We are not capable of truly reinforcing Eastern Europe, math is not on our side

[AnalystInParadise]

I don't care what the NATO commander says, he does not have the forces at his disposal. The Army has 44 Brigades, but the vast majority of them cannot go to Russia for various reasons. A unit in reset means that the unit has less than 60% of its normal personnel and is in the process of turning in and replacing worn out equipment from a recently completed deployment. Also it takes 3-6 months to generate the necessary combat power to deploy. Combat power is the numbers of well trained troops needed to complete a mission. A unit that is deactivating means that its personnel are being shipped off and its equipment is being used in other resets if possible. A unit deactivating is for all intents and purposes not a real unit, it is in the process of being cannibalized. The NIE unit at Bliss is off the table for any taskings as its soldiers and equipment are unable to deploy due to the experimental nature of their mission and the testing going on with NEXTGEN equipment. The NORTHCOM mission is the Homeland Defense/Civil Disorder mission and the Brigade on that mission is dedicated and non deployable. The AFRICOM mission is to support the SF/SEAL mission in Africa hunting the LRA and other groups such as Boko Haram. We also have the better part of a Brigade in South Korea showing our commitment to the South Koreans in face of recent North Korean aggressive moves.

So WHAT IS LEFT?

We have 11 Brigades that could go to Europe if a war broke out. But there is a catch. Of the 11 remaining Brigades only 2 are Armored (Heavy Brigades), the two Brigades from 3rd ID in Georgia are Tank and Mech heavy. They are the only credible counter to the Russians. Unfortunately it takes 60 days to fully deploy Armored Brigades. So any action by Russia would leave a 2 month window before we could ship the Brigades personnel and equipment to Eastern Europe. So that leaves 9 Brigades that could also go. Of the remaining 9, 4 are Stryker Brigades. Of this 4, three are on the West Coast and Alaska, about as far from Europe as you can get from Europe. Strykers can deploy faster, but the distance is huge and would mean a 45 day (roughly) time frame before they arrived in Eastern Europe. And one of the Brigades is in Alaska, not sure we would deploy them for Strategic purposes. The remaining 5 Brigades are all Airborne Infantry or Air Assault Infantry, not exactly the force you want going up against Russian armored forces. We can deploy them, but their weapons and capabilities are not configured to resist an Armored force. They could be in Eastern Europe and setup 2-3 weeks after a war began in Ukraine. So they could be used, but their mission profile does not match the Russian threat. In a 90 day window, we could deploy 10 Brigades, the equivalent of 45,000 soldiers, but doing so would leave us with ZERO RESERVES to face any other threat, and would also leave us with no replacement units if the war escalated. In essence, all we have to throw at Russia right now if we had to is 45,000 combat soldiers from the Army and about 25,000 Marines. That is it....there are no more due to our deployment commitments. It would take six months to a year to generate additional combat power from our reset units and the National Guard and Reserve.

We have two Brigades normally in Europe, but 1 of them (2nd Stryker) is in Afghanistan right now, leaving only another Airborne unit (173rd) in Italy as the only Combat Brigade in Europe right now.

What does this mean?

Our options are incredibly limited to successfully reinforce Eastern Europe with a credible defensive force. About all we could accomplish is to keep Russia out of Poland, but that doesn't seem to be the goal for Putin. Our chances of offensively moving into Ukraine with the forces available are not optimal for us. We would not send 25,000 Airborne Infantry soldiers into a fight against 50,000 Mech and Armored Russian soldiers. Especially since our current unit structure for Airborne/Air Assault is a Counter Insurgency fight, we have not trained to fight a conventional Armored threat for over a decade. Our training for these light forces is totally irrelevant and they would take large amounts of casualties.

We are not exactly screwed, but we are not really able to provide an effective military deterrent at this time. My background is a 20 year intelligence analyst for the Army (retired) who did a lot of work on Russia and Central Asia. We are in a tough spot and not likely to commit military forces. As for the Marine Corps, they are in a similar spot with about 25% of their combat power available, but facing the same logistical and deployment issues the Army has.

Army Breakdown:
Order of Battle: 44 Army Brigades

1st Armored Division,(Fort Bliss, TX) 4 Brigades
1st Brigade in reset (non-deployable)
2nd Brigade (NIE, Future War testing, non deployable)
3rd Brigade (deactivating right now, non deployable)
4th Brigade (NORTHCOM mission, non-deployable)

1st Infantry Division (Fort Riley Kansas) 4 Brigades
1st Brigade (deploying to Afghanistan on last deployment cycle)
2nd Brigade (AFRICOM mission, deploying to Africa)
3rd Brigade (deactivating right now, non deployable)
4th Brigade Deployable

1st Cavalry Division Fort Hood, TX/South Korea 4 Brigades
1st Brigade (reset non-deployable)
2nd Brigade (Deployed to Afghanistan)
3rd Brigade (Currently in South Korea on temporary mission)
4th Brigade (Deactivating right now, non deployable)

2nd Infantry Division Fort Lewis/South Korea 4 Brigades
1st Brigade (stationed in South Korea)
2nd Brigade Deployable (Stryker)
3rd Brigade Deployable (Stryker)
4th Brigade Deactivating right now

2nd Stryker Cavalry Brigade (Germany)
Deployed to Afghanistan

3rd Infantry Division Fort Stewart/Fort Benning GA 4 Brigades
1st Brigade (reset, non deployable)
2nd Brigade Deployable
3rd Brigade Deployable
4th Brigade (Reset, non deployable)

3rd ACR (Fort Hood, TX)
Deploying to Afghanistan in June

4th Infantry Division (Fort Carson, CO) 4 Brigades
1st Brigade (Reset, converting to Stryker Brigade, non deployable)
2nd Brigade (Deployed to Kuwait)
3rd Brigade (Deployable)
4th Brigade (Deploying to Afghanistan NOW)

10th Mountain Division (Fort Drum NY/Fort Polk LA) 4 Brigades
1st Brigade Deployed to Afghanistan
2nd Brigade Deployable
3rd Brigade Deployed to Afghanistan
4th Brigade (OPFOR Training unit, non deployable)

11th ACR (Fort Irwin, CA)
OPFOR training unit (non deployable)


25th Infantry Division (Schofield Barracks, HI, Alaska) 4 Brigades
1st Brigade (Alaska) Emergency deployment Brigade for Afghanistan (non deployable anywhere else)
2nd Brigade (Hawaii) PRF Pacific Response Force (non deployable)
3rd Brigade (Hawaii) PRF Pacific Response Force (non deployable
4th Brigade (Alaska) Deployable

82nd Airborne (Fort Bragg, NC) 4 Brigades
1st Brigade (deploying to Afghanistan for last rotation)
2nd Brigade Deployable
3rd Brigade Deployable
4th Brigade (Deactivating, non deployable)

101st Airborne (Fort Campbell, KY) 4 Brigades
1st Brigade (reset, non deployable)
2nd Brigade Deployed to Afghanistan
3rd Brigade Deployable
4th Brigade (Deactivating non deployable)

173rd Airborne Brigade (Italy)
Deployable

[AnalystInParadise]

1. For the record

I work at Fort Bliss in the NIE unit as a civilian defense contractor teaching soldiers how to conduct analysis.

[darkangel218]

47. I dont mean to be condescending or anything like that

I know very little if anything about military. But are you allowed to disclose all this info? Is it common /public knowledge?

[AnalystInParadise]

66. Everything I posted is open source

available on the internet. It is not a secret what units have come home, are deploying, or are tasked for other missions.

[darkangel218]

95. Ahh okay, thanks

And thank you for the reply!

[Recursion]

109. The only people who will get mad are Janes

(It's a group that publishes all that info, for every country, in a handy book, for a hefty fee.)

[AnalystInParadise]

110. LOL

Would not be the first time Jane's and I have had words over the last 20 years.

[Recursion]

112. They still have the hull numbers on the USN's LCAC fleet wrong

I did the circuitry documentation for the LCACs for a while and we kept trying to tell Jane's they had the hull number system wrong; they never bothered to fix it. Always made me wonder what else they let slip through the cracks...

