It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What if Russia and U.S. had a war............

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 09:20 PM
link   
who do u think would win the war???




posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
what are ats points???



posted on Apr, 26 2004 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zukov
why cant i do that i posted something about the topic before


I know you did but, if you are doing it just for points please dont cos u must saty on topic



posted on Apr, 28 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flinx
Hello? Nukes? No one wins.



why do people always bring up nukes when they discuss a conflict between the super powers? honestly!



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
nukes are usually the last things used.

But in the case of Russia it will be the first things they use because they know they can never win a conventional war



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan

Originally posted by Flinx
Hello? Nukes? No one wins.

why do people always bring up nukes when they discuss a conflict between the super powers? honestly!


Because Nukes are what we had pointed at each other for 40+ years during the Cold War. And because Nukes are in each other's arsenal, you really can't discuss a large conventional war on the WWII level anymore without bringing up Nukes. They are the modern-day Trump-card. The only large scale conventional war exception I can think of since the Korean War is Desert Storm. But even in Korea, MacArthur wanted to use Nukes.

Nukes were what kept each other in check during the Coldwar. It kept the US and the Soviet Union from getting into a conventional war and probably still will.




[Edited on 2-5-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Let's face the truth: It's not 1986 any more.

Russia is not the Soviet Union. The Soviet-era military was an unheard of force of incredible strength and might.

It's 2004. Russia has almost nothing, it's like a private military now.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Let's face the truth: It's not 1986 any more.

Russia is not the Soviet Union. The Soviet-era military was an unheard of force of incredible strength and might.

It's 2004. Russia has almost nothing, it's like a private military now.

This I wont dignify with a response



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   
In a coventional war, the U.S. would most likely win. Russia's Navy is in a sad state and they lack the power projection capabilities that the U.S. has.

In a nuke fight, the entire world would be destroyed within 36 hours.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Yuore wrong. Russias navy is pretty strong.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AD5673
Yuore wrong. Russias navy is pretty strong.


No, it was. Now most of it's good ships are rotting in port, with lack of funding to mantain and support them. I believe one of the Russian Admirals declared the Russian Navy "dead"

Also, the Russians have only 4 Aircraft Carriers while the US has 16. Carriers are the most decisive and essential ships to a strong Navy.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Russia just doesnt have the funds to support a war. Remember After the cold war they literally went bankrupt. They were resorting to selling much of their Nuclear Arms Programs to the black market for scrap cash to keep the economy, or what was left of it, afloat. The U.S would win in less then a month solely because Russia just doesnt have the money to maintain a war for very long.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   
The only army thing that Russia has that is truly good are it helicopters, tanks, and guns. Also its Airforce is beganing to be modernized cause their done doing that with everything else accept the navy. But they dont really need a navy,



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Any nation that wishes to be a superpower needs a Navy. Also, Russian helicopter, tanks, and guns are not better then U.S. ones. Even if you think they are, you can't think by much.



posted on May, 3 2004 @ 05:19 PM
link   
It called the nuclear umbrella....mutually assured destruction...and we wouldnt shoot a nuke unless one was shot at us first. And probably half of Russias wouldnt even work or hit their desired target. And i dunno if this has been discussed already, but before someone was talking about getting the warheads in the boost stage to just fall on something, that really wouldnt do any good because you could drop a nuke wherever you wanted, but if it wasnt detonated then it would just hit the ground



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrIncognito
It called the nuclear umbrella....mutually assured destruction...and we wouldnt shoot a nuke unless one was shot at us first. And probably half of Russias wouldnt even work or hit their desired target. And i dunno if this has been discussed already, but before someone was talking about getting the warheads in the boost stage to just fall on something, that really wouldnt do any good because you could drop a nuke wherever you wanted, but if it wasnt detonated then it would just hit the ground


I doubt that the Russian nukes would fail like that as you say. I am sure they keep them well maintained since they are the most powerful defense/offense force they have against an invasion.

