Posted on 10/01/2010 10:50:56 PM PDT by WesternCulture
Of course, this scenario is a nightmare, but not a lost cause.
The most stupid thing to do while at war with Northern Europeans is to try and annihilate their base.
We won't be there.
The Romans feared the people living East of the River Rhine (the Germans).
They also knew the Northmen.
Fighting the people of Scandinavia was not even an option as the Romans were well aware the Northmen were twice as tall, three times heavier (in sheer muscle weight), four times as drunk and many times swifter at water than they were.
Hitler (a Central European who never understood the greatness of Goethe and Schiller), learned the hard way bombing London was of no use.
But what would the fate of Russia be under conditions accounted for above after an attack by the Swedish Navy?
1. Russia would cease to function as a nation (a situation not wholly unfamiliar to them). Large parts of their infrastructure as well as their navy would be taken out within one hour.
Vital Russian targets don't lack protection, but its a matter of speed.
Compared to what SAAB Aerospace and Ericsson know about computing destruction their level is mongoloid B+.
2. Formerly opressed nations in Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary etc) would take up arms against Russia.
If any problems would arise, Nato would finish Russia off.
If that effort too would fail, we would have to call in the Finns, the only nation ever to defeat Stalin (see below).
1. At first, the Finns were defeated at 1940. The USSR got the territories it had wanted. It's casualties were high, that's undebateable, but the war's targets were met. I don't remember Finland receiving a military help from the UK or whoever else.
2. The Central European Hitler did actually defeated Northmen Norvegians during the WWII.
3. Sweden preferred to stand neutral to showing its war face (on any side). Why would it go for a first strike this time?
4. No UK, no any other European country can stand a nuclear attack alone. If Sweden provokes Russia for a nuclear strike, it drags the USA into the conflict. That's too arrogant for Sweden.
“Sweden preferred to stand neutral”
- In reality, tiny Sweden wasn’t neutral, she was “non-belligerent”
Whatever one calls Sweden’s approach, Finland fought Stalin.
Hard.
The troops of Stalin were crushed, ridiculed and defeated beyond belief by a Nordic army which did not particularly welcome Russian influence on Nordic soil.
Scandinavian hatred of Russia is an institution.
One of the best war movies I’ve ever seen. (And I’ve seen a lot of them).
“This thread is totally nuts.”
- Easy to say for someome who lives in Utah.
“This thread is totally nuts.”
“- Easy to say for someome who lives in Utah.”
I’d love to live in Utah. It has very beautiful scenery, and a remarkable wooden hall with perfect acoustics. Frank Lloyd Wright called the Salt Lake Tabernacle “one of the architectural masterpieces of the country and perhaps the world.”
Putin is brutal and devious, but not at all crazy. Have you seen a picture of his mistress? Believe me, Vlad Putin is not in any hurry to die.
If Stockholm gets blown up it will be done by some Muslim refugee who was given asylum by the soft-headed Swedes. Ahmadinejad will give him a bomb to test on Stockholm, so they know it will work on Tel Aviv.
Who cares? Sweden hasn't been a military power in any way for two centuries. No it comes up pretending.
The troops of Stalin were crushed, ridiculed and defeated beyond belief by a Nordic army which did not particularly welcome Russian influence on Nordic soil.
Read the peace treaty conditions:
The Moscow Peace Treaty was signed on 12 March 1940 and went into effect the following day. Finland ceded a portion of Karelia – the entire Karelian Isthmus as well as a large swath of land north of Lake Ladoga. The area included Finland's second largest city of Viipuri, much of Finland's industrialised territory, and significant parts still held by Finland's army—all in all, 11% of the territory and 30% of the economic assets of pre-war Finland.[1]:18 Twelve percent of Finland's population, some 422,000 Karelians, were evacuated and lost their homes.[27]:142–143[65]
Finland also had to cede a part of the region of Salla, the Kalastajansaarento peninsula in the Barents Sea, and four islands in the Gulf of Finland. The Hanko Peninsula was leased to the Soviet Union as a military base for 30 years. The region of Petsamo, captured by the Red Army during the war, was returned to Finland according to the treaty.
Was Stalin (the USSR, Russia, whatever you like) really crushed with such results?