[House of Roberts]

2. 'Homeland Defense/Civil Disorder' mission?

Why should the army even have a 'Civil Disorder' mission?

I wonder when this 'mission' was started?

[AnalystInParadise]

7. 2012

http://www.progressive.org/rothschild0209.html

The new unit is the one here at Fort Bliss 4/1 Armored.

[House of Roberts]

27. Thanks Obama?

Are they worried about the left or the right, I wonder.

[dionysus]

3. we won't have a shooting war with russia. nt

[AnalystInParadise]

10. I agree

1. It is not in our interest
2. Even if it was, we do not have the forces necessary to achieve success.

[BlindTiresias]

4. Excellent analysis

I am assuming that if you have come to this conclusion then Russian analysts have as well. Do you think they are counting on a large window of response?

[AnalystInParadise]

11. Unsure

My opinion keeps changing. Some days I am convinced Russia is going to move into Eastern Ukraine and then something happens to give me doubt. If they do it though, it will be while we are in the middle of a unit swap in Afghanistan when double the normal forces are in transition and our Air/Navy transport assets are tied up moving units.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Well, it wouldn't be just us. And a war is not all army.

And I doubt Russia would try multiple fronts at once in NATO countries.

[AnalystInParadise]

9. No it wouldn't be all Army

But you need Ground forces to hold territory. And the US Army and Marine Corps are over tasked. We have a lot of Air Force Assets, but Russia still has a decent Air Force and the reduction in our pilots training hours is a concern. Currently Russian Air Force pilots receive almost the same number of flight hours as American fighter pilots.

[TwilightGardener]

17. Again, though, it would be a NATO effort to defend Poland or Latvia or whatever.

It wouldn't be just our forces (though we'd be a lot of it, probably). That's the whole point of the organization. Much more worrisome to me is nuclear warfare, not losing conventionally.

[AnalystInParadise]

21. And what NATO forces are you talking about

Germany has less than 80,000 actual combat troops since the entire Bundswehr (land sea and air) has shrunk to less than 180,000 personnel. What will Italy contribute since much of its military is tied into local law enforcement? What about France or Spain? People don't realize what a paper tiger NATO really is. I am not on Russia's side, the Russians are inept soldiers with terrible leadership, but at the very least they use most of their soldiers as actual soldiers. Most of NATO's forces are not used as military forces. There is a reason that NATO only deployed 15% of the soldiers needed in Afghanistan, we ALWAYS ask them for more, they are incapable of deploying more than 2-3 thousand per country.

This article is 10 years old, but NATO has not exactly reformed itself since then. Most NATO military forces are not combat forces in the manner that US forces are. And NATO only gets involved if a NATO nation is attacked. NATO is not going to war for Ukraine.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1045087925290850423

[TwilightGardener]

26. We are not going to war for Ukraine, either. I'm talking about

an attack on a NATO member. I doubt Russia is dumb enough to try that. But if they did, I think 28 countries (or ten and the US) can cobble together enough firepower to stop one country's invasion, assuming we have time to build up. It won't be as friendly and backyardy as Crimea.

[AnalystInParadise]

31. A breakdown of NATO shows it is strong enough to deter Russia

from invading NATO, but NATO is not that strong, strong enough to deter Russia that is for certain, Russia will not attack NATO, they are too weak.

Belgium: 20,000 Ground forces Air Force: 50 Fighter Jets
Canada: 26,000 Ground forces Air Force: 75 Fighter Jets
Denmark: 11,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 30 Fighter Jets
Iceland: No military
Estonia: 5,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 0
Bulgaria: 16,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 40 Fighter Jets
Albania: 14,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 10 Fighter Jets
Croatia: 12,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 12 Jets
Latvia: 6,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 0
Lithuania: 8,000 Ground Forces Air Force:0
Czech: 15,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 15 Fighter Jets
Slovakia: 11,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 16 Fighter Jets
Slovenia: 7,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 0 Fighter Jets
Hungary: 20,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 14 Fighter Jets
Romania: 45,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 25 Fighter Jets
Netherlands: 20,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 65 Fighter Jets
Luxembourg: 1,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 0 Jets
Norway: 9,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 50 Fighter Jets
Portugal: 17,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 25 Fighter Jets
Spain: 60,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 120 Fighter Jets
Greece: 80,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 200 Fighter Jets (But most of Greek forces would not deploy due to economic concerns and Turkish threat concerns)
Italy: 100,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 150 Fighter Jets
Poland: 50,000 Ground Forces Air Force: 110 Fighter Jets

There is a concept in military warfare called the tooth to tail ratio. It talks about the number of support troops needed to feed, arm, refuel and support each combat soldier. In NATO military's the ratio is 5 to 1, therefore five non combat soldiers are needed to sustain one combat soldier. What this means is that for the land force numbers reduce them by 80% to get the actual number of "shooters you need" Russian tooth to tail is 3 to 1, US T to T is 4 to 1. Minus the Big 5 NATO would have very limited ground forces and would not deploy their full Ground component unless they were directly adjacent to the war zone (i.e. Poland, Czech, Estonia) Most nations would be reluctant to send more than half their forces to a war zone, keeping half in reserve for future contingencies. So armed with this knowledge we can deduce NATO ground forces available if Article V was invoked. The numbers I am about to provide will be COMBAT SOLDIERS only for each country. Yes each country has reserves, but these reserves need a 30-60 day generation cycle to report for duty, receive training, arms issuance and then deployment. So without further ado, here are the combat forces available if NATO invoked Article V. Remember countries adjacent to Ukraine will be using nearly 100% of their combat forces available.

Belgium: 2000 combat soldiers
Canada: 3000 combat soldiers
Denmark: 1200 combat soldiers
Iceland: No military
Estonia: 5,000 full military commitment
Bulgaria: 2,000 Combat soldiers
Albania: 1800 combat soldiers
Croatia: 1000 combat soldiers
Latvia: 6,000 full military commitment
Lithuania: 8,000 full military commitment
Czech: 4000 Combat soldiers
Slovakia: 11,000 Full military commitment
Slovenia: 1,000 Combat soldiers
Hungary: 20,000 full military commitment
Romania: 15,000 Combat soldiers
Netherlands: 3000 Combat soldiers
Luxembourg: 0
Norway: 1000 combat soldiers
Portugal: 2000 combat soldiers
Spain: 8000 combat soldiers
Greece: 10,000 combat soldiers
Italy: 12,000 combat soldiers
Poland: 50,000 Full military commitment

This equals 165,000 combat soldiers in total for NATO minus the Big 5


So there are 1000 Fighter Jets in NATO outside the Big 5, but nearly 20% of that is the Greek forces that might not be deployable due to concerns with Turkey and the Greek economic situation. But would each country deploy every single fighter jet they had? No they wouldn't. Obviously the countries bordering Russia would send them all, but the rest of NATO would hold back a certain percentage to protect their own territory. Can we agree that any country west of Germany would hold onto 30% of their aircraft? If so then the new numbers are 675 Fighter Jets minus the Big 5 NATO countries. Let's add everyone but the US into the mix.

UK: 125,000 Ground Forces Air Force 200 Fighter Jets
France: 160,000 Ground Force Air Force: 160 Fighter Jets
Germany: 65,000 Ground Forces Air Force 200 Fighter Jets
Turkey: 250,000 Ground Forces Air Force 230 Fighter Jets
U.S.: 20,000 Ground Forces available Unknown Air Force.

So we have 165,000 combat soldiers prior to the addition of the Big 5, adding them in we get the following

UK: 15,000 Combat soldiers Air Force: 100 Fighter Jets
France: 18,000 Combat soldiers Air Force: 80 Fighter Jets
Germany: 10,000 combat soldiers Air force: 150 Fighter Jets
Turkey: 25,000 combat troops Air force: 150 Fighter Jets
United States 5,000 combat troops Air Force: Unknown

Total NATO combat forces available within 30 days of conflict is 230,000 combat soldiers for ALL OF NATO
Total Fighter Jets is 1155 plus whatever the US contributed.

