Non - Nuclear Targets

Take command of air and naval assets from post-WW2 to the near future in tactical and operational scale, complete with historical and hypothetical scenarios and an integrated scenario editor.

Moderator: MOD_Command

User avatar
kevinkins
Posts: 2346
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:54 am

Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by kevinkins »

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/u ... n-nuke-use

Any suggestions on what would put a world of hurt on the Russian Republic? Planning the strikes in CMO would be informative to some degree. Thanks.
“The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.”
Alfred Thayer Mahan
User avatar
Nikel
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by Nikel »

Probably It would not be in Russia mainland (I mean as it was before all of this started in 2014), and not a nuclear response because it is just Armageddon for all of us.


The most obvious is the Black Sea Fleet and Sevastopol military port.


Also the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean and the port in Tartus.

Graphic by HI Sutton

Image


Air defenses, aircrafts and air bases both in Crimea and in Syria.

Regarding structures, the Kerch strait bridge is a symbol.
Attachments
KB.png
KB.png (595.83 KiB) Viewed 1242 times
maverick3320
Posts: 207
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:12 pm

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by maverick3320 »

Kaliningrad.
Fido81
Posts: 136
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2019 10:53 pm

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by Fido81 »

Kinetic effects on Iranian drone manufacturing plants
EMP effects (non-kinetic) on Russian missile assembly plants
Mines in international waters off a Russian strategic port
User avatar
blu3s
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:45 am

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by blu3s »

Earlier today I posted a scenario about possible retaliation against Russia for the use of nuclear weapons. https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7#p5039167

The objective is to attack 4 Russian SSBNs operating near NATO countries.

It would serve to neutralize a nuclear strike capability that in theory would be in much better condition than ICBMs.
User avatar
kevinkins
Posts: 2346
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:54 am

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by kevinkins »

Thanks, and will take a look. I was also thinking about sub combat in light of the recent attack on NORD pipeline.
“The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.”
Alfred Thayer Mahan
User avatar
blu3s
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:45 am

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by blu3s »

Yes, with the latest info about NS1 and NS2 sabotage, another possible retaliation could be a strike against baltic fleet as Nikel said
User avatar
Nikel
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by Nikel »

Hi.

I commented the fleet in the Mediterranean and the Black sea fleet, but in Sevastopol, not in what Russia was before 2014, so not in Novorossiysk.

Apparently the subs in Sevastopol were transferred to Novorossiysk recently.

https://news.usni.org/2022/09/20/russia ... ys-u-k-mod


So, Crimea because it is Ukraine.

And Tartus because you do not want them in your back, I guess. This is how that fleet looks according to Frederik van Lokeren.


Image


I do not think is a good idea any attack to the Baltic Fleet or Kaliningrad, because it is Russian recognised territory since the end of WW2, but Crimea it is not.


Another quite intriguing idea is what would the Ukranians themselves do to retaliate, in case of a nuclear attack in their land or of an "incident" in one of their NPPs.
User avatar
blu3s
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:45 am

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by blu3s »

Oh sorry, yes, you're right. I think a tactical nuclear bomb would put Russia in a very difficult situation, so I think before that there would be regime change.

In any case, Russia hasn't got more conventional military power to respond in case of a Nato conventional escalation.
User avatar
Nikel
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by Nikel »

I would like to answer you, but it is not allowed in this forum because we enter in the dangerous geopolitics territory ;)
User avatar
blu3s
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:45 am

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by blu3s »

Oh I'm relative new here and I don't know that talking about capabilities and geopolitics in a "neutral" way isn't allowed. Sorry
User avatar
Nikel
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by Nikel »

You may not post regarding modern politics, but you may write a tome of the conspirators that killed Julius Caesar in the corresponding game forum :)

But military capabilities, what you want.

Or that is what I think.


In this case the line is very thin.
User avatar
blu3s
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:45 am

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by blu3s »

Well, what is known it's that Russia has problems with manpower and equipment, and if escalates into nuclear against UKR and if NATO responds (that I think it's unclear despite warnings) by example striking all russian forces in Ukraine, Russia by no means hasn't the conventional power to respond. Then it is to elucidate what Russia would do.
User avatar
SeaQueen
Posts: 1373
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:20 am
Location: Washington D.C.

