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.

 

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

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:44 AM
link   
As much as I'd like to give Russia a shot, I don't think they'd stand a chance against our advanced weaponry.

In terms of a nuclear war ... there's no question - the winner, hands down is NO ONE. You're talking about total world annihilation. The U.S. would LOSE. Russia would LOSE.

If you're talking about a un-conventional warfare - there's really no evidence to say that either side would win. Take a look at what happened in World War II when Germany invaded Stalingrad. The Russian Army was over-matched in every aspect except the number of men if could flood into a city. The only way Russia was able to re-take Stalingrad is by never giving up and continually pumping more and more men into a city that was basically raised to the ground. Also, take a look at what has transpired in Iraq and Afghanistan. Guerrilla tactics have kept us from "winning" these wars in a timely fashion and threaten to stifle any sort of "victory" that we can label.

If you're talking about conventional warfare, I think the United States would win. We're far and beyond, in terms of weapon technology, than any other nation in the world. The only nation that could possibly pose a threat to the United States on a conventional tactical battlefield would be China.

It's apparent that the United States is at the top of the list in military weaponry when one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world, Japan, wants to buy our products: Martket Watch Article.


Japan has postponed its plan to purchase next-generation aircraft until after mid-2010 since the U.S. has banned exports of the planes the country wants to buy, a newspaper said Sunday.
...
But the defense ministry has decided to reschedule the purchase plan to its next mid-term defense buildup program starting in April 2010, due to a U.S. ban on exporting F-22s, the Yomiuri Shimbun said.




posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I knew this thread would bring trouble.



Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 18-6-2008 by elevatedone]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arc Angel
Someone posted this not so long ago...so I'd figure I'd revive this dead topic because I never got the chance to put my 2 cents in. Here's were I stand:

"USA would win hands down. It wouldn't even be a war, more like a slaughter. "But how can you say that? Russia is surely equal to us in every aspect!" Really? It just so happens I have evidence to support my claim. You people have no idea how powerful the USA really is.



3 weeks for a country the size of russia?

Wait a minute havent we been in Iraq (pop 20m) since 2003?


Mod Edit - Trimmed Large Quote

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 18-6-2008 by elevatedone]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   
ORIGINAL QUOTE:

5.) "What about if they nuke us?" We shot down, with a single destroyer, a sattelite from outer #ing space! Trust me, no missiles are getting through our defense systems. We have missiles designed to go after other missiles and blow them up, and all the laser weaponary we secretly have too. They'd basically ask for a death wish because we'd shoot down their missiles and then we'd just blow the # out of them.

MY REPLY:

I am going to go out on a limb and AGREE with his statement. Why?
If I've PERSONALLY DESIGNED AND CODED a high-performance tracking
system that can use Lidar, Radar or Acoustic signatures to track almost
TEN THOUSAND OBJECTS in REAL TIME at 1000+ Video Frames per second
or hundreds of millions of pulse samples per second, then I think the USA
has something to at LEAST to that equivalent or better.

I mean, ONE GUY IN HIS BASEMENT using 16 cell processors in unison
I mean IT CAN'T BE THAT HARD IF I CAN DO IT !!!!!

The only thing is the kill projectile and that's where I think
super-capacitor driven rail guns shooting tungsten rods
at 60,000 MPH will make SHORT WORK of any Soviet,
Chinese or North Korean ballistic weaponry.

What we COULD NOT DEFEND AGAINST are weapons smuggled into
the USA and then detonated by suicide or tiger teams. We'd have to rely
the NEST (Nuclear Emergency Search Teams) programmes to hunt
down rogue nukes within the USA.

This also does not include simple bomb terrorism in shopping malls,
schools, work buildings, sporting arenas or biological or chemical
warfare at a small scale using USA-sourced materiel.

On a conventional level, the USA SHOULD WIN on paper at least,
however the hundreds of Moskvet anti-ship missiles with nuclear tips
could make SHORT WORK of ALL the carriers.

