Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

United States military compared to Russian military. Let's do the math and compare numbers.

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 12:57 AM
link   
A recent explosion of Russian and American military comparisons here on ATS led me to look for some numbers.

I found this site that compares countries military strengths and weakness.

It takes in all factors related to this topic. It goes into detail of how they come to the conclusions.

I am going to link the page that directly compares the U.S. and Russia, but you can compare any country or look at individual countries.

www.globalfirepower.com...

Now I have never heard of this site. I only found it looking for comparisons of these two countries. Each country has it's strengths and weaknesses.

What do you think of the comparisons.

edit on 19-4-2014 by liejunkie01 because: I put the apostrophe in let's. sorry




posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:04 AM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

What do you think of the comparisons.

I think they're fair ... as far as numbers go ... and publicly available information.

What question did you really want to ask?


+8 more 
posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

If the US and Russia decided to go all out...............We would all lose everything we hold dear. Who has more men or money does not really matter in this end game.




What the people of the world should do is kick out the Oligarchies running both countries so we can raise our children in a world filled with peace........ not war and death.
edit on 19-4-2014 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl




What question did you really want to ask?


You pretty much answered it.

I figured if there was anything wrong with them then the people of ATS would point them out.

Alot of posts I see regarding this topic asks for numbers and links. I was simply trying to supply some numbers with a link so I am only providing a souce of numbers with a link.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth

Yep. Mutually Assured Destruction.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: SubTruth

I agree completely, but the history of man/woman kind seems to say otherwise.

I personally think that world peace will never happen, sad I know, but as a species greed and power has always gotten the best of us.

edit on 19-4-2014 by liejunkie01 because: spelling



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: introV



In this pissing contest we all lose everything. TPTB need this to keep the military industrial complex going on both sides. They could care less about the cost to the average people who will pay the highest price.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: SubTruth

What the people of the world should do is kick out the Oligarchies running both countries so we can raise our children in a world filled with peace........ not war and death.


So then what... so another set of psychopaths can fool you all and take control insidiously?

Nothing will change until the human nature changes. Ironically, change human nature, and you no longer have a human. You have something else.

Probably a much better something else.

Regardless, you can throw out the so-called PTB all you want century after century, in civilization after civilization... I guarantee you they will always come back, again and again, a little different than before, but just as evil, until the human collective decides truly it wants something better, and brings about that something better by transforming itself, individual by individual, slowly changing the collective external that does nothing other than perfectly reflect the mass of the individuals internal.

To change the world, change yourself.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01
Russia has old school battle weapons. Lead in tanks and ground artillery.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:22 AM
link   
I've used the site for sourcing online stuff, including some of the data in my national series threads. I've had raw versions of where they likely got their info open a couple times to see the numbers overlap or miss by enough to say maybe what I had was off and they're closer. Close enough within that margin.



* If we're thinking about Russia though, I think it's critical we consider the fact Russia isn't alone and is far from being without allies. Nations aren't making blustery public statements about it, but then, they don't have to for folks who have watched the more obscure stories for a few years. All out conventional war would have Russia facing the US and NATO....but we'd have our own issues in this hemisphere too, I have no doubt, personally.

World War II was our last freebie for true war without true loss, I think. The world learned, if nothing else.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01



The internet changes everything.........In the past propaganda worked. In today's world we are all connected. This is the best tool we have to change our future.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:25 AM
link   
It's not about how big your Army is ,it's about how you fight the war .

Look at Afghanistan for example , Russia could not defeat them ,and the U.S is still trying to...

Need i say more ?



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: LightningStrikesHere

I think there is a big difference. Neither the U.S. nor Soviets fought Total War tactics in Afghanistan.

Overkill wouldn't quite cover it. Depopulation of the whole country by unintended consequence would, perhaps...but Total War would break and suppress whoever survived the process in real short order. Afghanistan or Iraq or Chechnya could never sustain the level of attack that London saw in the blitz or Germany saw as a whole as the war wound down. Few nations are capable of delivering it, either...but Russia and the US can..and would, I believe, fight with everything they had short of NBC weapons if we ever tangle outside a proxy battlefield.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

World War II was our last freebie for true war without true loss, I think. The world learned, if nothing else.

A new paradigm shift is approaching. War will be conducted by creating refugee crises and the absorption of new territory (either direct addition (i.e. Crimea) or surrogate (i.e. Israel)).


Few nations are capable of delivering it, either...but Russia and the US can..and would, I believe, fight with everything they had short of NBC weapons if we ever tangle outside a proxy battlefield.

That hits a couple of nails right on the head.
edit on 1942014 by Snarl because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:33 AM
link   
I don't care what the numbers say. The fact is, the USA has not won a proper war since their involvement in WW2...If they can't beat farmers in Afghanistan or Vietnam, what makes everyone so sure they can take on the professionally trained soldiers of Russia? Of course, Russia can be put in the same boat, but they were under a completely different system back then...they remain largely untested in their modern form.

Still, i think the USA has a problem of underestimating their opponents. If they do the same with Russia, well it is obvious what will happen. Let's hope it never comes down to push and shove.
edit on 19-4-2014 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01


originally posted by: daaskapital
I don't care what the numbers say. The fact is, the USA has not won a proper war since their involvement in WW2


That is the main point here (although I still want to know the numbers, in addition to specific numbers for different stages).

I love this thread, I will hopefully check back in. I want to add in something very important - the U.S. military has been training for and fighting insurgents armed with outdated weapons for the past 10 years or more, while the Russians have been actively running drills preparing for fighting against real first-world weaponry.

When was the last time the U.S. military fought someone their own size? Almost during the Syria crisis, but that is nothing compared to going at it with Russia and possibly China.

Did you guys know that we have no aircraft carrier presence in the Pacific Ocean? I was reading that our navy in that area is basically nonexistent - even though that would be the main front in a war against Russia and China.
edit on 19amSat, 19 Apr 2014 01:42:12 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: liejunkie01


originally posted by: daaskapital
I don't care what the numbers say. The fact is, the USA has not won a proper war since their involvement in WW2


That is the main point here (although I still want to know the numbers, in addition to specific numbers for different stages).

I love this thread, I will hopefully check back in. I want to add in something very important - the U.S. military has been training for and fighting insurgents armed with outdated weapons for the past 10 years or more, while the Russians have been actively running drills preparing for fighting against real first-world weaponry.

When was the last time the U.S. military fought someone their own size? Almost during the Syria crisis, but that is nothing compared to going at it with Russia and possibly China.

Did you guys know that we have no aircraft carrier presence in the Pacific Ocean? I was reading that our navy in that area is basically nonexistent - even though that would be the main front in a war against Russia and China.


Exactly!

The USA (and its allies) have been fighting, and losing, against inexperienced 'soldiers' with outdated weaponry for the last 60 years or so...i would shudder to see how poorly we would do against the likes of a professional military...

On the same token, it can be argued that the modern Russian state has also never been in a total war scenario, but i still think they would have the advantage, even with some of their outdated technology...

I thought the USA did have a presence in the Pacific Ocean? If the USA doesn't, i am of the understanding that they are trying desperately to station fleets and troops out of Australia. The whole Asia-Pacific pivot thing..

Thanks,

Daas.
edit on 19-4-2014 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Germany looked at a similar list in 1941.

France had a similar list that Napoleon took great comfort in.

Neither could defeat Russia.

Can Russia defeat the US, not by a long shot!

If the US and NATO ever tries to go after Russia, I suggest you factor in China and a lot of other countries.

Figures are deceptive, Vietnam should have told you that!

P



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Total war Tactics?

In other words your talking about a full bombardment ?



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital


Still, i think the USA has a problem of underestimating their opponents. If they do the same with Russia, well it is obvious what will happen. Let's hope it never comes down to push and shove.


I don't really think that underestimating the enemy is the issue.

I personally think it is Congress micromanaging the battlefields from their comfortable airconditioned offices.

I have a friend who is a Marine. He says that the rules of engagement are insane. This is a serious disadvantage to our troops.

The soldiers want to win, Congress wants to look good.





new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join