Russian military forces available in European theater:

Half of Russia's Army is located in the Western and Southern Theaters, Russian Army strength is right around 400,000, meaning 220,000 are in the two theaters of concern, just over 50% in the European regions of Russia. Given the 3 to 1 tooth to tail ratio for Russia, this gives Russia 75,000 combat soldiers, giving NATO a 3 to 1 advantage if Russia invaded NATO. Russia's Air Force is comprised of 1700 Fighter Jets meaning that nearly 900 are in the European theaters. NATO would have an almost 2 to 1 ratio of fighter aircraft.

Bottom Line Russia is not invading NATO.

[AnalystInParadise]

34. Honestly there is only one fear

Russia has 2.2 million reservists it can call back to the colors in 60 days. Most of them have training within the last five years, versus NATO's reserves which are usually less trained and take a bit longer. It is a move that would cripple Russia so it is unlikely, but those 2 million soldiers mobilized in 60 days could really take away NATO's advantages.

[BlindTiresias]

19. Analyst

If you have the background to answer this: What do you think of the S-300 and S-400 AA systems? Are they in sufficient number and capability to provide a good enough deterrent against NATO aircraft?

[AnalystInParadise]

24. Depends

Sorry took me a minute. I use the old school names SA-10 and SA-21 I am old school like that.

My opinion is that the SA-10 (S300) is the worse platform, the SA-21 (S400) is more recent in production. The SA-10 has older radar and fire control but it is more effective as our jammers are designed to block newer radar systems. Finally, the SA-21 is more of a fixed ADA platform with most of its launchers deployed near Moscow, it has tremendous range but our AWACS would pick up the launches well in advance. The Ace in the Hole for the Russians though is the S400 force in Kalingrad next to Poland.......That is the trouble zone. The rest of the S400 units are not deployed to affect the mission.

The SA-10's are more tactical, but our counter measures are up to the task.

Bottom line SA-21 (S400) units have better radar but faulty fire control, the SA-10's have better warheads but crappier radar. That Regiment of SA-21's (S400) in Kalingrad is a huge red warning flag.

[4Q2u2]

132. Assumptions are wrong

You state these facts like Senior Military Command is going to be like minded as you. Even worse you assume the Political leaders are going to take no for an answer from our Military. Those non-deployable units will get waivered and be re-certed in minutes. It is all base on acceptable loses and risk reward. That 3-6 months is what the Army would like to have but it will roll out in less if Ordered.
Those Combat Ready Troops on the ground in Afghanistan will re-deploy and be ready in days and weeks not months. In July 2009 we had almost 200,000 Troops on the ground 131,000 in Iraq and 62,000 in Afghanistan. We have reduced Troop levels in those two Theaters combined by over 50%. That was even after extended manpower and equipment sustainments. You also assume that because DUer's did not like the Guard fighting in Iraq that Policy makers will somehow see that as a non starter and not use those Troops. You also believe that it is a one to one ratio of Combatants that is a determinig factor but our Forces have over tens years of Battle experience which no amount of training can simulate. Their Generals know this and so do ours.

[AnalystInParadise]

134. Are you for real?

Non-deployable units are non-deployable because they are at 60% manning or less. THEY CANNOT DEPLOY. A Mech Brigade with half its vehicles, 65% of it manpower and no unit cohesion WILL NOT DEPLOY. We did that once before Task Force Smith in Korea in 1950. We will not do that. And the troops in Afghanistan do not have Tanks, Bradleys, etc. They are outfitted and trained for a COIN fight, not a conventional war. Our battle training is based on fighting insurgents, outgunning them significantly, not being on the receiving end of artillery, air strikes, tanks and TRAINED Infantry. Look, every assumption I made is logical, yours are not based on the reality. I am sorry, it really is that simple, this is my job to know this stuff, I am not right all the time, but I know for a fact that non-deployable units would not deploy. No President, especially PBO is going to send untrained, undermanned, unequiped units to Ukraine.

[4Q2u2]

135. Am I for Real

Been there, done that and have the T-shirts. How prepped were we for WWII. How prepped were we for 9-11. We can spin up plenty fast. The QDR for 2014 is already in the works to reposition troops and War Space Strategy. The 2010 QDR called attention to over planning for COIN and re-establish ties to tradition partners and strengthen those ties. The Marine Units have the TOA Maritime Prepositioned and can call it down anywhere in the world. These pre-staged Combat systems are ready to soup to nuts. Do you think some General is going to tell The CMC that he is not ready, that his troops are not ready to answer the call. Plussing up a unit is easy it is done all the time. Equipment level 4 is established when that the Unit does not have TOE that is with in 72 hrs. That is a fail easily fixed.
That Non-deployable status is and has changed in the past. This from the Army Readiness Manual,


"4–5. Commanders’ subjective upgrades and downgrades
Modifications to the levels determined for the individually measured resource areas (that is, P, S, R, and T) are not
allowed. However, the commander can subjectively adjust the C-level or the A-level initially established for the unit
that is based the lowest (worst case) level computed for the associated measured resource areas. The commander will
compare the initial C-level or A-level determination to the C-level and A-level definitions in paragraph 4–6, respectively,
and then, if necessary, subjectively upgrade or downgrade this initial C-level or A-level to align the C-level or A-level
reported with the definition that most closely matches his overall readiness assessments in accordance with the
following policy guidance." How much they can change is all based on Pay Grade and Command Level.

At least we still have a Battle Rhythm. That trained infantry (not Battle Tested) is much more predictable and easier to adjust for than a COIN action.
You are right Non-deployable Units will not deploy. That does not mean they are not Transformed into deployable units with the wave of a pen.

[AnalystInParadise]

137. Spin up fast?

Yes, but fast in this case is six months to a year. A war between Russia and Ukraine would end in 90 days or less.

And no I think the General will tell the President he is ready, even though he knows he isn't ready. I have also been there and done that, we are not prepared. Deployable units with not enough beans, bullets, Bradleys and bodies is not something we want to deploy.

As for the Maritime and the RO/RO stuff, again what soldiers are we going to use to man it? Right now at this moment we have 2 HBCT's that are manned and ready. If you look at the Pseudo Patch Chart I listed, the vast majority of the rest of the available soldiers are Light Infantry/Airborne/Air Assault. They are not Cross Trained to man an Abrams, Bradley or Stryker. We could combine non-deployable/reset Brigades into brand new Brigades, but again what would their unit cohesion look like. Hell, here at Fort Bliss, we have less than 1000 soldiers that can deploy due to other missions, unit deactivations and reset status. The 1st Brigade, the one in reset has a normal strength of 3800 personnel, right now they are at roughly 2000, their equipment is either turned in or rated non missions capable. The 2nd Brigade is the NIE Brigade, they have not been on a real field problem in 3 years. They have done nothing but Digital Exercise after Digital Exercise and they are trained (for 3 years) on non standard weapons and other platforms. Right now they are rated lowest low for manpower, equipment and potential deployment. 3rd Brigade has been deactivated, their normal strength is 3800 personnel they have about 600 left expecting to hit zero by June, That unit does not exist, it has no equipment, its MRAP's and other equipment have been sent to the Guard, to the Scrapyard or to local law enforcement around the country. That leaves 4th Brigade. They have the Homeland Defense mission, meaning they are on lockdown for any movement. Sure they could be released to any contingency in Ukraine, but that is unlikely.

Bottom line Fort Bliss, 1st Armored Div, the heaviest unit in the Army, has less than half a Brigade capable of deploying. The rest of the Army is beat up almost as badly. Can they be ordered to deploy? Yep, and it would be a disaster.

[Adsos Letter]

6. What happened to 2ACR?

Just out of curiosity, having been with that regiment in W. Germany about...ohhh...40 years ago.

[AnalystInParadise]

8. 2ACR

became 2SCR Stryker Cav....They are in Afghanistan, normally headquartered in Germany.

[Adsos Letter]

12. Thanks! Where are they posted in Germany, now that border duty isn't a thing?

I was in 3rd Squadron, and Pond Barracks no longer exists as a military facility.

Regimental headquarters was at Nuremberg.

