[Goose]

All fair points, and Petropavlovsk does seem geographically problematic for us. But I’m assuming that both Russia and NATO could have conflicts short of a nuclear Holocaust, and that conventional military tactics could be relevant to the outcome. Aside from Petropavlovsk, the other naval bases all seem problematic because those other bases are within ATACMS range of NATO territory and most of the bases are “hemmed in.”  Not to mention would have air superiority. The US has natural geographic advantages. It sure is nice that Russia doesn’t have a good place from which to attack San Diego or Norfolk or Honolulu, or most other major American naval bases. But even beyond those advantages, other NATO countries have major naval bases in areas far from Russian military sites. Devonport, Rota, La Spezia, etc.  I don’t see how any of those bases would be vulnerable to Russian attack.  Russia can credibly threaten to end the world, but I don’t think Russia can credibly threaten to invade any NATO country other than the formerly soviet Baltics. Given what we’ve seen in Ukraine, I have my doubts that Russia could take Finland even if NATO didn’t commit troops.

On conflating factor that is undoubtedly in all our minds is Russia's exceedingly poor performance in the current conflict. It makes it difficult to envision future events with confidence. Relying on the fact Russia can't do something because they are incompetent could be dangerous, as they are not all incompetent and in the past were much more capable. OTOH one does not want to create a "superpower" out of what could be true but is not true today.

It is necessary to point out that all the seaports in the US are within easy range of sea launched cruise missiles, as are almost all the Russian ones.  However, that fact doesn't imply they will be neutralized. Kiev is still there, and it is in "rock throwing" distance. Kiev also has a significant air defense network. The one around Murmansk makes the one around Kiev pale by comparison. The one around San Diego is nonexistent. The ocean around San Diego is "friendly". The ocean around Murmansk is some of the most hostile in the world. Both sides have to operate in that ocean. In a conventional war, NATO considers Murmansk a "difficult" target. It is important to remember that 1) Norway, Sweden, and Finland do not garrison their far north and have a very limited presence there. Russia OTOH does have significant forces in that area. That means NATO has limited if any offensive capability there. 2) GPS does not work that well at high latitudes. The constellations are almost always at low angles, i.e. close to the horizon. GDOP is significant. It also means that ground-based jammers are more difficult to reject based on elevation. The Russians have plenty of these apparently.

The ability of NATO to fight a conventional war against the USSR always depended on controlling the SLOCs to Europe. The European seaports, both commercial and military, are useful only if the ships can get there. The concern has always been that Russian submarines could cut those SLOCs. Russia has shown itself to be pretty incompetent in Ukraine. Now imagine that most of the military aid from the US could not be delivered to Ukraine because we did not control the SLOCs. That would indeed be a game-changer. The US military sealift capability is known to be inadequate. We rely on commercial shipping, often foreign flagged, to move much of our military and and all of our commercial shipping. Now, imagine that few if any LNG tankers can enter the Baltic sea and all are at risk anywhere in the Pacific and Atlantic. Things in Europe don't look so rosy at that point.

Can Russia do this today? Good question. The answer is probably not, but not because NATO would destroy/overrun Murmansk. Russia probably doesn't have enough operational submarines to do the job. However, counting on that to be true today and tomorrow as well is a bit scary (to me at least). It also doesn't preclude them from trying, and since nothing is certain in war, that is even more scary.

[Goose]

All fair points, and Petropavlovsk does seem geographically problematic for us. But I’m assuming that both Russia and NATO could have conflicts short of a nuclear Holocaust, and that conventional military tactics could be relevant to the outcome. Aside from Petropavlovsk, the other naval bases all seem problematic because those other bases are within ATACMS range of NATO territory and most of the bases are “hemmed in.”  Not to mention would have air superiority. The US has natural geographic advantages. It sure is nice that Russia doesn’t have a good place from which to attack San Diego or Norfolk or Honolulu, or most other major American naval bases. But even beyond those advantages, other NATO countries have major naval bases in areas far from Russian military sites. Devonport, Rota, La Spezia, etc.  I don’t see how any of those bases would be vulnerable to Russian attack.  Russia can credibly threaten to end the world, but I don’t think Russia can credibly threaten to invade any NATO country other than the formerly soviet Baltics. Given what we’ve seen in Ukraine, I have my doubts that Russia could take Finland even if NATO didn’t commit troops.

On conflating factor that is undoubtedly in all our minds is Russia's exceedingly poor performance in the current conflict. It makes it difficult to envision future events with confidence. Relying on the fact Russia can't do something because they are incompetent could be dangerous, as they are not all incompetent and in the past were much more capable. OTOH one does not want to create a "superpower" out of what could be true but is not true today.

It is necessary to point out that all the seaports in the US are within easy range of sea launched cruise missiles, as are almost all the Russian ones.  However, that fact doesn't imply they will be neutralized. Kiev is still there, and it is in "rock throwing" distance. Kiev also has a significant air defense network. The one around Murmansk makes the one around Kiev pale by comparison. The one around San Diego is nonexistent. The ocean around San Diego is "friendly". The ocean around Murmansk is some of the most hostile in the world. Both sides have to operate in that ocean. In a conventional war, NATO considers Murmansk a "difficult" target. It is important to remember that 1) Norway, Sweden, and Finland do not garrison their far north and have a very limited presence there. Russia OTOH does have significant forces in that area. That means NATO has limited if any offensive capability there. 2) GPS does not work that well at high latitudes. The constellations are almost always at low angles, i.e. close to the horizon. GDOP is significant. It also means that ground-based jammers are more difficult to reject based on elevation. The Russians have plenty of these apparently.

The ability of NATO to fight a conventional war against the USSR always depended on controlling the SLOCs to Europe. The European seaports, both commercial and military, are useful only if the ships can get there. The concern has always been that Russian submarines could cut those SLOCs. Russia has shown itself to be pretty incompetent in Ukraine. Now imagine that most of the military aid from the US could not be delivered to Ukraine because we did not control the SLOCs. That would indeed be a game-changer. The US military sealift capability is known to be inadequate. We rely on commercial shipping, often foreign flagged, to move much of our military and and all of our commercial shipping. Now, imagine that few if any LNG tankers can enter the Baltic sea and all are at risk anywhere in the Pacific and Atlantic. Things in Europe don't look so rosy at that point.

Can Russia do this today? Good question. The answer is probably not, but not because NATO would destroy/overrun Murmansk. Russia probably doesn't have enough operational submarines to do the job. However, counting on that to be true today and tomorrow as well is a bit scary (to me at least). It also doesn't preclude them from trying, and since nothing is certain in war, that is even more scary.