The Definitive Thread: US vs. Russia

[Serb]

Well David, it's my turn for flags waving.

Assuming all allies stay out of it, and assuming the war stays conventional, who wins in a war between the US and Russia?

You are nothing without allies. Don't you know this? In every single sandbox fight you are calling the great success of American military, you always create coalition even when your enemy is ten times weaker then you. (blah, sure you never have balls to attack someone who is equal to you) All what you can is cowardly bombings from safe distance. Great warriors my ass.

Personally, I see no reason to think anything other than that the US would wipe the floor with Russia. We couldn't invade very well, except for possible strikes in the Soviet Far East, maybe seize the Petropavlovsk area, however, the Russian fleet would be utterly destroyed within hours of the declaration of war, at negligible cost to the USN, although the US would probably lose a few submarines. I doubt we'd lose a carrier, though.

You will start to lose your carriers one by one when they meet with our carrier-killers of "Kirov" class. And the Russian fleet will give you a couple of lessons perhaps the first time in your peacefull history.
Just explain to me, why do you think that you will invade very well? You said no allies. Firt of all, it means that you can't use the territory of other countries as bridgehead for invasion in Russia. Explain it. All your bs about US power projection cappabilities is no more then BS. A dozen of carriers- this is the limit of your capabilities. To project your power you need allies, no allies- no projection. This point is perfectly prooven by your last millitary action- Afghanistan. If your carriers is so great for power projection, then you need nothing more. Why you begged for help from Afghanistan's neigbors. Why you asked for "right of passage" through their territory, for use of their airbases, if you are so great in power projection?

This could be followed up by stealth aircraft attacks at various targets throughout Russia, with little chance of being intercepted, especially in the case of B-2A Spirits, and while they certainly could not vitally damage Russia, they could cause major damage to selected locations.

Who told you that Stealth couldn't be intercepted?
It's a total bs. Stealth planes are no problem for old S-300, for S-400 it's a peace of cake. You forget who is creater of this technology- Russian, Ufimtsev. Do you think Russians keep secrets from each other? Your stealth is perhaps stealth for others, but not for us.

But the big knockout blow would be economic. The US could institute a full naval blockade against Russia, and basically stop any food from getting in. While Russia could get a lot of resources over land routes, much of their food comes from overseas, which would be cut off. In addition, US investment would end, and without access to the bigger international markets, Russia's economy would slowly go down the tubes even more.

Silly boy, you think we are Yougoslavia, Iraq or smth?
Your problem David is that you are an American. You are a product of camitalism and democracy. You just can't understand that other countries could act different then you think. Economy? investments? lol
The Vagabond already gave you a hint about mobilization economy. I'll try to explain you it further.
We have a very nice chapter in our constitution it called "an eneregency situation". In case of big war our president should declare an emeregency situation. Since it;s declared say good buy to democracy, capitalism and freemarket economy. Every possible resources, every plant start to work for military purposes. Aside you we was on edge of total extermination many times during our history and perfectly know that this is the only way to survive. Aside you we don't make many on blood of others and if somone will ever invade us again, he will fought against entire nation. No proffit, no blood sucking, only 24 hours a day work for victory. We was in blockade many times and if you think that you might scare Russian by isolation you are just silly. We are self sufficient country. If needed we'll surrvive in full isolation and we already done it many times. The claims that Russia can't feed itself is total bs. During last yars we have nice growth in agriculture. If you think that every day I'm buying foreign food in stores you are wrong. I'm buying our own food and buyng foreign food only if I want ananas or banana, you know they don't grow well in Siberia.
So, in case of American invasion. I'm pretty sure that emeregency situation will be declared with all conseqenses like nationalisation of industry for period of war. Also I'm pretty sure that another Patriotic War will be declared. And this thing is pretty dangrous, I can assure you. We have only two patriotic wars during our history. First was vs. Napoleon, second was vs. Hitler. To explain why this thing is pretty dangerous I should explain the differences between our cultures.

