who would win a war between Russia vs USA if it started right now?

[rhys 0]

Just wondering what you think?

Personally I beleive the USA has spead itself pretty thin with the Iraq war and servicing circa 700 military bases around the world.

Russia has some serious wealth these days and the US is treading on thin ice putting missile silos right next door in Poland and calling them Defence Missiles.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[MikeForsythe 0]

There would be no winner, both would lose.

Time and pressure will always show you who a person really is!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

There would be no winner, both would lose.

Agreed.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[CanuckInUSA 0]

What kind of war? The US has shown us they have some pretty potent weapons and that they are pretty good at invading countries. But I am sorry America, you really suck when it comes to occupying some of these countries. But a nuclear war, well that is just MAAD.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[1969912 0]

Wolverines?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[georgerussia 0]

China would.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Gawain 0]

If it came to nukes, it's MAD, though I've heard some pretty reliable observers tell me that Russia couldn't hit Nevada on a clear day.

In a conventional fight, I'd pick the US...of course I'm biased.

Though, from what some friends told me from the invasion of Iraq, we have weapons available that boggle the imagination, and I think would surprise the shit out of the Russians...seriously, systems that can render entire regiments combat ineffective in very little time.

In the air segment, it's a no brainer, F-16, F-15, F-22, F/A-18 are more than proven in their abilities to attain air superiority.

What the Russians have is numbers, and that T-80 MBT is a formidable tank....I'll still take an M1A1 though.

Either way, it would be a messy fight, and it would definitely push US CASEVAC plans to the limit (which, ironically is something that Army units train for regularly).

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Amazon 7]

The secret to winning a nuclear war.. is to not start it in the first place.

[grimmie 186]

What makes you think the citizens of either nation would want to go to war, ever?

[skydyvr 0]

Easy odds on where your vote went on this fantasy.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Lucky... 0]

The US would win a conventional war, we spend about as much as the rest of the world on the military, as opposed to providing social svs. A nuclear war, ...obvious no winner. Truth is the US as well as Russia are pussies. Name the ;last war either has egaged where the enemy was viable?

[nanook 1]

The Army and the Marines are spread pretty thin right now. The Navy isn't though. They can easily pull us from iraq within a few days. The way I would see it, it would be a "containment war" Their Navy took a serious hit with the collapse of 1991. We would take the Barents, their East sea board area, then T-hawk the hell out of their natural resource plants and use strategically placed NATO nations to deny them imports and contain them. Russia is not in a good tactical position. We would just wait them out as they strangle to death. If it comes to the point where we would have to invade, we would pull soldiers and Marines out of Iraq and drop them in Nato countries that rim the country.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[crwtom 0]

Quote

Personally I beleive the USA has spead itself pretty thin with the Iraq war and servicing circa 700 military bases around the world.

you can think of deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan as deployments along the southern flank of Russia -- so those may actually be a head start in a conventional conflict.

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

[kbordson 8]

Quote

There would be no winner, both would lose.

QFT.


If it was a battle on US soil. WOLVERINES!!!! ALL THE WAY.

But we, as a country, don't do colonies or occupations well, so if we attacked on their soil, they would have an advantage. Whether it would be enough of an advantage, I can't say.

But... if ye were talking about Risk, then Russia/Asia wins cuz you get the most reinforcements for holding that land as compared to North America.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

if ye were talking about Risk

LOL as far as Risk is concerned there are only two ways to win.

#1) Conquer Australia first and build from there towards holding Africa, Asia, get a foot in Brazil and the sooner you can get a foot in Alaska the better. But worry about North America only after you are solid in Asia and Africa and save Europe for last.

#2) Conquer South America, make sure you have a foot in Mexico, take Africa ASAP, get some armies in the Middle East and worry about Europe last.

Both methods work, but I find Australia the easier of the two. It means a lot of blood at the beginning of the game if someone else has the same plans as you and you are doomed if you can't hold Australia or South America in the early stages of the war.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[lawrocket 3]

I will define "win" as the other side providing a surrender via state actor.

Where's the notional war gonna be fought? U.S. Soil? The US would win. Russian soil? The U.S. would lose.