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by SeaQueen »

kevinkins wrote: Mon Sep 19, 2022 10:50 am Any suggestions on what would put a world of hurt on the Russian Republic?
Yes, there are. Russia is a weak nation. If such a strike were to ever occur (let's hope it doesn't), the target set would depend on the context in which the strike occurred (politically and militarily) as well what the politicians ordering the strike intended to achieve by striking Russia. Most likely they'd be looking to achieve some kind of strategic effects, and not just tactical or operational effects. That means the intent probably wouldn't be something like, "attrite XXXth VDV SALB to 30%." Instead they'd most likely be political and economic targets. They'd want to make continuing the war impossible on the Russian end, and if possible at this juncture induce regime change if they felt like it was achievable.

If NATO were to strike Russia in response to a Russian nuclear strike on Ukraine, I also wouldn't be surprised if they did things like strike nuclear weapons storage facilities, the garrison locations of mobile ballistic missile units, and places where strike aircraft were based (destroy those BACKFIRE and FENCER bombers on the ground). There would also be supporting strikes, targeting radar sites, C2, and known strategic SAM locations in an attempt to make some holes, facilitate further penetration, and interrupt their kill chain. They'd also likely target fighter bases, in an attempt at reducing the air to air threat and facilitating penetration by strike aircraft. I imagine you might also see a "SCUD hunting" campaign directed against ground based mobile missiles. The intent there would be to attrite tactical nuclear weapon delivery systems.

Such an attack would likely quickly overwhelm Russia's defenses given their current state. It'd also be highly highly escalatory because it'd represent NATO's entry into the war. The only way that would make sense in my mind would be if it were to represent a final "knockout" blow to the Russian military and basically render continuing the war effort impossible. Ideally, it would also induce regime change, which would also make it EVEN MORE escalatory. Destroying their tactical nuclear weapon capability still leaves the big multi-megaton city busters on the table (yikes!).

I guess from the NATO perspective, they'd only do it if they felt like at that juncture the risk of nuclear escalation would relatively minimal. Otherwise I think they'd probably be deterred. I have no idea how they would manage the escalation risks. The lynchpin is not whether NATO forces can do it operationally or tactically. They could. If Russia is having trouble with Ukraine on its own with Western weapons and equipment, they'll fold up like a paper bag in the face of the combined forces of Europe. Instead, it's about the strategic issue of whether or not NATO members are likely to be subject to strategic nuclear attack afterwards.

At least that's my take on things.
User avatar
kevinkins
Posts: 2346
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:54 am

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by kevinkins »

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/u ... in-kherson

Here is an update. And a bit of bluster:
Petraeus went as far as to say that the United States “would respond by leading a NATO, a collective effort, that would take out every Russian conventional force that we can see and identify on the battlefield in Ukraine and also in Crimea and every ship in the Black Sea” in a statement that has since been criticized for being too inflammatory.

Suffice to say the the defeat phenomenon is in high gear for Russia - at least in occupied Ukraine. Its a delicate balancing act to maintain momentum on the ground while not provoking a WMD. The west can support the momentum simply by doing what it has been. Here is an interesting ground level report:

https://medium.com/@x_TomCooper_x/ukrai ... 84b46d8131
“The study of history lies at the foundation of all sound military conclusions and practice.”
Alfred Thayer Mahan
BDukes
Posts: 2192
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 12:59 pm

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by BDukes »

War termination is going to be sticky. It can't end favorably for Russia without a nuclear threat as leverage or a wider conflict probably involving wasting the Belorussian army etc. The obvious failure was the war, the ones to pay attention to now are the decisions that led up to so many terrible options to get out of it.

As SQ said, there aren't really targets that can be bombed to solve this. If NATO has a hand to play, it's pressuring Ru internally for regime change. So maybe precision bribing. If Belorussia gets involved might be some military power options to be leveraged there, but who knows if BR is serious or is just going through the motions hoping this will end before they actually commit.

