European Union against Russia wargame

File: Nuke train.jpg (3MB, 3888x2592px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3888x2592px

Britain only has 250 warheads afaik, and France has around 300, but I have no idea what type they are and how good their delivery systems are. Russia has about 1500 usable weapons total.
Either way, unless most Russian weapons are actually in a terrible state and mostly unusable, Europe won't be able to suppress Russian weapons with a counterforce strike. Russians have enough missiles (if they work) to suppress the French and British silos and nuclear command and control centers to risk sparing some of their weapons for later countervalue strikes. Europe doesn't have that, the only ace up their sleeve is the Trident missiles on any submarines out on patrol during the strike. Either way, it'll get nasty, way worse than an American-Russian nuclear exchange.

>>32879600
I would say the bigger threat is from Immigration but Russia is still a threat to Eastern Europe. I think NATO has done enough to reinforce the Baltic's. It's enough to deter any hybrid warfare stuff and limits Russia's play book.

NATO other than dumb bombs and maybe a few nuclear cruise missiles doesn't really have any tactical nukes. Besides the US, France probably has the best tactical nuclear weapons in NATO. However, it doesn't pale in comparison to the Russians.

>Arty

Russia has a lot of it and is getting a lot of practice in Ukraine. However, it's not very accurate and to destroy a target it requires a crazy amount of ammo compared to NATO.

>Air force

NATO has the advantage if they can manage the S-400 and S-300. And if the airfields can survive tactical ballistic missiles.

Is it just me or is the fact of Europe freaking the fuck out about Russia a bit silly at this point? They don't have the might of the combined Warsaw pact anymore. Eastern European satellites states are friends and even allies to western Europe and America now.

We own what was once the Russian buffer zone. The EU and just the Eurasia members of Nato could it seemingly defeat Russia alone.

>>32879926
Not unless WMDs are involved.

>>32879926
>The EU and just the Eurasia members of Nato could it seemingly defeat Russia alone.
Is that a joke? look how many helicopters germany has

>>32879926
>The EU and just the Eurasia members of Nato could it seemingly defeat Russia alone.

In conventional warfare maybe, with CNRB in play not a chance in hell.

>>32879960
>>32879991

Well then at that point what does any of the treaties and promises mean? Life as we know it changes drastically.

>>32880012
What do you mean - treaties? What did you mean with your original post?

>>32880012

>Well then at that point what does any of the treaties and promises mean?

During war? Nothing. The point was no US interference. In that case, and in a total war scenario, UK & France would be crippled by nuke strikes within 30 min and at that point the war would be over simply because nobody (Germany) would risk getting more nukes rained down on them. Maybe Poland would remain uppity for historical reasons resulting in a long lasting insurgency but that's just a guess.

File: b71a6bda28d8a4423cf8f695c8a51987.jpg (51KB, 770x557px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 770x557px

>>32879977
Four. Four Helicopters.

>>32880059
Not so. Half the Russian weapons will be gone in a counterforce strike, the Russians will likely not take the risk of diverting warheads to Euro targets not related to waging a nuclear war. Europe may emerge intact from the exchange, as may Russia, provided Europe strikes first.

>>32880090
>targets not related to waging a nuclear war

when I said crippled I meant ofc targets related to waging a nuclear war. Bombing London and Paris, as much as I'd personally love to do it, is Hitler tier war tactics and pointless. Most of Europe would indeed remain intact.

>>32879600
Nukes.
Both sides get MAD. Russia gets slightly less wrecked but it doesn't matter, both sides lose.

Conventional.
Russia gets wrecked. Individual countries don't stand a chance but this scenario is the only guaranteed thing that would make the various European countries unite and work together. Europian might is both in a better state initially and can sustain warfare for longer. Russia doesn't stand a chance either in a war of attrition or in attempting a quick war. Poland gets wrecked but would put up a good fight.