In your- Western civilization, human life is the highest value. For us "Rodina" is the highest value. In English you'll never find a word which can describe the full meaning of Russian "Rodina". When our Rodina is in danger, the human life is cost nothing. It's in our genes. We started our existance from almost 300 years of Mongolian occupation, and never since we defeated them we wasn't conqered. Many tried, all the time, no one was succeded.
If you ever dare to invade us, I'll be among first voluntiers. And when you and me will meet on battlefeild and if I'll be lucky, I will hit stick in your chest. And you know what? I will smile during this proccess, because YOU come to destroy my Rodina. If I'll be unliky and it will you who will shoot in my head, I will smile too, because I'm dying for Rodina-and this is the best way to end life.
Now imagine 150 millions like me. And tell me that it will be an easy task for USA. When first million of coffins will arive in USA your population will start whine that this war is endless, then your government are bustards who killing young American guys. For us first million of our victims will be only the beggining of war. With every new Russian victim we will become only more anger, because we will seek for revenge, even in cost of our own lives.
This is our psihology, idiology or whatever you may call it. That's how we won wars when our Rodina in danger.

Assuming a conventional war between the US and Russia, the US could project as much power as it needed anywhere it wanted, while Russia has almost no power projection ability. Thus, any naval battles would be fought at locations of America's choosing, and the US would have the ability to strike at will with strategic stealth bombers anywhere in Russia - the Russian air force can't be everywhere.

Why the naval battles would be fought at locations of America's choosing? And why the f*ck it makes difference? And who told you that Russian Air forces couldn't be enywhere? You think we don't have long range aviation?

Serb, and other pro-Russian posters, what are your thoughts?

Personaly my thoughts- everyone who think that for USA it's a peice a cake to crush Russia is know nothing about Russians and that history teach those people nothing.
I have another thought too- kickboxing is sport of primitives.
Real mens chose karate

Have a nice day

[Heresson]

Is "rodina" Polish rodzina? Certainly the base is the same
(rod). But as far as i know, Russian soldiers up to SU times
weren't so "patriotical". they were taken to the army by force and were forced to fight. And in SU times they were
indoctrinised perhaps, but still less patriotical than beast-like (mass rapes, even of women freed from concentration camps, destruction for fun, robbing everything and everyone -all supported by our brave USSR)

[Sava]

I agree with Serb, David. You aren't making any decent points, you are just waving an American flag. While the US has a technological edge, I doubt the US has the stomach for a full mobilization that such a war would require. Americans aren't going to put up with a full draft unless Russia were to nuke a city. And since you're taking nukes out of the picture, this whole thread is irrelevant.

You might be proud of the stealth bombers and advanced weaponry that the US enjoys, but true military victories come from infantry on the ground taking land. Sure, the US could probably win an air war, but there is no way that the US is going to draft 20-50 million soldiers to conquer Russia. David, stick to Civ and leave the armchair military strategizing to people who know what they are talking about.

[Serb]

Rodina is Rodina and you perfectly know that I don't speak Polish, how could I know what meanings you put in this definition.
What could you know about Russian soldiers? WHAT COULD YOU KNOW?
Heresson, sometimes your anti-Russian trolling makes me sick. Your bullsh*t charges which has nothing common with truth, your hatred toward Soviets sounds very weird from someone who who consider himself as "the only true communist here".
Everything has its limits Heresson, you just insulted memory of millions people who died to save the World from Nazism and to save YOUR country from total extermination.

[Frankychan]

Well, I'm American but I'll have to go w/Russia.

Let me just explain some historical background. During the Cold War, Soviet subs were stationed in such a way that America freaked out and almost launched their "ICBM's" at Russia.