[Edited on 4-5-2004 by RedOctober90]



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedOctober90

Originally posted by MrIncognito
It called the nuclear umbrella....mutually assured destruction...and we wouldnt shoot a nuke unless one was shot at us first. And probably half of Russias wouldnt even work or hit their desired target. And i dunno if this has been discussed already, but before someone was talking about getting the warheads in the boost stage to just fall on something, that really wouldnt do any good because you could drop a nuke wherever you wanted, but if it wasnt detonated then it would just hit the ground


I doubt that the Russian nukes would fail like that as you say. I am sure they keep them well maintained since they are the most powerful defense/offense force they have against an invasion.

[Edited on 4-5-2004 by RedOctober90]


Sorry to dissapoint you, but the Russian nuclear arsenal is in a sad state. In their last wargames exercise (a few months ago if i remember right) two missles were fired from submarines...... BOTH failed. It took two weeks after this to actually get one to hit it's target. Thats 1 outa 3 - not exactly what you want from you're nukes. Also, in nuclear war you dont have 2 weeks to set up one launch. The US has the advantage in nukes - we have more reliable, and more accurate nukes. We also have the best delivery systems, such as our B-2 bomber.

Chalk this advantage up to the Yanks....



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man

Originally posted by RedOctober90

Originally posted by MrIncognito
It called the nuclear umbrella....mutually assured destruction...and we wouldnt shoot a nuke unless one was shot at us first. And probably half of Russias wouldnt even work or hit their desired target. And i dunno if this has been discussed already, but before someone was talking about getting the warheads in the boost stage to just fall on something, that really wouldnt do any good because you could drop a nuke wherever you wanted, but if it wasnt detonated then it would just hit the ground


I doubt that the Russian nukes would fail like that as you say. I am sure they keep them well maintained since they are the most powerful defense/offense force they have against an invasion.

[Edited on 4-5-2004 by RedOctober90]


Sorry to dissapoint you, but the Russian nuclear arsenal is in a sad state. In their last wargames exercise (a few months ago if i remember right) two missles were fired from submarines...... BOTH failed. It took two weeks after this to actually get one to hit it's target. Thats 1 outa 3 - not exactly what you want from you're nukes. Also, in nuclear war you dont have 2 weeks to set up one launch. The US has the advantage in nukes - we have more reliable, and more accurate nukes. We also have the best delivery systems, such as our B-2 bomber.

Chalk this advantage up to the Yanks....





how frequently they had such missile failures?