Sorry for all of the tangential questions.

[AnalystInParadise]

13. Vilseck

Rose Barracks.

[Adsos Letter]

16. Hah! And their arty FOs are probably stuck adjusting fire for every unit that

...rotates through Graf for their live firing.

Thanks for the answers, and I apologize for getting sidetracked.

I enjoyed your analysis (if enjoyed is the right term to use here).

[pinboy3niner]

29. Curiously, my old battalion from Vietnam recently was reactivated with a different division

2/501 Infantry was part of the 101st Aiborne Div., but it and its sister battalion, 1/501 Inf., were inactivated after Vietnam. Some years ago 1/501 was reactivated for GWOT as part of the 25th Infantry Div. at Ft. Richardson, AK. Now 2/501 Inf. has been activated as part of the 82nd Airborne Div. at Ft. Bragg.

It sounds confusing to have an old unit activated during a drawdown, but apparently an 82nd unit was inactivated at the same time as part of force restructuring.

[davidn3600]

14. If NATO goes to war against Russia...the human race may not survive

You are thinking in terms of WW2. World Wars won't be fought that way anymore.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
-Albert Einstein

[AnalystInParadise]

18. You assume the Russians would go nuclear. They won't, and it is Western misunderstanding

of Russia that thinks they will start flinging nukes. They won't. But not my actual point, the whole point was to demonstrate that the NATO commander is full of crap when he says we might reinforce Eastern Europe.

[davidn3600]

22. If Russia invades a NATO nation....we are at war

If Russia wants to build up troop levels on the borders, that's fine. But one step onto NATO soil and everyone's gloves will come off. Your calculations are meaningless at that point.

[AnalystInParadise]

25. We are not is disagreement about what happens IF

Article V is invoked, our difference in opinion is about Russia actually doing so. I don't think they would, it gains nothing.

[idendoit]

92. If a confrontation erupted with Russia now....

...I believe the Russians would nuke out in a couple of days. That's how long it would take for Nato to gain air superiority. Once that happens their backs would be to the wall and they would toss a tactical nuke as a warning. Because they would assume the West would not retaliate in kind.

[AnalystInParadise]

97. You seem to assume that NATO would gain Air Superiority

Given the decline in US and Western pilots flights hours and the increase in Russian flight hours combined with Russia's integrated Air Defense Network, I am not sure we would achieve that.

That being said, I consider Russia in the wrong and the aggressor here, but I also think people in the west seem to seriously undervalue Russian capabilities. In certain areas, such as Air Defense, and Air Power they are still a first rate power.

And they will not go nuke, I can't understand why people keep saying this. The Russian psychological profile is not the same as the Chinese. China would most definitely go Nuke first, Russia would never.

[idendoit]

98. Russian pilots are trained not to take the initiative.

They are guided from the ground or air. Their planes and missiles are demonstrably inferior to the West's. Their entire armed forces are under trained and under served. They constantly are in search of spare parts and regularly cannibalize equipment. How can you credibly say you have an insight into China's or Russia's 'psychological profile'? Ask any psychologist and they will tell you that they are no better than chance at predicting if someone is prone to commit violence, let alone release nukes.

[AnalystInParadise]

100. Because there is a military profile for the military

of every adversary we face. The profile is compiled and revised every year and it is one factor on how the US military plans against its adversary's.

As for Air Superiority I have no doubt American pilots are better than Russian ones, I cannot say the same for NATO pilots. If this was a NATO operation, then a significant portion of the platforms, weapons, and pilots would come from NATO nations, not US forces. NATO pilots do not have the same training.

American pilots get 120 hours a year

Russian pilots get 100

Most Eastern European NATO nations receive 40-80 per year. (Poland, Czech, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, etc.)
Southern European NATO nations receive 80-100
Western European NATO nations receive 90-120

SO.....my entire point is that NATO has radically different training standards for pilots. Against U.S./UK, French and German pilots you are correct Russia would have trouble, but since nearly half the aircraft would come from other nations with less reliable training standards you cannot tell me NATO would achieve air superiority quickly. Russia will be operating under an ADA network that is the most advanced in the world or the 2nd most advanced. That will hurt NATO forces. It can be done for NATO but it won't be fast, it won't be easy and it is far from certain.

AGAIN I am not freaking on Russia's side, but my job for 20 years was Soviet/Russian military analysis. I don't know everything, but I know a lot.

[idendoit]

102. Thank you for your service.

Here's a distinct advantage for NATO and friends that wasn't there during the cold war, forward basing in former Soviet bloc countries:[link:.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26849732|

[AnalystInParadise]

103. That is definitely an advantage

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying NATO can't do it, I am saying it won't be easy and the issue is in doubt. That's all.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. We never were...

I spent a couple of years in 8th Division Signal smoking pot, drinking bier and diddling German girls. That was in the late 60's when all the money was going to Viet Nam.

Rarely were more than half of our trucks ready to go out, and every time we headed for the woods more broke down. Got to the point where we had no more money for field training. And we never had spares, or even much ammo for our M14s. Most of our equipment was Korean War era.

Nobody admitted it officially, but we were simply a token force. Semi-officially, we were supposed to last a few days until reinforcements from the States arrived-- as if we thought we could last that long, or there would be enough reinforcements to fight off a million Russians. And the local NATO forces weren't in much better shape.

The real story everyone knew but didn't talk about was that it was a huge bluff, and we were simply praying that the Soviets wouldn't risk a nuclear war by firing on US troops.

Things have changed, and NATO actually has a more rational mission now. But a land battle with the Russians? Nobody wants that. Nobody thinks Putin is that crazy, either. Or at least hopes he isn't.

[Adsos Letter]

20. You were able to get weed?

I was in 3/2 ACR in the early 70's, and pot was scarce and expensive.

Afghanistan Black hash, on the other hand...

[TreasonousBastard]

28. You're right...

some weed in Amsterdam, but mostly it was hash in Germany-- some opiated. Lotta white hash, too.

Hash was much easier to transport than bales of weed, and the Germans didn't seem to care until Nixon gave them millions to solve their drug problem. Then they decided they had a drug problem.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. Just adding some grain to the grist

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024799849

Feel free to link, use, for background.

And yes, we all kept it as barebones as possible. Or we would have to write a tome the size of my textbook for the History of Russia course... and Riasanovsky was NOT light reading either or a light book. Of course we did more than just a core book. It was a 500 level class.

But I guess there are two sides to the equation. One is the numbers game, what can be deployed and when. The other is divining intent. I am more convinced than ever that Putin intends to go after Kiev. It was not a nice turn of phrase.

[AcertainLiz]

30. Just out of curiosity

Does anyone have any ideas on how we could make ourselves able to actually reinforce and defend Europe, if it came down to that?

[AnalystInParadise]

32. Right now

we really don't have the means to do so. A year to a year and a half from now and we have a lot more of our forces regenerated with the proper amounts of combat power. But for the next 12-18 months we have big problems if a major war broke out in Europe. Unless we try to reactivate the Guard, and since so many people around DU objected to the guard fighting in Iraq, I imagine that is a nonstarter for most people around here.

[AcertainLiz]

33. Kind of a frightening thought in a way

But I'm curious, is it possible to even have adequate numbers these days, since most don't even want to join the military (for good reasons admittedly)? I just figured we can't really fight against a target our own size, either because of nukes or just lack of manpower. I'm certainly no expert on this subject, so I'm just asking. Obviously I don't want war, and this kind of scares me, but I also want America to be able to defend itself and our allies.

[AnalystInParadise]

35. We have the manpower

if there ever was a draft, but with current force totals and the current deployment cycle, the Army and Marines together could only project roughly 75,000 soldiers into Europe within 90 days. And no one is going to use nukes, I hate it when the topic even comes up it is as far fetched as a massive asteroid hitting the Earth tomorrow. It might happen, but it really isn't likely.

As for a war, unless Russia attacks NATO which would be insane we will not be fighting the Russians anytime soon. I would bet my twenty year military intelligence career on it.