This poster while, having read too much Tom Clancy, is correct in
asserting that the US does have a qualitative advantage that will
subsist until at least 2020 whereupon China will start catching up
and then SURPASSING the USA in both Quality and Quantity of
weapons systems because of simple Engineering Graduate statistics
of 225,000 grads per year for China versus 48,000 engineering grads
per year in the USA.

And taking that statistic further, 12% of Chinese Engineering grads
find SOME WORK in a military capacity vs. the less than one percent
in the USA. ANd on another point, a HUGE political shakup
in Command & Control doctrine is causing China to COPY the USA,
ISRAEL, the UK and other nimble militaries.

It's taking the BEST 4C tactics and doctrine and QUICKLY ADAPTING
them to Quick Strike and Assassins Mace warfare which means that
by 2035 China would be able to DEFEAT the USA in a conventional war
with their soon-to-be launched Blue Water Navy and Long-Range
Strategic and Tactical Bomber fleet plus a formidable space force
with in-space weaponry.

I am NOT a Chinese apologist but rather a realist in that current
demographic, educational and fitness trends will soon manifest
themselves upon the warfighting-age American populace.

The Statistics speak for themselves in showing up a future America
that has LIMITED smarts, poor physical fitness and lower morale
than ANY PREVIOUS generation by 2020.

In short, the USA will NOT PHYSICALLY have the manpower
or brainpower to operate at a high-level for any period greater
than 2 to 4 weeks in any conventional strategic level conflict.

Our ONLY saving grace is the foresight of Ronald Reagan
to begin programs in the 1980's that UPGRADED the quality
and size of the US Nuclear Arsenal which continues to this day!

By 2035 the USA will NO LONGER be able to project any appreciable
force to counteract China ANYWHERE in the world INCLUDING an
incursion onto US territory such as Alaska.

Basically we won't have the balls or the beans to stop China
from claiming Alaska and Northwestern Canada past 2035
unless we SIGNIFICANTLY UPGRADE the numbers, education,
fitness and morale level of our newest military personnel
and upgrade our hardware FAST!



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I hope no one on here really thinks that they have the facts on the US's missile defense capabilities. Do you really think that we would let that information get out, so that other countries could develop tech to beat it?

The true capabilities are classified and I highly doubt they would make their way to the internet.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Arc Angel
 


Well Arc Angel, you were doing fine until your last sentence. 'Anyone who disagrees is wrong,' is not a very wise statement to make on this forum.

Considering all the facts you have it would seem hard to debate you on this, but let me give it a try.

You didn't mention the Russian's submarine force. Last I heard they had stealth capabilities way beyond ours. You stated that we would blow any nukes out of the sky... well not if they are launched from a sub off our coast... especially if launched with cruise missles that fly too low to be detected.

Speaking of nukes. If you think a few missile tests are the equivalent of an all out barrage you are quite mistaken. We are years, perhaps decades, away from a shield defense. The Russians have been quite clear on the fact that they do not want us to have this since it would give us an unfair advantage. They want us to give this to them also. I think it is fair to say that the Russians would be forced to attack us before this sheild became 100% active. That is just my opinion, of course... but based upon how we have seen the Russians react to other things I would say it is a fair assessment.

Also, we have President Clinton to thank for getting rid of the Presidential order to strike on warning. That no longer exists. To reply to a missile threat a nuke has to detonate upon American soil before we can respond in kind. What this means is the best way to attack us is with a sneak attack from subs off our coast. Just ten MIRV's from one sub would be enough to possibly destroy our retalitory systems. Even seeing a bunch coming our way we would have to wait until one actually exploded.

You mentioned sending expeditionary forces to land in Russia? I believe that thought occurred to Napoleon and you remember what happened to him. You can't beat the Russians on their home soil. I would think this would be obvious from just a few battles that have been done there in history. Heck, just look at Afghanistan and Vietnam. I don't care how many copters you have... it can't be done... at least not in 3 weeks as you stated I believe.

It is that kind of thinking that has kept us in Iraq. It is a rationale of thinking that we are more superior to any nation and therefore we can contain or neutralize them. Ain't gonna happen my friend. Russia is too vast and inhospitable to do a land invasion.

