Posted on 12/06/2017 9:31:40 PM PST by Olog-hai
North Korea lashed out again on Wednesday at large-scale military exercises — involving its southern neighbor and the United States — this time saying that war was “unavoidable.”
The comments were attributed to an unnamed North Korea Foreign Ministry spokesman, who said “bellicose comments” from high-ranked US officials, including CIA Director Mike Pompeo, had confirmed Washington’s intent for war.
Pompeo had said on Sunday that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un was unaware of how tenuous his situation was both domestically and internationally. The North Korean spokesman accused Pompeo of directly provoking the country by “impudently criticizing our supreme leadership that is the heart of our people.”
“The remaining question now is: when will the war break out,” the official said. “We do not wish for a war, but shall not hide from it; and should the US miscalculate our patience and light the fuse for a nuclear war, we will surely make the US dearly pay the consequences with our mighty nuclear force which we have consistently strengthened.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at dw.com ...
if it is war, then hit em before it starts
China is nork’ supplier
“Recall, the Soviets had so many tanks in East Germany, it was determined the only way to keep the communist from an annihilating westward “blitzkrieg”, was the knowledge we had low yield nuclear artillery, which was more than capable of removing the threat.”
—
not true.
The Soviets had something like 30,000 tanks - mostly older T-34s - and four Shock Armies (400,000 troops mostly mechanized) on the East German border ready at a moments notice to pour through the Fulda Gap. The troops were the first wave of over a million to come, as were the tanks. NATO would be out-manned and overwhelmed, and the US nuclear arty would be among the first targets to be obliterated on the crossing; they were only ‘more that adequate’ on paper ...
US Intel at the time estimated that their first rest stop would be 60 klicks behind our position (4k from the border). We (our position) were a strategic nuclear target for the Russian and a tactical nuclear target for US forces (we could not be allowed to fall into Soviet hands, and the Soviets could not allow us to function).
At the first troops crossed through the Gap, all hell would have been unleashed. We would have been obliterated immediately by the Soviets and, if they missed or just to be sure, the US would have not missed. After that, it was all downhill for NATO forces. US radio discipline was nearly nonexistent in practice - we often heard tankers describe their position down to the apple tree they were hiding under, while the Soviets continued to use 5-day pads in all cases - that or be shot on the spot. The other NATO forces were a public joke.
After the initial tactical nuclear exchanges - Intel said - and even localized strategic nuclear strikes, the Russian forces would arrive at the English Channel in 72 hours from start to finish.
No, the Russians did not cross for other reasons (mostly internal) that had nothing to do with some NATO capability. If they had wanted to cross, there was nothing we could have done to stop them at that time.
Excuse my ignorance, but what is a 5-day pad?
Its a pad that is used for 5 days then destroyed and replaced with another different pad with different codes.
The pad contains the five letter codes in play for that period. It goes like this (pretend this is Russian): AABBF BNNFT AACRG GFBBA SDFAA. These letters are read aloud over the radio (ANNA ANNA BORIS BORIS FEOTER etc) usually on a secure encrypted channel of a multichannel system. Decoded it would look like: General wants American pizza tonight. Occasionally there are dummy words inserted and other misdirections - like that pizza could mean an arty barrage at first light.
Contrast with US forces at the time: “Hey Brigade, this is tank unit 5, platoon 4 from the old 79th. The five of us are off hwy 274 near that old farm house with the funny windows and the old shell hole. We are in the field just behind the place under the only apple tree - you can’t miss us. Say hello to LT. Bob for us.” (actual transmission - close as I can recall something 50 years old, recorded, transcribed, and stored somewhere in NSA’s vaults).
Yep - gonna go right for the celebratory pizza - first slice for the "war" and the rest to celebrate with....
Interesting. Thanks for the explanation.
If the General officers in charge are not on the same page, or acting in response to politics, we are in trouble.
