A rapid assault on the Baltic region would leave NATO with few attractive options, including a massive risky counterattack, threatening a nuclear weapons option or simply allowing the Russian to annex the countries. <\/p>\n
One of the limited options cited in the study could include taking huge amounts of time to mobilize and deploy a massive counterattack force which would likely result in a drawn-out, deadly battle. Another possibility would be to threaten a nuclear option, a scenario which seems unlikely if not completely unrealistic in light of the U.S. strategy to decrease nuclear arsenals and discourage the prospect of using nuclear weapons, the study finds. <\/p>\n
A third and final option, the report mentions, would simply be to concede the Baltic states and immerse the alliance into a much more intense Cold War posture. Such an option would naturally not be welcomed by many of the residents of these states and would, without question, leave the NATO alliance weakened if not partially fractured. <\/p>\n
How much of a threat do Russia's emerging5th-generationstealth fighter, nuclear arsenal, high-tech air defenses, anti-satellite weapons, conventional army and submarines pose to NATO and the U.S.? <\/p>\n
Current tensions between Russia and NATO are leading many to carefully assess this question and examine the current state of weaponry and technological sophistication of the Russian military -- with a mind to better understanding the extent of the kinds of threats they may pose. <\/p>\n
Naturally, Russias military maneuvers and annexation of the Crimean peninsula have many Pentagon analysts likely wondering about and assessing the pace of Russia's current military modernization and the relative condition of the former Cold War military giants forces, platforms and weaponry. <\/p>\n
Russia has clearly postured itself in response to NATO as though it can counter-balance or deter the alliance, however some examinations of Russias current military reveals questions about its current ability to pose a real challenge to NATO in a prolonged, all-out military engagement. <\/p>\n
Nevertheless, Russia continues to make military advances and many Pentagon experts and analysts have expressed concern about NATO's force posture in Eastern Europe regarding whether it is significant enough to deter Russia from a possible invasion of Eastern Europe. <\/p>\n
Also, Russias economic pressures have not slowed the countries commitment to rapid military modernization and the increase of defense budgets, despite the fact that the countrys military is a fraction of what it was during the height of the Cold War in the 1980s. <\/p>\n
While the former Cold War giants territories and outer most borders are sizeably less than they were in the 1980s, Russias conventional land, air and sea forces are trying to expand quickly, transition into the higher-tech information age and steadily pursue next generation platforms. <\/p>\n
Russias conventional and nuclear arsenal is a small piece of what it was during the Cold War, yet the country is pursuing a new class of air-independent submarines, a T-50 stealth fighter jet, next-generation missiles and high-tech gear for individual ground soldiers. <\/p>\n
The National Interesthas recently published a number of reports about the technological progress now being made by Russian military developers. The various write-ups include reporting on new Russian anti-satellite weapons, T-14 Armata tanks, air defenses and early plans for a hypersonic, 6th-generation fighter jet, among other things. Russia is unambiguously emphasizing military modernization and making substantial progress, the reports from The National Interest and other outlets indicate. <\/p>\n
For instance, Russia hasapparently conducted a successful test launch of its Nudoldirect ascent anti-satellite missile, according toThe National Interest. <\/p>\n
\"This is the second test of the new weapon, which is capable of destroying satellites in space. The weapon was apparently launched from the Plesetsk test launch facility north of Moscow,\" the report from The National Interest writes. <\/p>\n
In addition,The National Interests'Dave Majumdar reported that Russian Airborne Forces plan six armored companies equipped with newly modifiedT-72B3Mtanks. Over the next two years, those six companies will be expanded to battalion strength, the report states. <\/p>\n
Russia is also reportedly developing a so-called \"Terminator 3\" tank support fighting vehicle. <\/p>\n
During the Cold War, the Russian defense budget amounted to nearly half of the countrys overall expenditures. <\/p>\n
Now, the countries military spending draws upon a smaller percentage of its national expenditure. However, despite these huge percentage differences compared to the 1980s, the Russian defense budget is climbing again. From 2006 to 2009, the Russian defense budget jumped from $25 billion up to $50 billion according to Business Insider and the 2013 defense budget is listed elsewhere at $90 billion. <\/p>\n
Overall, the Russian conventional military during the Cold War in terms of sheer size was likely five times what it is today. <\/p>\n
The Russian military had roughly 766,000 active front line personnel in 2013 and as many as 2.4 million reserve forces, according toglobalfirepower.com. During the Cold War, the Russian Army had as many as three to four million members. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read more: A rapid assault on the Baltic region would leave NATO with few attractive options, including a massive risky counterattack, threatening a nuclear weapons option or simply allowing the Russian to annex the countries. One of the limited options cited in the study could include taking huge amounts of time to mobilize and deploy a massive counterattack force which would likely result in a drawn-out, deadly battle. Continue reading
\nIf Russia and NATO Went to War Would It Go Nuclear (And Kill Millions)? - The National Interest Online (blog)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"