It was only after careful analysis did Washington see that Soviet subs were stationed in such a way that they were to protect Soviet ports did the US decide that THEY were wrong and agree to the START treaty. Basically, the US freaked out that Soviet subs w/nuclear capability crossed the North Pole and could equal the American ICBM nuke launch initiative did they say "My bad..."

Anyway, going back to the question at hand. I think the Russians would win. Today, the US is seen by many countries as a "maverick" nation and if we were to launch an attack against Russia, there would be global protests. Besides, everyone knows you don't invade Russia.

Napoleon....Hitler.........who's next???

[Heresson]

Well rodzina is family in general.
I seem to know more about Russian soldriers that You do
I'm not communist. A communist would have to be ideal,
and I'm not, though I guess I'm the closest to it of the people here SU had little to do with communism.
Perhaps they defeated nazis, but that doesn't mean that they were angels. Soviets were nearly as bad as nazis.
And in the firwst stage of the war, soviet politics towards Poles was no different from German one.

[Serb]

Sava,
I’m shocked.

[Frankychan]

Originally posted by Heresson

A communist would have to be ideal,
and I'm not, though I guess I'm the closest to it of the people here SU had little to do with communism.
Perhaps they defeated nazis, but that doesn't mean that they were angels. Soviets were nearly as bad as nazis.
And in the firwst stage of the war, soviet politics towards Poles was no different from German one.

Well, that's why I consider myself a neo communist. Communism's application in today's world wouldn't be appropriate due to it's tendency toward violence and elitism. I prefer something more gradual....

....Everything in moderation, I say.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Heresson
Well rodzina is family in general.
I seem to know more about Russian soldriers that You do
I'm not communist. A communist would have to be ideal,
and I'm not, though I guess I'm the closest to it of the people here SU had little to do with communism.
Perhaps they defeated nazis, but that doesn't mean that they were angels. Soviets were nearly as bad as nazis.
And in the firwst stage of the war, soviet politics towards Poles was no different from German one.

Heresson,
How Polish could know more about Russian soldiers then Russian? Just answer my one simple question- your country was CONQUERED by nazi, how many relatives of yours died to liberate your country from nazism?


And I was right Polish rodzina it’s not the same as Russian Rodina.

[Heresson]

You can't see your face when You are afraid to look into mirror I'd say.
What does Rodina mean, then? Sth like fatherland?
Many of my relatives were killed by Germans. That doesn't mean I should forget that the other half was sent into Russia. our country was conquered by nazi thanks to Soviets, who, again we're back to the same thing,
allied with them and partaged Poland.

[Urban Ranger]

I concur with the pro-Russian faction. There is no substance with the OP. It's just "USA, USA" in many more words.

First of all, without allies, how would the US bring in large numbers of bombers? So air strikes are out of the question.

As for naval war, you must be watching too many Hollywood movies. Russia has been developing missiles just to counter US carrier battlegroups. Do the names Sunburn and Shipwreck sound familiar? They also have long range anti-radiation missiles that will be hard on the AWACS.

It seems to me that you have no idea what you are talking.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Serb
Sava,
I’m shocked.

Why? Although I think the US is the greatest nation, I wouldn't consider myself a patriot. Nations rise and fall, a name is nothing. The ideas of freedom and democracy is what I stand for. In theory, that is what the US is about.

And plus, I'm not going to wave the American flag in this case because David is flat out wrong. He obviously knows little about warfare.

[Krayzeenbk]

Alright I'll add some more.

America WILL win if it wins fast - because Russia has a lot of outdated useless hardware that is just sitting there without the fuel and parts to be used. The number of training hours pilots get a year is in the single digits. The initial attack will be supremely destructive for Russia and if America makes it decisive, Russia will be America's b*tch.

As for allies - I assumed that no American allies would be involved (and Russian). But if any were involved, it would only be to their detriment because they would not be able to withstand the attrition brought on by the war. If they're close geographically to either America or Russia, they will be wiped out, and if they're distant, they won't be useful.

So, America would destroy the badly maintained Russian pacific fleet, and the way to invading would be open from there. No significant manned air mission would be possible over Russian territory - SA missiles is one thing the Russians are ever improving, even in 1994-1996. The only way to allow bombing would be do destroy these from the ground, or to suck up the attrition and lose plane after plane until the SAMs are all gone.

Invasions - an invasion from almost any side is completely unfeasible. In Europe, Russia will most likely have defeated (with heavy casualties, IMO) the non-American NATO nations. An American force landing there would need to deal with Russian ground forces AND the very well maintained, very capable, and very large Russian Baltic and Black Sea fleets, as well as being in range of every type of Russian aircraft and missile. However, an invasion from the southern far east *might* be.

China will only get involved if it sees the American economy very much destroyed by missile attacks (will happen to both Russia and America) and if it can decisively destroy the American forces (meaning, it probably won't get involved). Any kind of invasion of Russia is basically doomed to fail eventually, IMO.

Russia can feed itself.

Foreign investment is nothing. If the entire world were to embargo Russia today, you would see a very strong American-scale economy in Russia in about 10 years. Russia has everything it needs to be self-sufficient - the educated population, the natural resources, the workforce, the expertise, the land, the infrastructure. It's not clear if foreign investment today is helping Russia that much, since those same people who invest also choose to invest their huge returns in Swiss banks.

If anybody is familiar with Nineteen Eighty-Four, the kind of war and life that's in there is probably a fairly accurate picture of what will happen after the first year. It's much easier to build hundreds of thousands of missiles and attack the enemy than it is to invade, to send airplanes, to attack with ships, etc. All the battles will be elsewhere, in the third world (not including China) and Europe.

Losses of soldiers - neither country wants to lose any, but they will lose hundreds of thousands if not millions very very fast, and civilian casualties will be through the roof. One thing you can be sure of is you won't be able to sit on the Internet and post on this board anymore as Russia will no doubt be able to hit almost any facility of military value (Internet included. Even though it's everywhere, so are Russian missiles. After all, the Russian doctrine is missiles).

Actually, all it would do is make Russia and America into third-world style military juntas with no economy that randomly pull missiles out of their @$$es even though they would look like they don't have the manufacturing capacity to do it. It would be a huge setback for America even if it won, and would mean the loss of superpower status.

[Heresson]

You are highly overestimating Russia. My state is poor and it is even poorer. Comparing Russia to USA is like comparing Netherlands to Romania.

[Krayzeenbk]

I'm not waving anybody's flag in this post, but here's my take on Russian and American military doctrine. I just want to make a point about the Russian method of power projection which I saw someone say is nonexistent. Russian policy has been missiles since the 1950s, while America tends to focus on extremely expensive long range bombers (well, not anymore), extremely expensive aircraft carries and airplanes, etc. Even in space exploration, Russia uses missiles which are cheaper to produce than it is to launch and maintain the U.S. space shuttle (of course, the shuttle gives America extremely valuable reusable vehicle experience which Russia isn't getting).

Naval policy - the USN focuses on carrier groups. The Russian Navy focuses on missile cruiser groups. Both have aircraft carriers and cruisers in their battle groups, but they don't use those equally. So one could argue about how Russia has no carriers and whatnot, but another could just as easily argue that all the planes a carrier can carry can be shot down in under 1 minute by a group of modern cruisers, and that the carrier can be easily hit by a cruise missile/surface-skimming missile/torpedo and sunk. Huge loss of life and equipment.

I don't believe carriers are the way to go against anything but the third world. Carrier-based weapons simply don't have the range, the speed, the power, or the penetration ability of missiles.

In other words, Russian doctrine and technology have evolved and may appear alien to daily CNN-watchers. Doesn't mean it's not effective. Russia was doing Gulf-War style tank blitzes when American doctrine called for primarily an infantry assault (in Afghanistan, by Russian trained forces all over the world - Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, for example).