to continue their campaign in Ukraine with any chance of success. That's not really the point, though. The real question is, can we either avoid getting hit in return while we're doing it? I don't know that we can.

Sorry, sounds good, and probably not

Mike

Here's a link to an amazing little site with some very timely updates on the war
but contributions by principles in the conflict. I've been following for months and
these guys have been utterly prescient. I warned y'all.
https://community.battlefront.com/topic ... /#comments

Nikel wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 6:01 pm

Regarding structures, the Kerch strait bridge is a symbol.

OK - so it looks like that has just happened

gregb41352 wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 1:26 am Here's a link to an amazing little site with some very timely updates on the war
but contributions by principles in the conflict. I've been following for months and
these guys have been utterly prescient. I warned y'all.
https://community.battlefront.com/topic ... /#comments

I started reading that thread when it first opened up, but it is hard to sort out anything useful from the combative drivel that dominates it. Unless you read it every day religiously, its not very useful.

One thing about it, its about the only communication you get from the dev of Combat Mission.

Gunner98 wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 9:32 am
OK - so it looks like that has just happened

Indeed. But supposedly the Ukranians themselves. SBU?

And they will also retaliate if “something nuclear” happens in Ukraine, independently of what NATO may do. We may guess…

Anyway it is surprising the bridge was not targeted before, even just hours after the invasion started.

Maybe UKR are pretty sure through US intelligence that RUS won't use or is not in the capability to use nuclear weapons.

Or maybe the SBU is being underestimated.

Is the Kerch Straight Bridge a symbol - yes, a major one.
Is it strategic? - yes, an important link to Crimea.
Are there massive civilian casualties? - none reported.
Job well done based on early reads - you bet.

blu3s wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 10:49 am Or maybe the SBU is being underestimated.

There may be many FSB agents infiltrated in Ukraine and from other Russian intelligence agencies.

But I think that P. himself said recently that there were 3M Ukrainians living in the RF.

So how many SBU agents are infiltrated in the RF?


Surely what agents of both agencies could do in their adversary territory is enough material for a novel or two

And now in one of the videos there is something passing under the bridge, so who knows what exploded.


This propaganda? pic of the defenses of the bridge is relevant right now, even dolphins?

Nikel wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 1:21 pm
This propaganda? pic of the defenses of the bridge is relevant right now, even dolphins?

These poor dolphins have lost their jobs

Only reason for war - NATO existence and expansion to East. Disband NATO or shrink it to borders of 1990 year and war will off.

FilitchM2 wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 3:18 pm Only reason for war - NATO existence and expansion to East. Disband NATO or shrink it to borders of 1990 year and war will off.

I think we are past that point. Rolling back NATO does not stop those countries from forming bilateral defence relationships with the US or European nations. That is a simple sovereign right of any nation, not some imperialist scheme or whatever.

At that point Russia would just need to invade every former Soviet country to prevent them from becoming a “threat” to Russia.

To *Westerners* (pro-Ukraine people) reading this, I am aware NATO expansion isn’t seen as the main cause of the war, but I am entertaining the Russian narrative for the purpose of discussion.

FilitchM2 wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 3:18 pm Only reason for war

Strange, I thought it was because Russia attacked a sovereign country on 20 Feb 2022.

SunlitZelkova wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 9:08 pm

FilitchM2 wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 3:18 pm Only reason for war - NATO existence and expansion to East. Disband NATO or shrink it to borders of 1990 year and war will off.

I think we are past that point. Rolling back NATO does not stop those countries from forming bilateral defence relationships with the US or European nations. That is a simple sovereign right of any nation, not some imperialist scheme or whatever.

At that point Russia would just need to invade every former Soviet country to prevent them from becoming a “threat” to Russia.

To *Westerners* (pro-Ukraine people) reading this, I am aware NATO expansion isn’t seen as the main cause of the war, but I am entertaining the Russian narrative for the purpose of discussion.

It's putting the cart before the horse.
Ukraine became a threat after it systematically developed its armed forces and pumped them full of weapons.
Russia did not and did not intend to attack the Baltic states, which are a springboard for NATO troops and preach a similar (though lighter) version of modern Nazism and the worship of German Nazism of the 30s and 40s.
It was the shift to a real threat to Russia's interests from Ukraine that caused this war.

Gunner98 wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 9:16 pm

FilitchM2 wrote: Mon Oct 10, 2022 3:18 pm Only reason for war

Strange, I thought it was because Russia attacked a sovereign country on 20 Feb 2022.

Action and reason of action - these are different concepts. Action - Russian attack. Reason - threat from NATO

FilitchM2 wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 9:48 am Action - Russian attack. Reason - threat from NATO

Real or perceived?

Gunner98 wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 3:48 pm Real or perceived?

Considering that for many years the Soviet Union and then Russia had watched the U.S. and NATO show off and expanding on Europe and Eastern Europe (including nuke's deployment), and only now decided to go to war, the threat to Russia's national security was real.

When putting together a target list, it is usually good to understand the current capabilities of your adversary, Here is a nice summary pertaining to Russia in October 2022. While not 100 percent complete ...

https://twitter.com/Aviation_Intel/stat ... 4949152769

The Tweet does not mention NATO will soon grow 3 more members, Russia's economy is in self inflicted tatters, and their people are running so fast the government needs to kidnap children to try to stem the tide. And on the ground, their operational art teaches Russia how to throw thousands of untrained conscripts on to the modern battle field. So, a target list would ideally accelerate this downward spiral perhaps concentrating on what's left of Russia's economy even dropping gift cards only redeemable for food at Ukrainian grocery stores.