>>32880153
t. C&C player

>>32880153
>everything I know about nuclear war, I've learned from Dr. Strangelove

>>32879926
>Is it just me or is the fact of Europe freaking the fuck out about a nation that is aggressive towards them and has repeatedly demonstrated an ability and willingness to engage in subversive activity and economic warfare against them a bit silly at this point?
Get out Vatnik.

File: 1482279909413.jpg (122KB, 750x1024px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 750x1024px

>>32880073

Ah! ah! ah!

Also checked and keked.

>>32879600
>Euro armies
a fucking oxymoron if I ever saw one!

Well, in the event of a nuclear war, there are two quotes about French nuclear weapons to I find to be quite relevant.

>Within ten years, we shall have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians, even if one can kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French.

>Making the most pessimistic assumptions, the French nuclear bombers could destroy ten Russian cities; and France is not a prize worthy of ten Russian cities.

They basically knew that they had no chance of winning due to overwhelming difference in numbers but they still had enough to inflict important damages, potentially exceeding the gains.

Honest question, is there a way for a government to stay afloat when some of his biggest cities where just glassed?
I just don't see how the leading entity could justify millions of dead, no matter who started nuking first.

>>32880332
>I just don't see how the leading entity could justify millions of dead

They justify thousands dead every day. Merkel has destroyed ehr country in 2016 already, albait it being a process that will take 10 years to fully manifest but still.... I don't think/know Euro governments have US-tier Continuity of government plans but if they do, they can do anything they want.

>>32879710
You have no idea what you're talking about. All British nukes are submarine based, as are most French ones. They don't have any silos to suppress, and the subs are capable of receiving orders post first strike, or acting independently.

>>32880419
Nothing is going to be receiving any orders when the submarines are obliterated along with their bases and all submarine control and command facilities.

>>32879926
>Is it just me or is the fact of Europe freaking the fuck out about Russia a bit silly at this point? They don't have the might of the combined Warsaw pact anymore. Eastern European satellites states are friends and even allies to western Europe and America now.
A war tomorrow or in the foreseeable future would involve assets the players have in Europe then, not whatever the US can bring to the table after a lengthy buildup (think Desert Shields' 6 months, and multiply that by according to an order of magnitude of forces to be shifted at least)- and the US doesn't have the amount of forces stationed in Europe to act as a speedbump even.

>We own what was once the Russian buffer zone. The EU and just the Eurasia members of Nato could it seemingly defeat Russia alone.
The E. European buffer zones that were once part of the WP were always meant to bear the brunt of whatever the NATO forces in Europe can dish out, barring those of strategic weaponry, nothing more, nothing less.

>>32880519
brit subs don't work like America's. they have their orders regardless of if britan exists and can utilize their weapons w/o a go from the CIC.

>>32880185
>Get out Vatnik.
>vatniks
>ever admitting Russia could be defeated by 'yurocucks'

>>32880519
he doesn't know about
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_last_resort

File: 20170204223354.png (322KB, 637x633px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 637x633px

EU army? You better be joking, 5 years tops and there will be no EU at all.

1. EU countries have completely different political agendas and attitudes towards Russia. Spain and Italy couldn't care less while those on the Russian border are very scared. No way to find a resolution.

2. EU is facing a financial collapse. Deutsche Bank has $47 trillions in derivatives, Italian banks are bankrupt, Greece is bankrupt, entire southern Europe is in shit. Even if Brussels finds a way to mitigate this year's recession somehow, which is near impossible, the days of the Eurozone are numbered because massive demographic decline will crumble the social security and welfare systems in core EU countries within next few years.

3. Unitegratable low IQ migrants with criminal and terrorist tendencies will only worsen the situation bringing the big and important countries like France and Germany on the brink of civil war.

There's no united European military industrial complex. There's chronic underfunding and shortage of equipment. There's not enough recruits to man even the peacetime army. The only actual militaries left in EU are the British and French, and neither of those can wage conventional war for more than a month. And ah yes, Britain is not even EU anymore.