How Would A War between Russia and NATO Play Out?

[Falcon29]

It seems that the 'rivalry' between Russia and the West is making it's way back into the society. I don't expect any war to occur.

It is established that NATO is the aggressor in this situation. They're trying to encircle Russia and harm its security interests.

That being said, if future tensions occur with missile defense for example on Russia's border or more NATO deployments that lead to a situation where war is imminent...

How would it play out and will it be a sustained war or a quick conventional show of power/warning?

 

[general_yermolov_stalin]

It seems that the 'rivalry' between Russia and the West is making it's way back into the society. I don't expect any war to occur.

It is established that NATO is the aggressor in this situation. They're trying to encircle Russia and harm its security interests.

That being said, if future tensions occur with missile defense for example on Russia's border or more NATO deployments that lead to a situation where war is imminent...

How would it play out and will it be a sustained war or a quick conventional show of power/warning?

likely a nuclear war . The one whose underground cities stand last and whose population is most dispersed wins .Europe,Turkey ,40-60% of Russian population and over 90% of US population would be butchered anyways .US and Russian elites will survive the nuclear warfare via their massive underground cities. Villagers of USA and Russia will survive though there will considerable threat of biowarfare in the aftermath as nuclear weapons will be inefficient in decimating dispersed populations. Biowarfare is much more efficient killer.

Chances are high that islamic nations would be severely hit due to biowarfare . More likely biowarfare.

 

[Falcon29]

likely a nuclear war . The one whose underground cities stand last and whose population is most dispersed wins .Europe,Turkey ,40-60% of Russian population and over 90% of US population would be butchered anyways .US and Russian elites will survive the nuclear warfare via their massive underground cities. Villagers of USA and Russia will survive though there will considerable threat of biowarfare in the aftermath as nuclear weapons will be inefficient in decimating dispersed populations. Biowarfare is much more efficient killer.

Chances are high that islamic nations would be severely hit due to biowarfare . More likely biowarfare.

Where do Islamic nations come into this? lol

I doubt there would be a nuclear war either. Only 40-60% of Russian population and 90% of US. I wonder how you came up with that.

They just as much nuclear weapons as you do.

 

[tranquilium]

All out war is not likely, due to nuclear deterrent in place. It is possible for a proxy war to happen, especially in Ukraine region. In this case, it is pretty much a lose-lose situation for both Russia and EU.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Depends on whether or not the people in charge of the nuclear weapons are suicidal or not.

Any NATO war with Russia is going to turn nuclear, sooner or later.

In such a war scenario, the nuclear apocalypse can be averted if NATO decides to accept a few thermonuclear blasts without using nukes in return.

Sure, by not responding, they will lose face. But at least they will live, and the desire to live is a very strong impulse indeed.

Or they could stop messing around with Russia's interests and try to live in peace. That would be the logical option.

 

[Falcon29]

Depends on whether or not the people in charge of the nuclear weapons are suicidal or not.

Any NATO war with Russia is going to turn nuclear, sooner or later.

In such a war scenario, the nuclear apocalypse can be averted if NATO decides to accept a few thermonuclear blasts without using nukes in return.

Sure, by not responding, they will lose face. But at least they will live, and the desire to live is a very strong impulse indeed.

Or they could stop messing around with Russia's interests and try to live in peace. That would be the logical option.

Do you think Russia has no chance through conventional means? Any ICMB's will be detected, that's the problem due to US/NATO/Israeli radars/military bases all over the place.

All out war is not likely, due to nuclear deterrent in place. It is possible for a proxy war to happen, especially in Ukraine region. In this case, it is pretty much a lose-lose situation for both Russia and EU.

Will this move past Ukraine or will there be a settlement for now partitioning it?

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

The US has the overwhelmed advantage in the naval deterrence with their 14 Ohio boomers.

That's why Russia will use the pre-emptive nuclear strike, because they will not just sit there and wait the NATO uses its superior conventional capability to destroy their groundbased ICBMs.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Do you think Russia has no chance through conventional means? Any ICMB's will be detected, that's the problem due to US/NATO/Israeli radars/military bases all over the place.

Russia is very powerful in conventional terms, especially in the main battlefield (Eastern Europe). They could theoretically reclaim all the land they want there, without going nuclear.

However there is still a very high chance that any war with NATO will eventually turn nuclear. Especially if neither side wants to back down.

And all the missile defense systems in the world won't do much against the Russian nuclear arsenal.

Even the spectacularly expensive Israeli Iron Dome (paid for with American taxpayer dollars) performed poorly against cheap unguided Hamas rockets, made out of trash they find on the floor and costing less than $100 a rocket.

Compare that to advanced hypersonic missiles (not rockets) that can maneuver at hypersonic speeds, with multiple BMD countermeasures and MIRV warheads. (Soon to be HGV warheads).

It will always be far cheaper to add countermeasures. Every time it maneuvers in mid-flight, it makes it exponentially more difficult to shoot it down. Adding more warheads, fake warheads, radar-diverting chaff, reducing the heat signature, reducing the radar signature, mid-fight maneuvering, etc. will all make it exponentially more difficult to intercept.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Russia is very powerful in conventional terms, especially in the main battlefield (Eastern Europe). They could theoretically reclaim all the land they want there, without going nuclear.