[AcertainLiz]

36. No one would use nukes?

I assume they were security to prevent war, because if one was attacked, they'd just unleash their nuclear arsenal and end the world?

A draft? I actually am for a draft (or some sort of mandatory military service, partially for this reason) but I know that will never happen, and again, I was under the impression nuclear war would be the result of any conflict between NATO and Russia? It just seems logical, no?

[AnalystInParadise]

37. Why would it be logical?

The point of Nuclear weapons is to use them as a threat, not to actually use them. In what situation would Russia want to end the world? I am not being harsh, just asking......

[AcertainLiz]

40. Well, if you feel like you're going to be defeated and taken over

Wouldn't the logical step just be to blow the world up? Why build the nukes if you'll never ever use them?

[AnalystInParadise]

41. But launching nukes would kill your own people

as well as everyone else on Earth. Self preservation is one of humanity's strongest biological traits. We had nukes pointed at each other for 50 years and no one has even felt a twitch to use them.

As for building them, they are a great threatening tool to use against countries that don't have them and if you have them and your enemy has them, both of you live in fear of what happens if you both use them. No one wants to end the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

[AcertainLiz]

42. There's been a lot of close calls, no?

And I assume if it ever came down to it, most would be like "If I'm going to die, you're going to die with me" kind of mentality.

[AnalystInParadise]

44. There were two close calls in 50 years

One in the Cuban Missile Crisis and one in the 1980's.

And who is going to die? Defeat for Russia would mean change of government, why would rational sane people start a process that would kill billions just because they lost a war? It makes no sense.

[AcertainLiz]

45. Well there was the Norwegian incident in the 90s

And a lot of other ones:

http://mentalfloss.com/article/25685/7-close-calls-nuclear-age

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/nuclear-false-alarms.html

Well, people don't want to live as a conquered people, so I assume they'd do anything to scare invaders away, and if they fail, they'd just go down in flames? Noble suicide and all that?

[AnalystInParadise]

46. I don't mean to nitpick

but most of those were not close calls.

As for noble suicide, that is not in the makeup of Russian psychology, my time in the military was spent doing analysis on the Russians, it is not in their national character to commit "noble suicide". And again why would they want to incinerate the world if they lost a war? We wouldn't do that nor would China. Again, unlike fiction or movies, in the real world nearly everyone wants to live. A nuclear exchange would be an accident, not one done on purpose.

[AcertainLiz]

48. They weren't close calls?

Even the accidents that came minutes close to triggering nuclear war?

I'm not so sure Russia doesn't have this mentality, since after all they have something called "Dead Hand" that will launch a nuclear assault on the US in case they lose a war and their central command is taken out. That and even you say there's been close calls, I don't think most people with nukes will accept living under occupation and subjugation.

[Bosonic]

50. Putin put 'limited' nuclear strikes into the Russian playbook

Not first strike strategic, but first strike tactical/battlefield.

Now obviously this is also a threat, but how much lower is the threshold?

Why Russia calls a limited nuclear strike "de-escalation"

In 1999, at a time when renewed war in Chechnya seemed imminent, Moscow watched with great concern as NATO waged a high-precision military campaign in Yugoslavia. The conventional capabilities that the United States and its allies demonstrated seemed far beyond Russia’s own capacities. And because the issues underlying the Kosovo conflict seemed almost identical to those underlying the Chechen conflict, Moscow became deeply worried that the United States would interfere within its borders.

By the next year, Russia had issued a new military doctrine whose main innovation was the concept of “de-escalation”—the idea that, if Russia were faced with a large-scale conventional attack that exceeded its capacity for defense, it might respond with a limited nuclear strike. To date, Russia has never publically invoked the possibility of de-escalation in relation to any specific conflict. But Russia’s policy probably limited the West’s options for responding to the 2008 war in Georgia. And it is probably in the back of Western leaders’ minds today, dictating restraint as they formulate their responses to events in Ukraine.

Game-changer. Russia’s de-escalation policy represented a reemergence of nuclear weapons’ importance in defense strategy after a period when these weapons’ salience had decreased. When the Cold War ended, Russia and the United States suddenly had less reason to fear that the other side would launch a surprise, large-scale nuclear attack. Nuclear weapons therefore began to play primarily a political role in the two countries’ security relationship. They became status symbols, or insurance against unforeseen developments. They were an ultimate security guarantee, but were always in the background—something never needed.

Then a very different security challenge began to loom large in the thinking of Russia’s political leaders, military officers, and security experts. That challenge was US conventional military power. This power was first displayed in its modern incarnation during the Gulf War of 1990 and 1991—but the game-changer was the Kosovo conflict. In Yugoslavia the United States utilized modern, high-precision conventional weapons to produce highly tangible results with only limited collateral damage. These conventional weapons systems, unlike their nuclear counterparts, were highly usable.

http://thebulletin.org/why-russia-calls-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation

[joshcryer]

38. NATO "reenforcing Eastern EU" = Nukes

It's merely posturing.

Let Russia invade NATO states. It'll be WWIII. Sticks and stones shit.

Fortunately the US ABM shield is likely far beyond Russia ever considered. So the US will be safe.

This is why Russia would never do it. Suicide.

[AnalystInParadise]

39. The NATO commander

specifically said ground forces, not nukes. It is ridiculous that we are actually talking about nukes (not you josh, your comment was well thought out) But people think that for some reason a war with Russia would automatically go nuclear. What is the chain of events that would lead to that? No one can ever answer that.

[joshcryer]

43. In NATO states.

They won't deploy in non-NATO states. Russia will not invade a NATO state.

It's posturing. If Russia invaded, nukes would be part of the equation. Russia knows that.

Heck, your own post justifies nukes, NATO would not be prepared for a Russia ground invasion. Nukes would launch. Russia would be SOL. A counter attack of nukes would only hurt the Baltic states, most of EU would be protected, the US certainly would be protected.

And that's why Russia will not make any such ridiculous incursions into NATO states. Ukraine, maybe, but the US would let it happen for the most part, there'd be hard sanctions, though which would bring Russia to its knees...

[AcertainLiz]

49. The Russians wouldn't be able to hit the US with nukes?

[joshcryer]

51. No, ABM and SBIRS are perfected.

Russia cannot nuke the continental United States. Maybe Alaska or Hawaii. The US has over two dozen ABM ships in operation. To be 3 or 4 dozen in the coming years.

It's possible Russia has multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV), which would seriously compromise the ABM systems, but that is unlikely.

And scarily, even if Russia did, I believe the US's ABM system could handle them. The USA's military space budget has dwarfed NASAs. We probably know where Flight 370 crashed, we just can't say it. We're completely dominating the skies, and Russia knows it.

[AcertainLiz]

52. What if they fired nukes high enough in the atmosphere

To disrupt our electronic infrastructure? Also Russia has thousands of nukes, what if they simply fired their arsenal at us?

[joshcryer]

53. I am saying simply US can destroy them all.

It is not a matter of 99% accuracy. The US is 99.99% accurate. There's a reason we don't hear much anymore about US AMB defense capability. It is perfected to the point where the US is not afraid. It's why Russia is terrified at US further encroachment toward their boarders because we keep building out AMB facilities. They hate that we resigned from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

Just look at the Wiki pages on US abilities. You'll see a stark drop off of information around 2007. After that you don't get much info. I think that's when it became viable and useful as a strategic initiative. If it didn't work why would the US keep building and sending out AMB ships? It works. The US is safe.

That is not to say that RU might be saving a few unconventional nukes to deter it, and that's probably why the US is being calm on the matter. We can stop missiles. We can't stop a van with a nuke in it.

[AcertainLiz]

54. But I don't see how we could destroy either nukes denotated in the atmosphere

Or a barrage of thousands of nukes, which is what would happen if Russia were attacked (Dead Hand), firing all at once. This seems like wishful thinking and overconfidence to me.

http://www.nucleardarkness.org/nuclear/nuclearweaponsintheusandrussia/

" However, since most nuclear weapons in the US and Russia are mounted on some form of missile, the focus for years has been how to defend against a missile attack. Despite decades of research and tens of billions of dollars of expenditures, it has proven virtually impossible to construct a defense system which can reliably detect and shoot down missiles which travel faster than a speeding bullet.

