U.S.A Versus Russia in an all out War?

In Past Ten Years U.S. Has Expanded Military Network Throughout The World


The unprecedented expansion of American military presence throughout the world in the last decade, in support of and consolidated by attacks and invasions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen and Libya, has been marked by the Pentagon securing new bases in several continents and Oceania.

In the past ten years the U.S. has gained access to and expanded and upgraded dozens of bases abroad, in most every case in nations that had been off-limits to it during the Cold War and even the last decade of the 20th century.

These include multi-service (Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy) main operating, forward deployed and pre-positioning bases, storage and logistics facilities, base camps, air and naval installations, a global strategic airlift operation, interceptor missile and related radar bases, unmanned aerial vehicle (drone) launch pads, satellite surveillance sites, permanent training programs and centers, new regional task forces and even a new overseas military command: U.S. Africa Command, which takes in 54 nations, almost 30 percent of the member states of the United Nations.

Individually and in conjunction with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the U.S. has deployed or will soon do so armed forces to new locations ranging from "lily pads" to strategic air bases from the Baltic Sea to South America, Southeastern Europe to Southeast Asia, the Horn of Africa to Central and South Asia, the Indian Ocean to the Caspian Sea, the Caucasus to Central Europe, the South Pacific to the Black Sea.

The countries affected (as of last count, proceeding through the alphabet) include:

Afghanistan
Australia
Bahrain
Bulgaria
Colombia
Djibouti
Estonia
Ethiopia
Gabon
Georgia
Hungary
Iraq
Israel
Kenya
Kyrgyzstan
Lithuania
Mali
Morocco
Netherlands Antilles
Pakistan
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Senegal
Seychelles
Singapore
Uganda

With the activation of the Northern Distribution Network to supply the nearly ten-year war in Afghanistan, all but two of fifteen former Soviet Republics -- Moldova and Ukraine -- have been incorporated into troop and equipment transit routes for the world's longest armed conflict: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. In January the Russian government announced that U.S. and NATO flights over the country in support of the Afghan war had reached "up to 4,500 flights in one direction in a year." The next month Voice of Russia, citing Foreign Ministry figures, revealed that 15,000 U.S. military personnel and over 20,000 tons of cargo had crossed Russian territory en route to Afghanistan since October of 2009.

In recent years the U.S. has led military exercises on a regular (at least annual) basis, frequently with NATO and Asian NATO allies, in Bulgaria, Romania, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Cambodia and throughout the African continent (with Flintlock, Africa Endeavor, Natural Fire and Africa Partnership Station operations).

Most of the bases where American military personnel and assets have been and are being stationed are preexisting facilities -- seven in Colombia, four each in Bulgaria and Romania, scores in Afghanistan and Iraq -- but many are new: a missile shield-linked Forward-Based X-Band Radar installation deployed in Israel's Negev Desert (with a range of 2,900 miles) in 2008 staffed by some 100 U.S. service members; a Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missile battery moved to Morag, Poland two years later with a comparable amount of military personnel assigned; a Reaper drone operation in Seychelles begun in the intervening year; a transit center in Kyrgyzstan through which an estimated 50,000 U.S. and other NATO troops pass each month to and from the Afghan war front, and so on. Washington will soon rotate F-16 squadrons to Poland and later in the decade will station Standard Missile-3 anti-ballistic interceptors in Poland and Romania with complementary radar sites being examined in nations like Bulgaria, Turkey, Ukraine and Azerbaijan.

The recently acquired bases, though hardly of the dimensions of those constructed after the Second World War and the Korean War, or for that matter of the almost 1,000-acre Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, are sufficient for the needs of 21st century American warfare, shifting as it has to long-range bombing and helicopter gunship attacks, cruise and drone missile strikes, and special forces operations.

The ever-expanding range of U.S. military activities reached a new point last month when the Pentagon dispatched a C-5 Galaxy transport plane on a direct, non-stop flight from the Dover Air Force Base in Delaware across Canada and over the North Pole, then over Russia and Kazakhstan into the Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan.

The Heavy Airlift Wing established by the U.S. and eleven NATO allies and partners in 2009 at the Pápa Air Base in Hungary, the world's first multinational strategic airlift operation, by this February had "flown more than 3,600 flight hours and delivered more than 13,800 tons of cargo and more than 6,100 passengers for the nations over six continents including missions to Haiti, Afghanistan, South Africa and Europe," according to U.S. Air Forces In Europe.

The same source also announced early this year that the 65th Air Base Wing moved 15,000 aircraft with 22,000 personnel from 21 nations through the Lajes Field in Portugal's Azores in 2010 for wars and other deployments in the east.

Air bases acquired in nations like Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Iraq and Romania have been upgraded not only for long-distance military transport but as potential strategic bases analogous in scope and purpose to those developed after World War II in Britain, Germany, Italy and Turkey.

In the second half of the last century the U.S. could boast of military supremacy in -- control over -- the entire Western Hemisphere, Western and Southern Europe, and most of the Pacific Ocean.