However there is still a very high chance that any war with NATO will eventually turn nuclear. Especially if neither side wants to back down.

And all the missile defense systems in the world won't do much against the Russian nuclear arsenal.

Even the spectacularly expensive Israeli Iron Dome (paid for with American taxpayer dollars) performed poorly against cheap unguided Hamas rockets, made out of trash they find on the floor and costing less than $100 a rocket.

Compare that to advanced hypersonic missiles (not rockets) that can maneuver at hypersonic speeds, with multiple BMD countermeasures and MIRV warheads. (Soon to be HGV warheads).

It will always be far cheaper to add countermeasures. Every time it maneuvers in mid-flight, it makes it exponentially more difficult to shoot it down. Adding more warheads, fake warheads, radar-diverting chaff, reducing the heat signature, reducing the radar signature, mid-fight maneuvering, etc. will all make it exponentially more difficult to intercept.

The GMD is aimed at Russia and China, but in the reality it can only work against North Korea and Iran.

 

[Falcon29]

Russia is very powerful in conventional terms, especially in the main battlefield (Eastern Europe). They could theoretically reclaim all the land they want there, without going nuclear.

However there is still a very high chance that any war with NATO will eventually turn nuclear. Especially if neither side wants to back down.

And all the missile defense systems in the world won't do much against the Russian nuclear arsenal.

Even the spectacularly expensive Israeli Iron Dome (paid for with American taxpayer dollars) performed poorly against cheap unguided Hamas rockets, made out of trash they find on the floor and costing less than $100 a rocket.

Compare that to advanced hypersonic missiles (not rockets) that can maneuver at hypersonic speeds, with multiple BMD countermeasures and MIRV warheads. (Soon to be HGV warheads).

It will always be far cheaper to add countermeasures. Every time it maneuvers in mid-flight, it makes it exponentially more difficult to shoot it down. Adding more warheads, fake warheads, radar-diverting chaff, reducing the heat signature, reducing the radar signature, mid-fight maneuvering, etc. will all make it exponentially more difficult to intercept.

The problem is NATO wouldn't act without US support against Russia. The US has a devastating offensive capability. If Russia can effectively counter that it may as you said turn nuclear.

 

[general_yermolov_stalin]

Where do Islamic nations come into this? lol

I doubt there would be a nuclear war either. Only 40-60% of Russian population and 90% of US. I wonder how you came up with that.

They just as much nuclear weapons as you do.

Simple Reason. Saudi Arabia and many GCC nations have US forces and bases and are major allies to USA,and many muslim central asian countries are CSTO members and allies to Russia.Second the reason for the population losses is the level of underground atomic shelters created in USSR and massive underground food stockpiles, which simply does not exist in USA which is why reduced losses(CIA and RAND corporation estimated soviet population losses at 5-15% due to these shelters and civil defence).

 

[thesolar65]

I hope China and India will be doing this..... and lastly this..

 

[Beidou2020]

Russia will never back down from the Ukraine conflict as its their backyard and a core interest to Russia. Russia has watched country after country joining NATO despite promises from the West. Ukraine is the red line for Russia. It will be up to the US and EU to back down, and if they don't, this whole thing will be settled in war.

When Western sanctions start to destroy Russia or Russia is cornered and that they feel they have no way out and nothing to lose, then its time for war!

Russia cannot hang with NATO in conventional war for very long, Russia knows this and NATO knows this. Which is why the war will go nuclear from the start or eventually end up in nuclear war. If Russia starts conventional war, but NATO decides to take out Russia's nuclear capabilities using conventional weapons, Russia will be forced to go nuclear or they will lose the war without doing any damage to the West as their nuclear forces will be destroyed. Russia can only win if they turn up the heat and up the stakes big time and go nuclear.

Russia will have to suffer enormous destruction but Russia can cause enormous destruction to the US and EU. That means targeting Western military targets, industrial targets, commercial targets, technological and scientific targets and finally civilian population centers.

There won't be another cold war since Russia isn't powerful as the Soviet Union to have another long cold war. So this time it will be a hot war.

Russia will rather die standing on their feet than live on their knees. Russians are tough, never met one who wasn't. They were humiliated when the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia suffered enormously and there is a rage still burning inside many Russians for that and a sense that the West must pay the ultimate price.

If Russia is going down, they will take down the Western world with it.

We are witnessing the end game.

 

[acid rain]

No wars, only proxy and pseudo wars between the two camps in third countries - and both keep selling their weapons to these countries.

Its a sham to make money, defense industry is major business.

The moment MH17 went down, the first call Putin made was to Obama - no details emerged of that call.

The biggest victims of this game I guess, are muslim countries.

 

[Falcon29]

Simple Reason. Saudi Arabia and many GCC nations have US forces and bases and are major allies to USA,and many muslim central asian countries are CSTO members and allies to Russia.Second the reason for the population losses is the level of underground atomic shelters created in USSR and massive underground food stockpiles, which simply does not exist in USA which is why reduced losses(CIA and RAND corporation estimated soviet population losses at 5-15% due to these shelters and civil defence).

US military bases in the ME aren't used to attack Russia. They're used to attack fellow Arabs/Muslims in the region. Also meant to keep the whole region 'under check'. In case Arabs decide to end Israel's occupation one day.