Western Europe? The U.S. would win. Eastern Europe? It becomes more fuzzy.

There are too many variables. Nukes? Well, our capabilities have not dropped as much as the Russian capabilities.

I gotta wonder what's going on in the International Space Station right now. Astronaut Chamitoff must be feeling like he doesn't have an ally for, oh, about 195 nautical miles.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[misaltas 0]

Quote

Quote

if ye were talking about Risk

LOL as far as Risk is concerned there are only two ways to win.

And always remember... the Ukraine is WEAK!!

Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

[akarunway 1]

Quote

The US would win a conventional war, we spend about as much as the rest of the world on the military, as opposed to providing social svs. A nuclear war, ...obvious no winner. Truth is the US as well as Russia are pussies. Name the ;last war either has egaged where the enemy was viable?

No such thing as a conventional war any more. Can we say IEDs and suicide bomb vests. Youhave to change w/ trhe times don't ya know? Disclamer. I do not advocate war. Don't want the black choppers over my house. I'll save that for another day.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[rhys 0]

Quote

But... if ye were talking about Risk, then Russia/Asia wins cuz you get the most reinforcements for holding that land as compared to North America.

And if you are trying to hold/defend north america without being attacked you woul fortify alaska/kamchatka, central america/venizuela and greenland/iceland with 10 -20 armies.

if you then placed 20 armies on nothern or southern europe, the holder of asia would start to get worried!

no one ever holds asia though do they

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[kbordson 8]

Quote

no one ever holds asia though do they

Nope.... we have learned that.



-and when you "get" my humor, it makes it harder to maintain my personal issues of annoyance. Lets keep the debates to medicine where I can maintain my righteous indignation (I am just kidding.... m'kay? )

[auburnguy 0]

I've been doing extensive research on this very topic for the last year. The short answer is the United States but the US would suffer heavy losses, however the Russian military would be completely destroyed. Think about it like this, their long range strategic bomber is a turboprop nicknamed the 'bear' because its so damn loud. The US's long range strategic bomber is the B2. While not impossible to detect it is extremely difficult. Thats what the playing field looks like. They cant make a submarine that doesn't kill its men, it wouldnt really be a contest as far as the sea and air power goes.
On the ground is where it would get extremely difficult. Their troops are extremely mobile not to mention they would have home turf advantage.
If nukes were involved though, it would be MAD, unless the US can get the airborne laser technology to work and more standard3 missiles.
It's not gonna happen though. Nobody would win either way.

"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way."
- Homer Simpson

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Quote

no one ever holds asia though do they

Nope.... we have learned that.

I disagree I have held Asia on many occasons. It just takes patience before you move in on it and of course it takes a lucky roll of the dice.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

If it came to nukes, it's MAD, though I've heard some pretty reliable observers tell me that Russia couldn't hit Nevada on a clear day.

Are you sure they were not speaking about the Early Warning System or command and control?

Otherwise can you point to some of these "reliable observors" because that assertion is just wrong, as well as contrary to DoD, ATSD(NCB) [& NucMatters], & DIA assessments.

Russian SSBN [Delta IVs] (w/SLBM) are a much *smaller* number than during the Cold War (generally patrols estimated to have gone from >250 to <10) but targeting capabilities are not considered to have significantly degraded. Each Delta IV is thought to carry 16 SLBMs, each with 4 independent re-entry vehicles (nuclear warheads).

Russia is continuing to develop new ground-launched ICBMs (e.g., the RS-24 and SS-27 missile (typically compared to Minuteman-3) w/single re-entry vehicle carrying 550kT nuclear warhead), which are more more accurate than described above.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Andy9o8 2]

You're all wrong. Chuck Norris would win.

[Skyrad 0]

Depends where, the time available for build up, the length of the logistical supply lines, the environment and the scope and limitations of the area of conflict. If we're talking all out war on a global scale its irrelevant because we'd all be fucked. If we are talking in general terms about a small conflict in support of a third party I have no doubt that due to weapons and comand and control superiority that the US would win in the short term although if it became a state sponsered insurection by Russia in the long term I think the Russian side would win as in the current climate the American people would not have the resolve to take the casulties indefinatly and the insurgents fighting on their home ground would have to.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca