Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7
What about the mobile ICBM launchers and SLBM's from submarines? These days Putin doesn't need the hotline between the White House and the Kremlin to contact Obama and let him know his intensions. He could use E-mail, text message, Skype! But seriously if NATO attacked Russia then the gloves would be off wouldn't they as Russia has every right to retaliate. So what about the mobile ICBM launchers and SLBM's from submarines?
|
And Obama is going to take Putin's word that the missiles are armed with conventional warheads? I guess I'm just a lot more cynical about this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7
What about targets he wants to hit in Western Europe and North America?
|
I don't know how he'd hit W. European targets. Belarus might allow the Russians military overflight permission. In my understanding, Belarus is still pretty tight with the Russians. The Soviets have some pretty capable strike aircraft but I don't think very many of them could get through NATO's air cover. Assuming the Russians would have taken Ukraine, their SRBMs could at least hit targets in Poland. I feel like I sound like a broken record but I just don't see Putin using conventional weapon-armed ICBMs because it could very well provoke a nuclear response.
As for hitting targets in the U.S., don't the Russians still have some submarine-launched cruise missiles that can carry conventional explosive payloads? That would be a safer option because it likely wouldn't set off the same kind of alarms that an SLBM would.
As far as NATO vs. Russia war in Eastern Europe, I think that with all of the Cold War baggage that both the U.S. and Russia still have, neither side is going to want to start slinging ballistic missiles. Now, if the war escalated to a full-blown WWIII-type scenario with fighting spreading across the globe, perhaps that reluctance would diminish. But for a war in Eastern Europe, I don't think so.