Again, my main point here in this argument is your 'we're gonna whip em' rationale. This is a dangerous viewpoint to have and one that will eventually lead us to a war we don't need. Also, I believe that if Russia did ever attack us they would be aided by other nations such as the Chinese. Thanks again to Mr. Clinton the Chinese's missile's now have the gyro-controls they need to reach America... where before they did not. (Clinton ok'd the giving of our gyro-technology to China who were having trouble with their space rockets... unfortunately the same technology is used in ICBM's).

Just a few points for you to ponder from an old Navy man.




[edit on 18-6-2008 by Alienmojo]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   
In 1993, the story about the Sverdlovsk anthrax leak was published in Russia. The incident occurred when spores of anthrax were accidentally released from a military facility in the city of Sverdlovsk (formerly, and now again, Yekaterinburg) 900 miles east of Moscow on April 2, 1979. The ensuing outbreak of the disease resulted in 94 people becoming infected, 64 of whom died over a period of six weeks.

Facilities:
* Biopreparat
* Sverdlovsk Anthrax leak
* Stepnagorsk Scientific and Technical Institute for Microbiology, a bioweapons facility at Stepnogorsk, northern Kazakhstan
* Vector State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology, known as Vector
* Vozrozhdeniya Island
* Kirov bioweapons production facility, Kirov, Kirov Oblast
* Zagorsk smallpox production facility, Zagorsk
* Berdsk bioweapons production facility, Berdsk
* Institute of Applied Biochemistry, Omutninsk
* Poison laboratory of the Soviet secret services

Alibekov Anthrax – a form of weapons grade anthrax, developed by Ken Alibek (Kanatjan Alibekov) that is said to be four times more deadly than natural anthrax.

Compound 19 - a secret Russian biological weapon at Sverdlovsk.

Ebolapox - A genetic combination of Ebola and smallpox, said to have been developed by Russian biological weapons experts. Parts of the Ebola virus were grafted into a smallpox virus.

Paralytic cobra toxin – the toxin produced by the cobra. There are reports the Russians have used recombinant DNA to introduce venom producing genes into bacteria.

Tularemia – a bacterial disease common in rodents that is spread by fleas and ticks. It can infect humans, causing fever, enlarged lymph glands, depression and loss of weight. The Russians created Schu-4, a weapons grade strain of tulaermia.

SARIN( Chemical weapon)
Even at very low concentrations, sarin can be fatal. Death may follow in one minute after direct ingestion of about 0.01 milligram per kilogram of body weight.

It is estimated that sarin is more than 500 times more toxic than cyanid



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
Every major city with a big population,all military bases,nuclear power plants,major text and industry sites gone.GONE GONE GONE GONE.

I don't know about now, but I know back in the 80's every city in the US with a population exceeding 50,000 or more had their very own nuke pointed at it.

That has probably diminished somewhat with the reduction in weapons. Just food for thought.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 10:51 AM
link   
While I think that the OP's topic is hopeful, it sounds more like a Hollywood script. Have you ever met a Russian? I mean a real Russian from their armed forces? I have met quite a few. To be in engaged in an a land war with these people would be beyond foolish. I think you have forgotten that Russia held off and eventually help defeat the first two Antichrists, Hitler and Napoleon. Although their equipment is inferior to the United States, they are just numerically superior to the U.S. Now this is not to say the U.S. would not hold it's own, I just think a land war with the Russians would be beyond suicide.

Now on to the statement about Russia having no navy. You are correct to say the Russians have no SURFACE navy is pretty close, but you are forgetting about their sub forces. In war games the carriers are usually toast right off the bat. Just look and see what happened to the Kitty Hawk during war games when a Chinese sub popped up. Who do you think the main supplier of Chinese weapons is? Chinese Sub

It would devolve into a nuclear war and that would be the end of both countries. As far as a land war goes, I think Mother Russia would fight to a stalemate, but then again, why in the hell would we want to tangle with these cats to begin with?