In the new century, with a World War Two-level $729 billion military budget this year and a head of state who boasts of being the commander-in-chief of "the world's sole military superpower," its reach spans almost the entire globe.

War in the modern age is about manipulating people's minds, and their paychecks.

The paycheck, one could say, is the greatest currency for the modern man. Because, a paycheck, is a symbol of ongoing money-flow. Whereas a shekel just by itself, does not promise any shekel tomorrow, a paycheck, promises a trickle of shekels.

Also, a "job" is better than starvation or winter spent outside.

War is based on economics. Economics of slave labor were well defined by Hitler's crew and Stalin's crew, both of whom waged war on fake money (debt) and fake workers (slaves) and they did well! The human is the greatest tool, but only if he or she refuses to think!

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Gentlemen, get ready to receive Russian warheads
if you and we can not agree
dig bomb shelters stocked with food and water
may be lucky enough to be at the epicenter of a nuclear
explosion then it's over quickly and painlessly

The very idea o U.S.A Versus Russia War is absurd. USSR was destroyed by USA using corrupt ruling elite in 1991 and then US advisers came to Russia and created new laws, central bank, economics mechanism etc in order to make it work for western economy and to gradually dismount ex-empire. Russian industry is in decay, they live mainly of resources export for USD, then part of the money is changed to rubles and come back to the local economy, part is kept as official reserves in the western banks and part is taken by taking elite. The army became degraded. Have you heard of GRU? Dismissed.
In case of a war with USA all the Russian fund will be frozen of course.
The Russian ruling elite is just liquidation managers, their tasks to keep the country alive while taking its resources for money the West can easily print.

Some people are still stuck in the Cold War times...

reply to post by ICanThink


Russia gives U.S. military response
The U.S. refused to give guarantees of Russia on missile defense. Moscow responds cheap, but angry

October 14, 11:12 |


Russian-US talks on missile defense finally placed the point: the United States recognized the existence of unresolved differences and thereby made ​​clear. The decisions in Washington, Moscow is already preparing its military-technical answer.

Most of the Germans were killed by Russians, however Russia was barely holding its own. (Stalingrad was a blood bath, and thank god Hitler chose to commence with Operation Barbosa despite delays. Allowing old man winter to set in) .

Russia will win, because americans at the moment are living in a tyranny and will want the gov gone.

Although Its 4 years on, and US military Is spread thiner then 2008, US still wins.
We will see soon enough, and I'm not looking forward to It!

I apologise for this, but the OP is a moron.

USA does not have a missile defense system that can shoot down incoming missiles with 100% accuracy.

USA does not have operating laser weapons.

USA cannot defend itself from Russia's nuclear submarines.

Russia's size is not a disadvantage of Russians: 250k troops landed in Vladivostok would have to pass through Siberia. If it is winter, then it will be impossible to cross Russia.

Russia is the only country that can launch cargo into space. It can easily turn the Space Station into a huge nuclear bomb and bring it down on US soil.

F16s are no match for MIGs.

And finally, USA will have to handle China as well. With two hundred million troops, China cannot be dealt with.

USA is afraid to fight North Korea and Iran, and they want to fight Russia?!!!

reply to post by masterp


USA Is afraid? Of NK and Iran?
They are putting the pieces In place for an attack, afraid of the public reaction If not done correctly.

It's all very well saying that each country may or may not be able to stop missiles but some will get through.
Then what about the 'sleepers' who have been in USA and Britain for years? They can have small nuclear bombs stashed away ready to detonate anywhere, how can anyone stop that?
If a world war ever starts, there will be no winners, only losers and the ones that do survive will not have much of a life with dying from radiation, starvation etc. world leaders will be ok in their underground bunkers, but who will they be able to govern?

Originally posted by masterp
I apologise for this, but the OP is a moron.

USA does not have a missile defense system that can shoot down incoming missiles with 100% accuracy.

Not for 100%, but the most efficient system on Earth that is capable of bringing ballistic missiles down.

USA does not have operating laser weapons.

True, no country has those.

USA cannot defend itself from Russia's nuclear submarines.

Well, seeing as the US has almost double the amount of submarines Russia has got, it is much more likely for the US to manage to stop a nuclear submarine than Russia will be able to stop a US submarine.

That being said, nuclear submarines are very hard to stop.

Russia's size is not a disadvantage of Russians: 250k troops landed in Vladivostok would have to pass through Siberia. If it is winter, then it will be impossible to cross Russia.

I really doubt that if a war will erupt between two of the major superpowers on Earth, troops will be used. At least not until there is a complete superiority of one side over the other.

Russia is the only country that can launch cargo into space. It can easily turn the Space Station into a huge nuclear bomb and bring it down on US soil.

You mock lasers and come up with this sci-fi stuff? A space station will begin diving at US soil and you assume this won't be noticed? How long do you think it will take the US to intercept it before it's even in the atmosphere? Not much that's for sure.

F16s are no match for MIGs.

Oh PLEASE...

And finally, USA will have to handle China as well. With two hundred million troops, China cannot be dealt with.