And therein lies the greatest potential problem. After Obama, I would greatly fear some flag officer pulling a Sally Yates. That is, opposing a direct or indirect order on the grounds of stopping Trump while considering himself, or herself, a leftist folk hero. Yeah, IMO, that is a stark reality.
We can keep them on alert indefinitely. Eventually, they will crack.
After the Cold War ended, we discovered some thing about the Soviet juggernaut. They couldn’t afford to keep their forces on alert. Maintenance was sketchy at best and they could not count on large amounts of the equipment. The Warsaw Pact forces were not completely loyal.
If the Soviets were going to launch the war, they needed several weeks to get ready which would openly telegraph their intentions.
See you were banned. Sorry. Did the thrashing hurt?
As far as we knew than that was not true at the time .. it may have been true much later in the 80s. We regularly monitored their communications and their maneuvers and there was no indiction that their forces were in anything other than top shape. In fact, it would be more true to say US forces at the time were, generally speaking, not in such good shape.
Loyalty in the USSR was always enforced by Spetsnaz shot to the back of the head whenever just spraying the entire room with lead was inconvenient.
I guess all those maneuvers we monitored were just a figment ... they were then ready within 15 seconds to launch a nuke at us; they talked about that and thought it was funny. There tank battalions were also ready to roll. Which is why we always treated the hinds to ice cream and coke when ever they hovered over us, hoping, in our unarmed state, that they would be lenient ... The Soviet juggernaut was at that time a real juggernaut which in later years may have declined, but they were ready to begin at any time - their forces were already built up; several Soviet Generals from the 8th Guards and 3rd Shock talked openly (on a secure encrypted channel) about their readiness state, one of out best catches.
What's the penalty for disobeying an order from your superior officer in a battle situation?
MOP GBU-57s were built with Norks in mind. MOABs would find a use too. Norks can’t see the stealth aircraft that will take out their radar and otherwise blind them in the first minute. We have conventional ordnance that is sufficient, there won’t be any radiation floating around.
Nobody anywhere has, it is an unrealistic expectation.
You are correct in assuming an aggressive volley of tactical nuclear weapons would have likely been used by both NATO and the Soviets in the event of war. However, while Soviet nuclear capability caught up fast, they had not even tested a nuclear bomb until 1949, or placed into service their first “tactical atomic bomb until 1954. We initially (briefly) had a huge nuclear advantage.
Citing the horrific purges and elimination of entire people groups within the USSR, and the knowledge the Soviets were rapidly pursuing nuclear weapons, Winston Churchill even went so far as to appeal to Truman to nuke Moscow and end the bloody communist system, while we still had the advantage.
During the Korean War (19500625-19530727), while not included in modern day PC revisionist history, General Douglas MacArthur did threaten to nuke Moscow (and implied wiping out all of their communist forces) and end Soviet communism, as Moscow had threatened to wipe US forces out of the Korean peninsula, after we began successfully taking back Korea. At the time, Pentagon war planners had already drawn up incredible plans to execute what General MacArthur had threatened to do in the case of a full blown Soviet attack on our forces. It was after General MacArthur threatened to nuke and destroy the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that Truman (fired) asked General MacArthur to resign.
While the Soviets did conduct their first nuclear bomb test in 1949, they really did not have mass production or credible delivery system capability until the mid-1950’s.
While the Soviets would significantly surpass US nuclear weapons power, We carried a clear nuclear advantage until the late 1950’s.
While there are mostly academic arguments as to the precise beginning of the “Cold War”, for historical purposed, the “Cold War” has been generally divided into four periods. Although even the segmentation is arbitrary with differing opinions.
The “formal” Cold War has been academically broken down to the periods of 1947-53, 1954-61, 1962-79, and 1980-91. All periods aside, the Cold War “principally” began almost immediately following May 8, 1945, and was DYNAMIC. It has been argued, whether beginning near VE Day, or 1947, the “Cold War” resumed aggressive pre-WWII efforts by Moscow to undermine western governments and to spread/establish global communism, and the natural PUSH BACK from western powers, ONLY post WWII it became infinitely more dangerous because of missile, jet, and nuclear power.