Barents Sea Chronology and Launch Log

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1977 Mar 18 - R-29. Vysota LC: Russian ballistic missile submarine. Apogee: 1,000 km. Launched from a Russian submarine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1977 Mar 20 - R-29. Vysota LC: Russian ballistic missile submarine. Apogee: 1,000 km. Launched from a Russian submarine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 1986 - R-29. Vysota LC: Delta-2. Apogee: 1,000 km.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 Jun 6 22:10 - R-29. Volna VMF LC: Kalmar class submarine. Apogee: 1,270 km.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 Jul 15 - R-29. Shtil LC: Delta-4.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 Jul 15 - R-29. Vysota LC: Delta-3. Apogee: 1,000 km.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 Oct 3 - R-29. Shtil LC: Russian ballistic missile submarine. Launched from a Russian submarine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 Jan 15 - R-29. Volna VMF LC: Kalmar class submarine. Apogee: 1,000 km.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998 Jul 7 3:15 - R-29. LC: Submarine K-407.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 Nov 17 - Rif. LC: Taifun class submarine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Mar 27 7:00 - RSM-54 Shtil Missile Test Flight RSM-54 LC: Karelia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Mar 27 10:00 - RSM-54 Shtil Missile Test Flight RSM-54 LC: Karelia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Mar 27 10:00 - R-29. Shtil LC: Submarine Karelia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Mar 27 10:00 - R-29. Shtil LC: Submarine Karelia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Mar 27 7:00 - R-29. Shtil LC: Submarine Karelia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Apr 6 - RSM-54 Shtil Missile Test Flight RSM-54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Apr 6 - R-29. Shtil LC: Submarine Borisoglebsk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Sep 12 - RSM-54 Shtil Missile Test Flight RSM-54 LC: Karelia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Sep 12 - Shtil' VMF R-29. Shtil LC: Submarine Karelia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Dec 27 8:00 - RSM-54 Shtil? Missile Test Flight RSM-54 LC: Novomos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 Dec 27 - R-29. Shtil LC: Submarine K-407.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Feb 16 10:28 - RSM-54 Shtil Missile Test Flight RSM-54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Feb 16 10:28 - Shtil' VMF R-29. Shtil LC: Russian ballistic missile submarine. Launched from a Russian submarine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Jun 5 11:32 - RSM-54 Shtil Missile Test Flight RSM-54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Jun 5 11:32 - Shtil' VMF R-29. Shtil LC: Russian ballistic missile submarine. Launched from a Russian submarine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 Jul 20 0:31 - Cosmos 1 Solar Sail test R-29. Volna LC: Submarine Borisoglebsk. Apogee: 412 km.
Launch delayed from April 26 and July 19 failure. The Russian Navy launched a three-stage R-29R Volna from the submarine Borisoglebsk in the Barents Sea on a suborbital flight. The payload was a joint project between the Planetary Society and NPO Lavochkin's Babakin center, and consisted of a solar sail deployment test with an inflatable reentry shield. The payload failed to separate from the final stage.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Jul 12 0:58 - IRDT-2 R-29. Volna LC: Ryazan.
The Russian Navy launched the IRDT-2 spacecraft using a surplus R-29R Volna from the submarine K-44 Ryazan. The spacecraft was launched on a suborbital trajectory from the Barents Sea and landed in Kamchatka. After third stage separation the IRDT fired a boost motor to increase its speed and then inflated the first stage of its heat shield. Reentry velocity was either 7.0 to 7.3 km/s.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Oct 12 - RSM-54 SLBM Test RSM-54



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 08:50 PM
link   
i think russia has better tanks and copters. On the topic of jets, well they have some good dtuff but not better then ours. Their small arms are better though. But your right navy does sorta suck. But look at it this way. After America Russia is the strongest. But really do you want them to have a war???



posted on Jun, 26 2004 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Very interesting discussian (What if Russia and U.S. had a war.
But only one question - when?
If now - see the reality. Russian army aquipped with absolutely nonprofessioanal personal and vechicles ( T-90 and SU-37 is only testing example (like F-15 V-STOL)). Mostly air and land power is the late 1970, beginning 80 weapons - first version of MIG-29 and SU-27. Personal is the main problem! (In 1991 in Iraq US Air Force have a big problem with F-15E fighter, because crew have no experience to work with most advanced fighter and its equipment: F-15E have no LANTIRN pad for reason technical problem and human factor)). What do you want from russian pilot, have no computer equipment in pilot cabin and flying approximatly 10 hours in month?
What next? See the SIOP plan - first strike conception. It main that who first strike - winner.

Now US first strike weapons is Trident II SLBM. If sub travel in north sea, first 15 minits flying of ballistic missile no visible for russian (according to globalsecurity.org). Next time is from 5 to 15 minutes - is the reaction to unbeleaveable - is the non reaction. And accordingly to nrdc:
1) All silos of SS-18 ICBM will be killed. Two Trident II warhed for one silos using.
2) All silos of SS-19 (and new SS-27) also will be killed.
3) Garrissons and bases of SS-25 and SS-24 (now dissmanned) killed with pattern method.
4) Subs (only 2 using in service) also will be killed with all SLBM.

And only several warhead can beat US, theoretically.
First 30 minutes of war - all Russia nuclear potential killed. Us loss several cities.

What next - see Kosovo or Iraq. Conventional war is absolutely nonperspective for russia. Nonprofessional army equipped with "iron"
weapons have no chance for win.

But this only scenarios )







 
0
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join