China is absolutely able to be dealt with. How are they supposed to use their two hundred million troops against USA anyway? By sending a naval force all the way across the globe, wishing nobody will detect them? By air? Drilling inside the planet? Seriously, I am fed up with people using the fact that China has so many soldiers. What is the point in having even 200 BILLION soldiers if you can't position them anywhere near the US?

USA is afraid to fight North Korea and Iran, and they want to fight Russia?!!!

Oh come on. USA could take out Iran in less than a week if it comes to an all out war. It's the public opinion that it's afraid of.
Same thing applies for Iraq/Afghanistan - you really believe that if it came to an all out war, the US couldn't simply vaporise both of these countries instead of sending troops for tiresome close combat fighting? No, public opinion.

Using the same logic - China sure is taking it's time in dealing with Taiwan.

I hope I don't need to explain how in an all out war, let alone with superpowers like Russia or China, public opinion will not matter jack **** to anyone.

hmmm...


here's a related link...not so round-about as the article title suggests:




www.newswithviews.com...

ISRAEL, IRAN, ARMAGEDDON & THE COMING WAR OF GOG AND MAGOG



By Paul McGuire
November 29, 2011
NewsWithViews.com

reply to post by Rook1545


Canada has been armed with nuclear missiles since the 60s at least,there are published pictures of missiles based in Canada manned by US troops,with crossed Canadian and US flags on them we lied to the world when we said we were a non=nuclear country,and if we say we arent one now we are lieing again,the Freedom of information act brought out some of the truth.

Russia isnt ever going to attack America,support her maybe but never attack,the world has changed my friends but in th biggest ways it hasnt changed at all,the song may change but the pallette remains the same.Russia is Americas answer to China and India and Koreas manpower advantages in a conflict,think about it.And she has decided she is happy like that,its better for the russian people to focus on their population and grow and strengthen it.It will take combined forces to deal with the yellow tide.I am not saying I persoanlly feel this way,simply observations.

reply to post by masterp


nothing is 100% accuracy'' there's things we just dont know, we really are the strongest country in the world the troops are only fought in the 1/2 way point and on to the end if no more air strikes, we lost most of the troops in Iraq & afghanistan from road side bombs i beleave, there is a base that will open up this year! that everybody thinks it's the star wars project from when Ronald Regan was in office thats how long its Ben there its in North Yorkshire airbase thats all i know, Your right Russia does have allot of submarines but so do we, nobody fights wars no more in the water! nobody want to lose that much money that fast as Fare as i know Russia only has on air craft carrier 1/2 are fleet is nuclear and anti missile defense both of of might have to a little more research in this ive checked out allot of things the Q>A that i have read so i will do more of it

First, we have no reason to wage a war on Russia. Second, Russian would not just give in if we did. They are used to aggressors coming in and fertilizing the Russian soil with the bodies of their troops. Russia has terminated more than one empire's quest for domination.

Oh come on. USA could take out Iran in less than a week if it comes to an all out war. It's the public opinion that it's afraid of.
Same thing applies for Iraq/Afghanistan - you really believe that if it came to an all out war, the US couldn't simply vaporise both of these countries instead of sending troops for tiresome close combat fighting? No, public opinion.

Using the same logic - China sure is taking it's time in dealing with Taiwan.

I hope I don't need to explain how in an all out war, let alone with superpowers like Russia or China, public opinion will not matter jack **** to anyone.

Iran has 77 million people while Libya had less than 5 million. Still took a very long time to murder Kaddafi. As for Afghanistan, the US still is only in somewhat control of regions that are ethnically Turk and Tajik, while it control only in name regions that are predominantly Pashtun. Sure, we could go all genocidal on these people but that would mean an all-out holy war against all of Islam. In such a scenario Europe would tell us to take a hike.

A war with Russia would end in a nuclear nightmare worse than The Day After tomorrow movie in the 80's.

There is NO DOUBT that any attack on Russia would end in a total release of nuclear weapons from both sides. That would be over 16,000 nuclear missiles flying over your head and exploding within 10 to 20 minutes, destroying ALL life on earth.

There is no winner in a nuclear war, and there is no doubt, that attacking Russia would start one.

USA Vs Russia= total destruction of mankind, period.

Russia IS the United States.


President Lincoln had to get Russia's help to defeat the southern States fighting for States rights, and to end a big Federal Government.


Russia sent its entire Atlantic and Pacific Naval Fleets to port in Union Ports to help Lincoln. Those Russian guys didn't stay on those ships, they would have frozen to death. Russia had "boots on the ground" in the US Civil War, they helped defeat America.

And hence why America's been under the military flag of the United States ever since...and the U.S. Civil Flag flies no more.

Go to the Library of Congress and try finding out how many troops Russia had on those ships when they entered Union ports in the Civil War. Find out where they stayed.

America "bought" Alaska from Russia right after the US Civil War. We ARE Russia, we've been playing the world to get more resources from the Planet. Good cop/ bad cop.

reply to post by Pervius


I'm sorry but this makes absolutely no sense at all.

There's no logic to support any of it.