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:05 AM
link   
The Russians have no problem sending planting ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles) in the hands of hostile governments for use against major US cities, if it came to that. It would take only a few nukes to level the fascist American government. Russia is also reverting back to their secret Soviet ways and it would take a lot more nukes to level Russia.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by shai hulud
While I think that the OP's topic is hopeful, it sounds more like a Hollywood script. Have you ever met a Russian? I mean a real Russian from their armed forces? I have met quite a few. To be in engaged in an a land war with these people would be beyond foolish. I think you have forgotten that Russia held off and eventually help defeat the first two Antichrists, Hitler and Napoleon. Although their equipment is inferior to the United States, they are just numerically superior to the U.S. Now this is not to say the U.S. would not hold it's own, I just think a land war with the Russians would be beyond suicide.


Very good point here shai hulud (loved Dune by the way). Although much of their equipment is old, the fighting spirit of Russia probably only compares to that of Israel. Even if we had enough men to send I doubt that we would stand a chance at beating them there.

I begin to wonder that with Nuclear technology so advanced maybe the only possible war is an economic one? If you can look at the long-run, the way the Japanese do, I think this would be the way to go. What I mean is that an Economic war would be a long war.

Look at how Japan thought they could beat us but only got their economy so intertwined within ours now that if we go down so do they.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by pimpdogg
 


Exactly!

Did everyone read this person's response?

We can't win in Iraq, or Afghanistan with modern tech vs ak47s and rpg's.
What the hell makes anyone think we could invade russia?

If anyone thinks russia is going to allow us to park in their backyard (Iran) and steal caspian oil (the goal) they have another thing coming. We will swiftly be kicked out of the middle east by both russia and china and possibly even nuked if they deem it necessary. We will not be able to respond.

It will be a very sad day, since this could very well trigger WW3.
We do not have many friends in the world right now if any.

it would not be wise to attack iran, period.

Anyone who thinks we are militarily infallible is a fool.
it is best to not even go there. Millions of people will die on both sides and ultimately everyone will lose, but in russia's backyard, we will lose worse than they will.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by slackerwire
reply to post by Arc Angel
 


It would help if you actually researched your claims

Are you ever right about anything?


I hate to split hairs here, but the "Republic of China" is actually Taiwan, not mainland China. Mainland China is "People's Republic of China." Notice that those articles both indicate the ships mentioned were supplied by the United States. "China" as we call it, is supplied by Russia or derived from Russian equipment.

Nevertheless, China does have a navy which is currently quite capable of defensive operations.

en.wikipedia.org...
I believe that's the article you were looking for.

en.wikipedia.org...
And that's a breakdown of ships in Russia's navy. It's small, but effective, since it's designed for defense instead of attack.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Hello,

It is because of this mentality that the world is the way it is.
There are no winners in war, only profiteers.

The bigger the material weapons you have, the weaker you become.
All of those who live for war will be left behind, those who can see through it will be saved, those who are free from such thinking will be crowned king.

Military spending, WAD, invisible lines separating countries, there is nothing more wrong and unnatural.

We are citizens of this planet, not citizens of individual countries!
The earth is our mother, without the plants that surround us, without the air they give we are all dead. If we continue bombing the hell out of each other no weapon will save us from her cleansing.

People need to wake to the Earths needs, you and I are from this planet, we are this planet.

In the future, people will look upon such actions as people being primitive social beings and people will not understand how we could have done such atrocities.

You will be faced with your greatest enemy in your lifetime.
That enemy is you

Peace on earth brothers and sisters



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rook1545


PS You didn't win WW2, the Russians did.




Win which war? the one in Europe or in the East with Japan?
We fought on two fronts the USSR had one major front with Germany!
and most of their equipment was ground and air based, ours was that plus a HUGE navy.




[edit on 18-6-2008 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
Every major city with a big population,all military bases,nuclear power plants,major text and industry sites gone.GONE GONE GONE GONE.



Originally posted by alienstarIts not just how cold it could get but you wouldnt have a ozone,no sunlight,and along with high amount of radiation in the air and soil,your dead still.Oh yeah Canada dude im sure since you guys hold the radar installions up there im sure russia has canadian cities on the list
as well.


