[maxander]

It’s not news to anyone that NATO could win a (conventional) war with Russia. The important result is that any sizable chunk of military force in Russia itself stands a good chance of it.

[psychphysic]

I wonder if the chance of tactical nuclear weapons being used would go up in a Russian civil war.

Especially if there's been reports it's seriously been considered in Ukraine.

[usrusr]

Why risk nuclear armageddon when you can conveniently switch sides at the slightest occasion. It's not like armies marching to shuffle a few chairs in big offices were a matter of deep ideological conflict or worse.

[tekknik]

Tactical nuclear weapons are very low yield bombs. You won’t start nuclear armageddon with those.

[usrusr]

That's why I wrote risk, not cause. It's chain reactions all the way up the meta levels.

[vGPU]

You do realize that NATO is currently essentially out of ammunition, right?

[AndrewPGameDev]

I think you should do some research on the topic before you conclude that "NATO is out of ammunition". I highly recommend Perun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deK98IeTjfY .

[greedo]

I'd look to how NATO ran out of PGMs etc when fighting in Libya. I didn't see a big uptick in arms purchases after that. Also, Germany recently crowed about sending 1000 155mm artillery rounds. That's like 3 hours of firing at Ukraine's current rate. The reason Germany has been so slow to provide weaponry to Ukraine is that it is a shell of its former self. The Kriegsmarine has been a joke for decades, the Luftwaffe can barely put 60 aircraft in the air, and the Heer has fewer tanks than Poland, and most of these tanks are in poor condition and shared with the Netherlands.

NATO is not what it was before 1989, and will take decades to come back up to a minimally acceptable level.

[schroeding]

FYI, the German Navy is called Bundesmarine or just "Deutsche Marine" (=> "German Navy"), not Kriegsmarine.

The name Kriegsmarine, when used to describe the German Navy, has extremly strong WW2 connotations, on a similar level as "Wehrmacht". :)

[greedo]

Thank you! I've studied WW2 much more in comparison to modern warfare and sometimes I forget the changes.

[petre]

It will now take less than decades thanks to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

[greedo]

There are huge institutional challenges for this to occur. Production facilities have all been consolidated (as they have in the US since the end of the Cold War.) Budgets are also a problem; the majority of NATO members aren't even making the 2% of GDP goal. And there are also some demographic issues; the population of the EU is aging and military service doesn't have as strong an appeal. Will Germany reinstate the draft?

And some things do take decades, even in perfect conditions. Building up a navy takes time due to the long construction timelines for ships. Developing coordination for combined arms operations requires both good officers and non-coms. These take time to develop as well, and need to be continually sustained.

[tekknik]

You can train non commissioned officers in a matter of months (like 2-3). And during WW2 the US was pushing out 3 ships per day.

If you focus efforts, it doesn’t take long at all.

[vGPU]

I can confidently say that I know quite a bit more on the topic than you do.

NATO simply has neither the stockpiles nor the production capacity to enter this war.

[CamperBob2]

Meh. We'll make more.

Can you?

[vGPU]

Can I what? I am not a country, nor do I speak on behalf of one.

[tekknik]

Then how do you know the status of the stockpiles?