Simple defensive measures, such as employing decoys which resemble warheads, are enough to overwhelm and defeat even the latest versions of missile defense. US missile defense systems also have extremely limited capabilities in terms of the numbers of missiles which they could engage (even if they had 100% assurance of destroying each target, which they do not). A single failure of such a system would likely result in the deaths of millions of people

Deploying and expanding these systems has historically only added fuel to an arms race which causes the deployment of more opposing missiles and the development of new technologies designed to overcome any defensive measures. Furthermore, missile defense systems are often seen by the opposing side as a form of offensive weapon designed to “mop-up” any missiles which would survive a nuclear first-strike.

Thus missile defense systems have tended only to increase the danger and likelihood of nuclear war. This was the reason that the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty was negotiated between the US and the Soviet Union in 1972 – both nations saw that there was no way to “win” by deploying ABM systems.

As of 2008, there is no reliable defense against even a limited missile attack. "

I'm no expert, it just seems what I find on the subject indicates otherwise.

[joshcryer]

56. Atmo nukes, or "Strangelove" nukes aren't considered.

Because they wipe out the entire human race. The US doesn't think that Russia would ever employ such methods nor does Russia think the US would.

It's possible either state has such aspirations, but they'd not be made public, and therefore assuming they exist is speculation.

Your post is 7 years out of date. SBIRS has grown exponentially. Literally all of US Army military launches have been related to international security as far as we know (they're all classified).

[AcertainLiz]

57. Well, if I may ask, what's your sources?

I would say Dead Hand is a doomsday device: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_%28nuclear_war%29

Also, I can't find any evidence we have some sort of failproof and ultimate defense system.

[shaayecanaan]

62. complete and utter bullshit

The reason we don't hear about it is because Russia is not concerned. Simple countermeasures will evade the ABM shield and the even if they are effective simple numbers will do the rest.

Fuck me Americans do fall for their own bullshit. 99% was exactly the claim for patriot during the first Iraq war and what a crock that turned out to be.

[joshcryer]

81. Technology has increased exponentially...

If it didn't Russia wouldn't be concerned.

[shaayecanaan]

101. They're not

Thats why in 2011 they committed to a deal that would see both the US and Russia reduce their nuclear stockpiles to 1,550 long range nuclear warheads each. Russia wouldn't have done that if they thought that their deterrence capabilities were at stake.

Even the US has conceded that missile defence is more about keeping out one or two missiles from Iran or North Korea rather than the thousand missiles they would get from Russia if there was ever a launch.

[Kelvin Mace]

130. I am highly dubious of the 99.9% claim

Some sources other than a Wikipedia page are going to be needed for such a claim.

The "Patriot Missile" was touted by Bush the Older as 97% accurate, when the real number was between 25%-33%.

Also, let us assume that the U.S. ABM system is as effective as you claim. It is still easily defeated by the use of decoys. For the same price of a single ICBM, I can also build 2 missiles that look and act just like a nuclear weapon, but do not have a war head. So, if I launch 100 missiles at you, but only 1 in 3 has an actual warhead you still have to destroy ALL of them.

Using a Fermi estimation would mean that at least 10 missiles would get through, which mean at least 3 actual warheads would reach it's target.

Russia has 3,000 "strategic" nukes. If we assume an initial launch of half that arsenal along with decoys we have 4,500 missiles in the air. If we assume even your best case scenario of 99% interception of ALL missiles and their decoys, that still leave 45 missiles, 15 with actual warheads arriving on target.

Bush the Older claimed the Patriot system stopped 97% of incoming SCUD missiles (far less sophisticated devices than Russian ICBMs), that would mean 45 warheads on target.

If we take the best real world estimate of 33% accuracy of the Patriot system, then double it to be charitable (by assuming tech improvements have increased accuracy). 495 warhead land on target.

So, even using your 99% number, 15 nuclear missiles are going to land on target, and that is a LOT of dead people. Using a more realistic number means possibly more deaths than at any other time in history. Damage to the world economy in these scenarios would range from catastrophic to apocalyptic.

[BlindTiresias]

74. Would not bet on that myself

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTKh_Topol-M

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-24

[Kelvin Mace]

82. I am not as sanguine about ABM systems

actually working as promised when the nukes start flying. I remember articles about rigged ABM tests in the 80s and 90s (putting transmitters in the missiles being targeted) and the ABM systems STILL missed.

One nuke in NYC and you have a million dead and 3-4 times that many injured. The entire U.S. medical system cannot handle that load, never mind the hospitals close enough to NYC to provide immediate care. I believe we have around 900,000 total hospital beds, with 50,000 of those critical care units.

[BlindTiresias]

116. Also

The Russians didn't just stop updating their ICBM systems after the USSR fell. Their nuclear capabilities have grown alongside our ABM capabilities so whether or not the ABM systems will be fully effective is questionable and not a gamble I would want to make.

[politicman]

60. what do you think of this scenario

Here's a scenario for you:

Little skirmishes break out between Nato and Russian forces. All governments involved try their best to clam the situation down, but events on the ground slowly spiral out of control.

Next thing you know, Nato and Russia are engaged in a full scale war.

As with any war, both sides win some battles and lose some battles.
Eventually Nato gains the upper hand and Russia figures that they need to stop Nato from defeating the Russian army and possibly invading and conquering Russia.

So Russia decides to use limited nuclear tactical weapons to re-inforce their forces who are being defeated.

As you know once any kind of tactical nuclear device is used, it can easily spiral out of control and countries can think that they need to utilise their first strike capability before they lose it.


Now I am not saying that this is likely, but as you know, events on the ground can take on a life of their own and force leaders to make decisions that they never intended to make.

[CFLDem]

65. On the bright side

At least CNN will stop reporting about that damn plane.

[eridani]

55. All this discussion about what various leaders in the US and Russia would do has been--

--pretty rational. I have no fears on that score with Obama as president, and Putin seems to be a hardcore realpolitik sort. Would your analysis hold with a President McCain? That recent exchange of his with Kerry was pretty creepy.

[AcertainLiz]

58. I doubt either want war.

But you never know when things escalate...

[avebury]

59. I think that we are paying way to much attention to Putin

and what Russia may or may not do. We need to keep our focus on the bigger ball - what may or may not take place within our own borders if the Republicans continue to take over more and more states and can eventually grab control of both the House and Senate in Washington. More and more police departments are becoming more militarized. There is now an Army Group tasked to deal with Civil Disorder. There are Republicans (and 1%ers) who must be salivating to gain the kind of control here that Putin has over there. I doubt that there is anybody out there that would come to the assistance of the masses here. We need to stop letting the Republicans divert our attention from what they are doing here in our own country.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. You seem to be planning to fight WW3

Any reason for that?

If you decided to post this because of the situation in Ukraine, I think it should be pointed out that neither side has given the slightest indication of proposing all-out war. What Russia did in Crimea was deploy troops in APCs to control strategic points like key roads and airports. And, yes, NATO does have the necessary manpower to prevent that if it were ever tried in, say, the Baltic states. And so they're pointing out they might do that.

[AnalystInParadise]

67. I am not planning or supporting anything.

All I have done is given out information. In fact if you read carefully, I list why WAR IS NOT LIKELY.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. The OP is too long and boring to read carefully

It's a huge list of brigades. I can see that you think that 25,000 troops would not be enough, which means you are talking about the planning for an all-out war.

[AnalystInParadise]

70. Actually, I am not talking about that at all.

25,000 troops would not be enough, therefore we will not commit. That is all. My whole point is that with the U.S. Army overtasked, we do not have sufficient ground forces to persuade Putin to back off. For the record I don't think he is going to attack Ukraine militarily. But if he did, we do not have a sufficient counter threat to convince him to back off.

[Desert805]

76. That OP was an informative and very interesting read.

Perhaps you aren't interested in the subject enough to have an educated opinion?