M
Don't call it a comeback...
User avatar
blu3s
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:45 am

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by blu3s »

I totally agree with SeaQueen.

If NATO attacks Russia they have to prevent them from moving to the military level, it is not enough to wrest Ukraine from them, they must be left without an answer, and that can only happen by attacking the nuclear balance. One thing SeaQueen does not comment on is the attack on Russian SSBNs which I believe are the main Russian nuclear attack vector.

Dmitry Rogozin, deputy prime minister, in 2013 stated that:
The new nuclear disorder wrote:Pentagon simulations indicated that an attack with the bulk of U.S. cruise missiles (about 3,000-4,000 and only with conventional warheads) could destroy 80-90% of Russia's nuclear potential.

Russia would be without a Second Strike force, essential for strategic stability
User avatar
Nikel
Posts: 638
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by Nikel »

A recent article on Russian nuclear weapons just in case.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... ccess=true


And also of interest, Lock them Up: Zero-deployed Non-strategic Nuclear Weapons in Europe, from 2017 by Pavel Podvig and Javier Serrat

https://unidir.org/publication/lock-the ... ons-europe



However IMHO this not the way to go. It has to be an overwhelming and shock strike, but on conventional forces. Strong enough so that, lets say, something happens :roll:
User avatar
blu3s
Posts: 32
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2022 9:45 am

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by blu3s »

Thanks for the recommendation, I will have a look at the articles. I follow Pavel and I find his approach is almost always accurate. As he commented recently we must continue to focus on deterrence and delegitimise the use of tactical nuclear weapons and their use as a first strike.
Nikel wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 8:15 am However IMHO this not the way to go. It has to be an overwhelming and shock strike, but on conventional forces. Strong enough so that, lets say, something happens :roll:
Some intelligence officials also suggest regime change from within the Kremlin if a nuclear strike occurs. :roll:

The problem I see with a smaller scale attack (i.e. on conventional forces in the Black Sea, or in Ukraine) is to leave open the possibility of nuclear escalation. If you wear down their nuclear capability to such an extent that a second strike is impossible, it is very difficult for them to escalate.

I sincerely believe and hope that these possibilities we are discussing will not occur. We have to work on the delegitimization of nuclear use not only by NATO but also by the rest of the countries. What remains to be seen is what will happen when the UKR arrive in Crimea. Whether NATO will say enough, or will they allow the 2014 borders to be restored.
User avatar
Gunner98
Posts: 5669
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:49 am
Location: The Great White North!
Contact:

Re: Non - Nuclear Targets

Post by Gunner98 »

This is a really difficult problem to tackle, how do you induce Russia to end the war while at the same time limiting escalation.

I really don't think that a conventional strike by NATO assets will work, yes it will succeed tactically and probably operationally as well. But it not only plays directly into Russia's hand and confirm their justification for the war in the first place - there is a really good chance that it won't work and will simply lead to escalation beyond what NATO governments are willing to accept. Unfortunately for this discussion eliminating the conventional strike route limits options for CMO scenarios ;)

Similarly, any sort of nuclear play by NATO - tactical or strategic, either using or destroying Russia's ability to use them - would result in the same outcome. NATO, and in particular the US, becomes the international bad guy, set up for self-flagellation and lays down really bad precedents for the future.

Direct interference with Russia's C2, at the strategic level especially, is a high risk endeavor. It might work, but then again it's a roll of the dice and sets up concern for future precedents.

Diplomacy seems to be falling on deaf ears. Sanctions and monetary leverage are probably already at the limits of what is feasible.

I suppose a continuation of the slow strangulation will have more effect over time, but when does the rat consider himself cornered? What is the risk there? I don't know but I am sure it is being measured...

Perhaps ramping up non-conventional, non-nuclear methods. Cyber, psyops, information warfare... festering descent from within

Interesting discussion.
Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
Post Reply

Return to “Command: Modern Operations series”