Scandinavian hatred of Russia is an institution.
Probably, but who cares? Scandinavians deal with Russia eagerly, what they say in their private kitchens is their private business.
>What a funny topic!
1. At first, the Finns were defeated at 1940. The USSR got the territories it had wanted. It’s casualties were high, that’s undebateable, but the war’s targets were met. I don’t remember Finland receiving a military help from the UK or whoever else.
2. The Central European Hitler did actually defeated Northmen Norvegians during the WWII.
3. Sweden preferred to stand neutral to showing its war face (on any side). Why would it go for a first strike this time?
4. No UK, no any other European country can stand a nuclear attack alone. If Sweden provokes Russia for a nuclear strike, it drags the USA into the conflict. That’s too arrogant for Sweden.>
You ‘ve forgot to mention Sweden is among a World powers of it’s days failed to obvilion after messing with Russia, just like Napoleonic France or Hitler’s Reich. It was 300+ year ago.
Well, I wanted to be considerate... Remembering past discussions, I could never get why our collegue WesternCulture was so fond of Charles XII, who lost their Empire while being so neutral to Gustavus Adolphus, who had built it.
Sweden taking on Russia by itself ...with nuclear weapons involved ...and winning. It sounds remarkably like what I’ve seen in Pakistani forums about how JF17s in the hands of Pakistani pilots can take down American F-15Cs. Sweden has a LOT to be proud of, but facing off against a nuke-wielding Russia is simply above its paygrade. Also, this has to be one of the weirdest vanities in quite some time. Good for a laugh though - thanks
“Sweden taking on Russia by itself”
- You talk like the major Russian cities are out of reach for the Swedish military forces.
Do you honestly believe they are?
“Sweden taking on Russia by itself”
- You talk like the major Russian cities are out of reach for the Swedish military forces.
Do you honestly believe they are?
However, against a Russia tossing nukes, and which has already nuked London, Paris and ...erm ...Stockholm!!!! Sweden would be a gnat in the face of a thermonuclear war. The impact Sweden would have would be negligible, because that would be a major conflagration with the US also gettng involved, and a heightened chance of even India, Pakistan and China somehow getting sucked in. It would be the much awaited WW3.
In such a case, the nuking of Stockholm (again, Russian nukes London. Tick. Nukes Paris. Tick. THEN decides to nuke Stockholm???? What would be the fourth target? An SLBM MIRV payload heading to Kigali Rwanda?) ...anyways, the nuking of Stockholm compared to the nuking of the cities of London and Paris would be insignificant. The same response would be garnered if Russia nuked London, Paris, and Tripoli Libya! Or London, Paris, and Pyongyang North Korea. If Russia wants to engage in a nuclear first strike, Stockholm (or any place in Sweden, Switzerland, Burkina Faso, Papua New Guinea, the Great Barrier Reef, seashells by the seashore, etc) would not be on the targeting list. It would be nations with a viable cogent and ready thermonuclear arsenal, particularly those with an effective Triad so as to try their best to negate the full brunt of the near-immediate (nuclear) counter-attack that would follow. The vice-versa is also true - the US would not nuke a coconuy grove in Mombasa as their first strike salvo target.
Anyways, Sweden is a great country with a rich and storied culture. You should be proud of your heritage - and of your armed forces.
However, Russian cities in such a situation would be far more concerned of French SLBMs, British/American Trident SLBMs, and American ICBMs. Whatever Sweden would or could do would be at the same level as what New Zealand could do in the same situation. The Big Boys would be trying to kill each oher with radiation, with the only winner being China if it stays out of it and lets the Big Boys clobber themselves back to the start of the Industrial Revolution.
A better, and more serious, vanity to show Swedish capability would have been a thread showing a 'what-if scenario where Russia (for whatever reason ....erm ..) decided to attack Sweden like it did Georgia, and it is a limited conventional attack. That would be taken seriously. However, Sweden in the midst of a nuclear WW3 (or 4 depending on if one considers the Cold War WW3) is simply entertaining at best. At worst it only eludes mockery because you are respected and your other threads/posts cogent.
If Stockholm, Paris and London were nuked, the US would be deluged with Muslim refugees.
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.