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. Strangely enough, no, the dispostion of every brigade in the US army is not interesting

to the vast majority of people. But the OP assumes that the only thing that NATO might want to do is fight an all-out war with Russia, needing more than 25,000 American troops in addition to the troops that are already in whichever country is under consideration. What is needed to reinforce countries can be a lot less than that. Russia is not going to want to start total war; but they might want to send in a limited number of troops (eg to eastern Ukraine) under the pretext of 'keeping order'. The presence of a small number of extra troops from other countries (US or other), if invited in by the country, will make it clear they would be resisted, and then Russia wouldn't go in at all.

[AnalystInParadise]

85. WTH?

I keep saying I am not advocating total war and you keep saying I am.

25,000 American soldiers is not enough to stop NATO. Since most NATO militaries do not run at the OPTEMPO that US units do, it would take them longer to deploy to deter Russia. It's like you aren't even fucking reading what anyone is saying.

[muriel_volestrangler]

88. I am not saying you are advocating total war; I'm saying you're analysing it

and thinking that the only thing NATO thinks will happen is total war. This entire thread is a red herring. It's not about a situation that is happening. NATO can reinforce its members quite easily, and if Russia sent troops into Ukraine and the Ukrainian government asked it to, it could send effective troops there too.

[AnalystInParadise]

91. Ok

First things first, NATO cannot reinforce its members that quickly, nations like Belgium and Spain rarely have more than half their militaries on duty at any one time. They could do it, but it would take time.

And NATO would not send troops into Ukraine, that is the real red herring that we are supposed to believe that NATO would could not stop ethnic cleansing on its borders would go into an even more dangerous situation at the drop of a hat or an Ukrainian request.

I broke NATO forces down, it is a deterrent, but a deterrent for Russian military action against NATO. And one final thought, do you really think all NATO members would send troops outside of NATO to possible engage Russia? I would bet less than half would send forces.

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. Its your scenario of sending massive numbers of troops to Ukraine - or Russia! - in the OP

" The Army has 44 Brigades, but the vast majority of them cannot go to Russia for various reasons.
...
We can deploy them, but their weapons and capabilities are not configured to resist an Armored force. They could be in Eastern Europe and setup 2-3 weeks after a war began in Ukraine."

See? You're talking about an armoured war, and fighting it in Russia. I'm glad you now recognise it's a red herring.

[AnalystInParadise]

94. No I am not.

Good Christ, I keep denying something I never said and you keep saying I said it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. That quote is from your OP.

Have you forgotten what you said already?

[AnalystInParadise]

99. No

But it does not prove I am planning for war.....or support a war. Good lord....I cannot believe this is still going on. You keep trying to prove I said something I didn't say.

[AcertainLiz]

69. I'm afraid of war breaking out any minute now...

[pinboy3niner]

71. But that's just on DU

[AcertainLiz]

73. Nah, I deeply am afraid. I don't want to see some full-scale war break out.

[pinboy3niner]

78. The prospect of war is still pretty remote

Everyone has too much to lose, and they know it. President Obama certainly isn't keen on a war in Europe.

[AcertainLiz]

122. My fear is rationality will fly out the window as tensions rise.

[shaayecanaan]

63. I already knew that...

The US can't even impose itself on a ragtag militia camped out on hills in the south Asian desert. What chance would they have against a great power, even if there was the money to do anything, which there isn't?

[TwilightGardener]

64. "What chance do they have against a great power"...seriously?

We could demolish places like Iraq and Afghanistan in no time at all. That's a real war. We don't do that (after the first three months, anyway)--we occupy, fall victim to IED's and suicide bombers and Afghan army members who turn, and we try to prevent civilian casualties and build schools and water treatment plants and shit. I would not take our occupations as a sign that we can't do all-out war, even with a stronger adversary. Russia also didn't do so hot in Afghanistan.

[hack89]

72. Russia is not a great military power

it will take them a very long time to recover from decades of neglect. The big mistake the russians made was to try to keep as much hardware as they could. They then found themselves in a double bind - not enough money and personal to keep all that equipment operational while using up the money they needed to modernize. The end result is a relatively small army with old equipment and inadequate training. They have a handful of units trained to western standards.

Right now Poland alone could stop a Russian invasion of eastern Europe - the Poles have put a lot of money and effort into modernizing their military.

[AnalystInParadise]

75. I agree Russia is not a first rate military power

But Poland would be hopelessly outclassed by Russia. Poland, Germany, Czech Republic, with Slovakia and Romania COMBINED could stop Russia. But Poland alone? Not a chance. The Poles are good soldiers, but they are outclassed when it comes to equipment and manpower. They have a credible ground force, but are hopelessly outclassed in artillery and air power, 90 Fighter Jets is not going to cut it against Russia. The Polish Ground forces are 45,000 in their active state. Mobilizing the reserves (all the reserves gives Poland a land Army of 350,000. Very Credible but if Russia mobilized its reserves and this was a Poland/Russia ONLY conflict, Poland would be rolled under in weeks.

But Poland would not fight alone, so this was fun speculation, but to say the Poles could stand alone is silly. They are good soldiers, but even good soldiers cannot stand against the other side with massive advantages in artillery and air power.

[hack89]

77. Hopefully we will never have to find out. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. Devils advocate

Neither could the Russians. Or the Brits,or Alexander the Great.

[shaayecanaan]

111. Genghis Khan could

and the Khans were the only ones to ever do well out of an invasion of Russia. The US of today is no Genghis Khan.

[nadinbrzezinski]

115. I know, but just wanted to point out that Afghanistan is exactly where empires

go to die. For the Russians they have tried twice, the British three times. To our credit we have done it only once, but I am counting on us getting that stupid again. And that is just the last 200 years.

[RobertEarl]

80. I like this

This means that the 700 billion a year defense spending is wasteful and un-needed. That the new weapons we're developing will not be needed or can be used.

One reason the neo-cons are pressing us to bomb everyone is to use up the new weapons so weapon suppliers could make more. Finally it seems we have come to our senses.

[NobodyHere]

84. This is my first thought as well

Why spend $700 billion on a military that can't even field an army.

I mean we also have a navy to maintain but still.

[Kelvin Mace]

83. How does China figure into this?

I would think China would be might tempted to solve the Taiwan situation once and for all if the U.S. got distracted with Russia. My guess though, is that they would not want to mess with U.S. carrier groups, but still...

(Neat trivia fact: Of the 25 aircraft carriers in service in the world the U.S. has 12, with 3 under construction. The UK, India, Italy and Spain have 2 each. France, Russia, Brazil, China, and Thailand have 1 each).

[AnalystInParadise]

86. China remains

incapable of projecting enough combat power across the Straits into Taiwan. That could change in a decade, but as of right now a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would fail miserably. Logistics, Troop transports, and Amphibious capabilities are China's Achilles heel.

[Kelvin Mace]

127. Thank you for your exteremly informative

post. I have suspected we were way overextended due to the last decade of war, so you put hard numbers to my surmise of the situation.

At this point it would seem that Russia could re-take any non-NATO country. In essence, if you were part of the former Soviet Union, and not currently in NATO, you are in danger of re-annexation. Though how far Putin could go and not create another Afghan War and/or trash its economy are limiting factors. But then, Angela Merkel described her phone call with Putin as a discussion with man not in touch with reality (I am paraphrasing), so I would guess that is the source of your uncertainty about the invasion of the rest of Ukraine.

One point in favor of invading, it seems to me, would be to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO.

[politicman]

89. carrier groups are great for mobility, but not so great against a whole enemy country

Why do people think that the U.S has an unbeatable army?

Those carrier groups are advantageous to an extent, they provide the U.S with the ability to wage war from the sea. That is all.

A war against Russia or China would mean that both of those countries don't need Carrier groups as they would have plenty of land in their area to get their birds up into the sky.

In fact they would have the advantage because once one of their airfields is destroyed, they can just simply construct another makeshift one, whilst if a U.S carrier group is destroyed, that's it, the U.S loses permanently one of is launching bases in the sea.


Look, Carrier Groups are great for controlling the seas and being able to have an attack force get to anywhere in the world, but in a full scale war against another powerful nation, the carrier groups become just another kind of land based attack, only difference is they are a lot more expensive and once you take one out, its like the U.S losing a piece of conquered land.