As an aside, and as I am sure you are aware, throughout the 1930’s the GRU and the NKVD had been highly successful in planting agents in high office within our own government, as well as national recruitment, largely through the Communist Party USA. This is a critically important subject in itself.
THE GENERALIZATION IN MY INITIAL RESPONSE IS MY OWN LAZINESS!
I did not want to write a book!
From my own time in service, and extensive study on this subject, there IS NOT A QUESTION in my own mind, or the minds of many Pentagon strategists, there was a clear reliance on (NSNWs) tactical nuclear weapons by the US and NATO, in the event of a Soviet invasion of West Germany, even WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE the Soviets also would have used tactical nuclear weapons (POST 1957), and regardless of the outcome! AND it was expected, the “outcome” would have been rapid escalation to strategic nuclear war!
Ultimately, as General William Burns stated, “the history of the Cold War is a nuclear history, centered around each side’s efforts to convince the other of a readiness for a war that neither wanted.” Tactical nuclear weapons were crucial to this effort, BECAUSE THEY WERE [ARE] THE LINK BETWEEN CONVENTIONAL WAR IN EUROPE, AND A CENTRAL NCLEAR EXCHANGE BETWEEN THE SUPERPOWERS.”
“TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROVIDE THE SOLUTION... THE WEST [HAS] ABANDONED ANY HOPE OF MATCHING WARSAW PACT CONVENTIONAL FORCES MAM FOR MAN OR TANK FOR TANK, AND INSTEAD [HAS] PLACED NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN EUROPE, MANY OF THEM DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE ASSUMED AXES OF SOVIET ADVANCE WHERE THEY WOULD ASSUREDLY BE OVERRUN OR EMPLOYED. THIS WARNED THE SOVIETS, IN EFFECT, [THAT] IF WERE INVADED, THE CHOICE TO USE NUCLEAR ARMS WOULD BE FORCED UPON NATO BY THE [ARMORED] SUCCESSES OF THE RED ARMY. WESTERN COMMANDERS, FACED WITH IMMINENT DEFEAT, WOULD FIRE THEIR TACTICAL ARMS IN DESPERATION AT ADVANCING SOVIET UNITS, [AND] COMMIT THE WHOLE MATTER TO GOD... THIS WAS A TERRIFYING BUT EFFECTIVE STRATEGY.”
http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/pub1103.pdf
The number of Soviet and Warsaw Pact tank divisions and mechanized divisions in East Germany and in Eastern Europe during the “Cold War”, roughly depends on the period of time being referred to.
However, not even including mechanized infantry divisions, for a considerable Cold War time-frame, the USSR and Warsaw Pact maintained 71,700 TANKS in Eastern Europe ALONE.
NOT including mechanized infantry divisions, during the same period, US and NATO altogether, peaked at 30,711 TANKS. However, there was a significant drawdown from this number, and a subsequent NATO reliance on “tactical nuclear weapons”. The delivery systems did not only rely on nuclear artillery, but also included all delivery systems, and were dependent on Army, Navy, and Air Force. Other NATO members also possessed tactical and strategic nuclear weapons.
Regardless of how successful, US and NATO strategy throughout the “Cold War” was to use tactical nuclear weapons to stop the Warsaw Pact tanks and armor. It would have been a battle with TNW’s. Europe would have been a no mans land. The real battle would be with the retaliatory ballistic missiles...
http://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pdffiles/pub1103.pdf
I was just relating my experience inside the Intel community and what the practical realities were on the ground at the time. All the position papers and research are simply afterthoughts, usually reflecting the bias and agendas of the entities or authors.
Actually at the time, there was no direct link from tactical to strategic nuclear warfare. I vaguely remember that strategic would come into play once Soviet forces reached the Channel, not before, which as I said would be 72 hours after they crossed the Gap.