Okay first off more then likely they wont attack populations centers since most of them are not primary targets but secondary. They will hit military bases, missile silos, industrial hubs, railroad hubs, ect. first. Secondary targets would be hit only if we haven't taken out there ability to launch another strike, I am sure they wont take out Nuclear Power plants either

Secondly, nuclear winter, bad, but a nuke isnt going to burn off the ozone layer at all, that was a scare tactic used in the US during the Cold War. Yes it will block out quite a bit sunlight but not all of it, and as far as radiation goes there could be high levels in areas were there were lots of primary targets ie. missile silos, or several military bases in an area but at the most it take 3-6 months in thouse areas for radiation to go down to a "acceptable" level in most areas it would only be a mater of a couple of weeks to a month and that would include fallout.

If ya want to tell me other wise then go ahead, I have read alot on nuclear war an targets in the US ect, this is what I know an have been told so I know for certian its true, and no detonating a nuke wont kill everything on the planet, you would have use almost the entire arsonal for that to happen.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by shai hulud
While I think that the OP's topic is hopeful, it sounds more like a Hollywood script. Have you ever met a Russian? I mean a real Russian from their armed forces? I have met quite a few. To be in engaged in an a land war with these people would be beyond foolish. I think you have forgotten that Russia held off and eventually help defeat the first two Antichrists, Hitler and Napoleon.



Very, very true. I have a friend that is retired officer. Graduated from the University of Moscow. That old communist and I have some decent agreements on disagreements about stuff.

I'm proud to say I know him, I hate his old politics but he loves America.

You see the change in his expression when he talks of the Great Patriotic War. It brings back friendly childhood memories for him. It is suicide to think anyone can walk into Russia.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 12:29 PM
link   
I wonder what that missile shield is supposed to do when at some point in future they have 1000 launchers and there are 1001 incoming ICMB's of which maybe 1/5th will be hit with such missile. Hopefully that will never happen, and propably doesn't but fact is that there is no way to defend against an immense amount of missiles simultaneously launched. At least not now, maybe in the future there is.

With lasers its easier as those rays move at light speed so there is not that much complex calculations involved when shooting. Ballistics is HARD, even for experts.

As others have already stated, there is no winner in such war. Both would be destroyed in the sense that economy of both countries would collapse along with military, industry, civilian services and infrastructure.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
Sorry bud we dont have any weapons in space...and what goes up must come down.You cant stop that many missiles and when i say 500?Thats not including sub launched and bomber.Now are are talking in the 1000s.Sorry you cant win a nuclear war.Now if you want to talk conventional war,thats different.But nuclear war never has a winner.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

comical.

We have many weapons in space. Ever read about the weapon titled "Rods from God" heres a link.

www.popsci.com...

In addition to that little bad boy, how about the Star Wars system, formally titled the Strategic Defense Initiative. Heres another link to a briefing on the program from 1992.

www.globalsecurity.org...


Those are two of the many space based weapons the United States can utilize. So, read up a little before you make any more comments displaying your ignorance of our space program. Heres a place to start.

www.afspc.af.mil...

Thats the website for our Air Force Space Command. They run that shizz.

Next time do some research.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by pimpdogg

Originally posted by Arc Angel
Someone posted this not so long ago...so I'd figure I'd revive this dead topic because I never got the chance to put my 2 cents in. Here's were I stand:

"USA would win hands down. It wouldn't even be a war, more like a slaughter. "But how can you say that? Russia is surely equal to us in every aspect!" Really? It just so happens I have evidence to support my claim. You people have no idea how powerful the USA really is.



3 weeks for a country the size of russia?

Wait a minute havent we been in Iraq (pop 20m) since 2003?


Mod Edit - Trimmed Large Quote

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 18-6-2008 by elevatedone]


The intial fighting in Iraq lasted 3 weeks (Before we overan and dominated the country). However, after that Bush didn't have a pull out plan, which is why we have the #ty mess we do now.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join