The best aspect of sea based weaponry is submarines, as they can make sneak right up to enemy shores and attack, especially with nukes which are their most effective weapon.

[Kelvin Mace]

126. Carriers are great as a mobile projection of power

within the limits you mention. I refer to them in relation to China since naval operations would be key to invading Taiwan and the Chinese carrier is very much a "paper tiger".

Boomers are the only credible nuclear deterrent left in our arsenal.

In an all out slugfest, with no holds barred, US. carrier fleets and subs would wipe the floor with any country since they can deliver a lot of conventional and nuclear ordinance. They are great at providing cover for marines landings, but range is a problem. They can only project power to a certain radius, then they are useless, unless nukes fly.

But at the point it is pretty much over for humanity.

I agree with the OP's remarks about neither Russia nor the U.S. (under a sane president) is going to go nuclear. I would be less sanguine should any of the current clown squad on the right get into the White House.

[Recursion]

105. Can China's carrier steam under its own power yet?

In those last propaganda shots you could see the tug they were trying to hide.

That said, China doesn't need a carrier to invade Taiwan. They really don't need anything to invade Taiwan other than the will to do it, but they seem to still believe Mao's formulation ("if it takes one thousand years, it will take one thousand years&quot and are still working on the long game there. Any mobilization by China will freak out India, which will freak out Pakistan, all of which China knows and keeps in mind.

[AnalystInParadise]

107. It is sheer logistics and Sealift

China can right now transport 100,000 troops by sea in one move. 100,000 in the first wave, sounds good, right? Problem is most amphibious forces take 10%-15% casualties and that includes landing craft as well. So If 100,000 make it in the first wave, 85,000 would make it in the second wave, 70,000 in the third wave, except that is not correct, China would need to supply their troops as well as insert new troops, using the three to one tooth to tail ratio we already discussed, the follow on waves could only be 1/3 as strong in relation to the surviving landing craft, sea transports. So the second wave would be 30,000 to keep Chinese troops, fed, supplied and evac'ed due to casualties. The third wave would be 22,000. At this point Chinese has moved 150,000 troops across the strait. Sounds good, right? The Taiwanese standing Army is 150,000 equal to what China has transported. With Taiwanese reserves approaching 2 million and China lacking the transport assets to keep up their OPTEMPO, China would fail to conquer Taiwan. It is simple logistics, lift capability and numbers. China can't do it, this is why they have not done it. Give it ten years and China may be able to as they are currently converting their navy to a Blue water navy and also purchasing and constructing thousands of additional landing craft. But today, this year and next year and through 2020? Not a chance in hell, China knows they would be throwing away 100,000-200,000 men for no good reason.

[Kelvin Mace]

125. What I read about the carrier

says that it cannot even launch the planes on its deck and is modifying the catapult system . The carrier just appears to be for show at this point.

[Recursion]

129. So, the joke is, China doesn't need a carrier

No, seriously. They have no need for one.

Name me one strategic interest of PRC that is advanced by having a carrier.

[Kelvin Mace]

131. Well, it is the PR

part of PRC.

We didn't need battleships during the Reagan era, but we recommissioned one anyway, and as I recall it probably killed more American sailors than enemy soldiers.

[Recursion]

133. It definitely did

Fair point.

[LittleBlue]

117. China will take Taiwan without a shot being fired

They currently view Taiwan as attainable without military intervention. The latest poll showed Taiwanese youth unwilling to war against China.

China will so intertwine the Taiwanese economy to the mainland that reunification is inevitable. Taiwan will be a de facto province within 30 years and officially within 60 years.

The Chinese are in no rush, really. They know it's inevitable. Ironically, using military force is probably the only thing that can stop this from happening.

[AnalystInParadise]

119. This is more likely

than China ever invading.

[LittleBlue]

120. By the way, your OP is superb

Thanks for posting it

[AnalystInParadise]

121. Thank you very much

There are many things I do not know but when it comes to Conventional War Doctrine and Russian/Eurasian politics, it is one thing I am very good at.

[Recursion]

124. Mao said it to Kissinger

He meant it. If it takes a thousand years, it takes a thousand years. They will get Taiwan, eventually, and they will not waste a single renminbi to speed that up.

[Laelth]

87. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[idendoit]

90. Even at the height of the Cold War....

...Nato would have needed tactical nukes to slow down a determined Warsaw Pact invasion. The Soviets (and now Russia) has always relied on overwhelming numbers.

[Recursion]

104. The Corps gets ignored again...

There are still three active Marine divisions and last I checked 9 expeditionary brigades (some of which are on the table strength of the same divisions though). Though that whole thing gets confusing because a Marine "brigade" is actually a regiment, so it's smaller than an Army brigade.

The other problem is that we've weakened all the other commands, but particularly EUCOM, to bolster CENTCOM for the past decade or so, so EUCOM is at a very undermanned at the staff officer level, and a deployment requires a lot of staff work, what with troops needing to do things like "eat" and "have a place to sleep" and "refuel their vehicles".

[AnalystInParadise]

106. Marine Corps was not ignored

they are in the same boat. 2 In Afghanistan, 2 in Reset, 2 on Fleet/Other Commitments, leaving 3 Expeditionary Brigades.

[Separation]

113. Correct but

A MEU is still combat ready/deployable for a month after rotation.

I also didn't see a list of AF components.

I've trained with the Russians on three occasions and with the exception of a few units they are more paper targets than the Iraqi army was. Hell, most didn't have GPS, or ANY type of comms other than walmart walkie-talkies that they bought themselves. The only thing that they got going for them is numbers and nukes.

This is just my opinion of course.

[AcertainLiz]

123. I don't think we could ever really make the armed forces able to defend Europe

It'd be political suicide.

[Hippo_Tron]

114. Yes, but could we arm a resistance to the teeth?

It's a given that we're not going to fight a conventional war with Russia over Ukraine. But could we make the country ungovernable if Russia conquered it?

[AnalystInParadise]

118. Since the Russians

have no problem practicing ethnic cleansing, I doubt it. Their response would be to kill or deport anyone who even suggested resisting. 150,000 dead Chechen civilians in two years confirm that. And the Chechens were nominally Russian citizens, imagine how they would react towards non-Russians......

[PATRICK]

128. No expert here

in any of the areas. Compared to overall scene setting- say before WWI- there is no Kaiser era offensive plan to "quickly" take out France, no any especially aggressive French defensive plan to counter the same. I would guess- for what is worth- that Russia has been hardened by experiences like Chechnya and Georgia to absorb the horrors of occupation and successful lately in winning by minimal means, succeeding in intimidating Europe. Everyone seems to be using the most hypocritical detente to advance the same old adversarial/takeover gambits except that Putin has rudely and insultingly and brutally turned the tables on most occasions always to his gain.

Economically they seem to have little real incentive to bow down to Europe anyway and any hardball comes sailing back with real force.

In any type of brinksmanship, which for Russia this seems all about, and more successful than the strutting North Korean madman routine, the danger is an accident or tinder struck somewhere in a volatile zone, like the death of Archduke Ferdinand. Who in retrospect would want to go through any scenario of war for that? It is an interesting and disheartening spectacle to see the whipping up of the post-Iraq NATO tiger for righteous defense and the likely satisfaction this must be granting Putin.

Unfortunately Kerry went on public record with how giving Russian some credit and "win" embarrassing the US in the chemical weapons "disarmament" advanced the goals of peace in Syria. When they turn around and take the initiative for purely their own benefit it seems like one of those "oh yeah?" moments in the game.

I would think, as a reasonable person, the aggressor will keep pushing his advantage which never has its goal a big war or costly occupation. Unfortunately, nothing on the entire world stage smacks of reason or sense whether the armies are prepared for the outcomes or not.

The contradictory nature of expensively crippling modernized warfare still leans on the aging nuclear fallback position at far too many decision points.
War is planned on paper by assuming the death of reason. Thus the outcome is fatally flawed.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

136. Good. Maybe diplomacy and cooler heads will prevail.