The reliance on tactical to stop the Soviet forces was just wishful thinking, based on how our soldiers and commands would react, not on the Soviet. We would retreat; the Soviets would keep going until the last soldier or tank, that or be shot; (similar to an event by Soviet forces I witnessed).
You did not write a book, just a short pamphlet ... :)
Guess what my background is?
I had the opportunity to spend almost 7 years in Moscow, through the 1990’s.
I have now seen in print, the fear and bias of Soviet commanders, who were against driving west, knowing their armor and men would have been wiped out.
They knew our armor and training were formidable, but the consensus was they would not make it through Germany due to our tactical nuclear weapons.
There was contrast between what the Soviets knew, and what many in the west believed.
Additionally, almost all of their armor, integrated a significant percentage of highly processed wood resin to reduce weight. It was and is strong, but once it reaches a specific temperature, it can burn for months. We encountered this in 1991, during Gulf War I, when we determined this as the reason their tanks were burning in some cases for almost a year. This included T-80s and T-90s. Older Soviet armor burned more quickly.
They calculated what their intelligence gleaned regarding our actual tactical power. They were not far off.
As such, the deterrent clearly impacted Soviet decision making.
However, they also had tactical nuclear weapons, and both sides believed their use would have quickly catapulted to total nuclear war.
Other wildcard outliers, which caused the Soviets to second guess an offensive was our carrier fleets operating in the North Atlantic and Med.
I am tempted to say - “what a time”. But the truth is they are far more powerful and accurate today than at any time during the “formal Cold War” years.
The START Treaties were a near complete joke, and everyone near the top knew it!
What the Russians did in the late 80’s and again in the 90’s was slight of hand. They redesignated the majority of their nuclear stockpile, and claimed lower official numbers, by moving them from their “Strategic Rocket Forces” to the Russian Energy Ministry. There was a reduction. However, Russia has one of the most dynamic recycle programs in the world, and a significant number of recycled warheads were produced and kept under the same Russia Energy Ministry. As such, with each nuclear treaty, they were showing fewer warheads. But what they actually did was move many of them laterally, and thereby the warheads were no longer on the table to be destroyed.
Under Bill Clinton, there was a massive transfer of US nuclear and missile technology, “in the spirit of friendship”. I was there.
Today, there guidance and propulsion systems are shocking. For several years now Russia has had two missiles which can go sub-hypersonic in 5-7 seconds from launch. One of the only systems in the world which can shoot it down, is the same missile. While mostly unpublished, it is crazy fast, and crazy accurate.
Proliferation of this system has in recent years caused us to second guess everything. Moscow recently sold roughly 300 of these systems to China, which now has them deployed on islands in the South China Sea. The version China has was designed to dodge our current defensive systems and take out the new Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer. It is believed that we may be able to stop up to 80% of these missiles. However, China could take out an entire fleet really fast, if they simply launched 60-70 at once.
In our back yard, Moscow now has the Peter the Great nuclear armed battle ship and fleet permanently based in Venezuela. This fleet typically has assigned nuclear subs. Also in Venezuela, Moscow now has 24 TU-160 jet bombers, which are armed with nuclear missiles.
http://www.military-today.com/aircraft/tupolev_tu160_blackjack.htm
In Nicaragua, Moscow now has one of the worlds most largest and most advanced intelligence infrastructures, 3 armored brigades, and Russian special operations base.
All of these Russian bases and facilities were either in process, or being completed before the end of Clintons second term. Clinton truly sold us out! During his second term, we were having rotating Russian units training throughout the US along side our own soldiers. I understand the intel excuses, but they have never really been a friendly.
I am tempted to get into China in our back yard, but it would be an equally disconcerting conversation.
This is bad!
Most of the world is clueless.
My English is suffering, as I have not slept now for a couple of days.
I apologize for the mistakes.
It is a worthy discussion!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.