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: 7
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 05:27 PM
link   




posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by altered_states
 


mutually assured destruction would be no compromise who launches first.Early warning would be picked up tracking the missiles,they would have been gone as well.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Only reason we haven't truly tapped them yet is because the US is smart and likes to waste other country's resources before we waste ours.

Never thought of that, that's a great point lets hope its true.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:31 PM
link   
I think that in a conventional war it comes down to the will of the people, and the people of Russia have shown to have plenty. The Soviet Union went from a country of farmers to an industrialized nation, in what?, 20 years. When it comes to defending the motherland I think money would not be a problem.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:45 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. 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.




I agree completely. The US will never get in a land based war with the Russians. I have also met many Russians and they are a "hard" people, with a great love of their Motherland. I would not like to do battle with them on their soil, for any reason. Period. We are soft compaired to the average Russian.

The main reason there will be no land based war is due to our 18 Ohio class submarines each outfitted with 24 Trident I or II D-5/C-4 SLBM's. Each Trident missile consists of 8 MIRV's (independently targetted nuke) which works out to 192 nukes per sub, or a total of 3,456 nuclear warheads on all Ohio class subs, in which our enemies have no clue as to their locations. The Trident II has a range of 9,000 miles, travels at 18,000 mph, and can hit within 150 yards of its target. I think this is called a deterrent.

Why would we fight a conventional land war with Russia. We wouldn't. First off, the logistics are impossible. Secondly, if the Russians felt threatened by a force build up for a possible first attack by the US, (via satellite recon) they would make pre-emptive strikes, just as we would if in their position.

A little over 20 years ago, the Russians almost launched a full out nuclear attack on us as a response to one of our military exercises. They thought it was the real thing. The public didn't know about it for more than 20 years. Scared the politicians and military so bad that both Russian and US military leaders worked out a plan so this would not happen again.


As far as China is concerned, a single Ohio class sub, lurcking in the Straits of Taiwan, could launch a first stike consisting of its entire compliment of Tridents (192 warheads), with flight times of just minutes to their targets, not allowing the Chinese to retaliate in kind. Their only response would be conventional. The Chinese have only one nuclear powered submarine in its entire navy and its never been fully operational. It's Julang-1 Sea Launched Ballistic Missile has a range of 1700 kms. I believe we have at least 3 Ohio's off China's coast and many more within the long reach of their Trident II's.

IMO any future war with a "super power" will be economic. If the U.S. lost that battle, the victor would want to takeover our country with our assets intact, rather than occupying a vast nuclear wasteland.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Arc Angel
 

You make a valid point but ignore some others. In an all-out war, China, Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea would all unleash THEIR nuclear armaments for their own purposes and only Israel would have out best interests at heart. Britain and France would step in to protect the new NATO alliance but only for about 1 week, then they would have to go conventional and chemical to back up their ground units.

I, as a former Cold War missile/bomberman, have to agreee with the points made by Astronomie, Wotan, FredT, Zealman, and the like. I know our nuclear strength and its depletions over the years 1985 to 2002 and we couldn't match the Russians AND the Chinese, North Koreans, Pakistanis, or Indians- WHICH WE'D HAVE TO.

Avoid the internet and buy a copy of the Air Force Magazine, June 2008 to be precise. Turn to page 22 and read how badly off we are. Read how Major General Roger Burg is trying to keep our ICBM (land/air) fleets at current strengths while the likes of George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn want our stockpile to be ZERO!!!!!

The North Koreans can reach Japan, Hawaii, and the West Coast with their Medium range missiles. Pakistan and India can hit Europe, barely, with theirs. China has a modern submarine fleet, upgrades ICBMs, and the new all jet Mao bomber with intercontinental range, so they pose as big a threat as Russia. Don't think they wouldn't step in during the conflict.

Russia, under Paranoid Putin's new nationalism, is building a new range of nuclear warheads to counter the "threat" posed by George Jr.s broken treaties in Europe. They may not sign the new SCORE treaty for 2009 and neither will China or the other nuclear nations. So Russia is not a nuclear pushover.

Now what does Obama plan to do about all this if or when HE'S President? How well do you know your future leaders in office?

USA win hands down. As someone who use to help tend 6,000 warheads, but now sees about 1700 remaining, I say NOOOOOOOOO WAY!!!!!!




posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
1.6 billion barrels of oil would last the US 50 days on current consumption, shale oil is unwinnable unless you use some miraculous free energy device to tap it, it costs more than barrel to get a barrel out.

As for nuclear war,well on the assumption the US has some alien or nazzi flying saucer stuff and hidden ray guns, the russians wouls win, greater land mass with far wider population dispertion means less losses by nuclear assulat more people left over after all the bombs are dropped, naval assualt a joke, easily nuked/ missiled.

old chairman mao was once quoted as laughing at the US, saying let them drop every bomb they have , their will still be half a billion of us left!

The ruskies have far more nuclear shelters , a population far more dispersed, in a n all out nuke war theyd win no problem, well initialy anyways, no one quite knows the long term results.

Nuclear power station bombings would provide far more fall out than the bombs themselves, ie they are the real danger in a war to mankinds survival, never mind any supposed winner!

its silly people who give the americans a bad name.

Im scottish and have lived in the US for a while,I found the normal people the same as anywhere else, just the arse holse more outspoken there.




posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Why do you guys even speculate that the US and Russia will ever go to war with each other. Everyone knows that it will be a no win from either side therefore NO WAR. If you guys just like to blow up steam for one reason or another then by all means go ahead. I would have thought that you had better things to think about than speculate.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I think the OP underestimates just how much the rest of the world hates the US government after the eight years of the Cheney Regency.

Russia would have allies everywhere, and in the States there are cadres within the US agencies that would be all for Mother Russia or anyone against the Bush/Clinton/Cheney forces.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
for $500 billion plus defence budget, i rather use to help the people who are in poverty in Africa or use it to fund solar energy projects..... For wat reason for being superpower? It only invites hatred, tensions,jealousy frm other countries. It wont help global warming or watsoever... People are dying out there crying for help.. And there it goes, war..war..war. When this goin to end?.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:23 PM
link   
The days of a conventional all out war are a possibility, but not a desired reality.

The War of World public opinion would be fought and the loser would be sanctioned.
After all, both Russia and the United States have supported those means against non compliant countries.

Both the United States and Russia are subject to World courts. This is the world we live in today.

Oil? Russia has more then enough to support herself. This wont be a war of machinery, but a war fought with economy. Should countries abroad close their doors and warm to their respective enemies, a much different type of war will ensue modifying and possibly crippling the US or Russian economy.

The reality is, both of the cold war Giants could learn a lesson by a coalition of the reasonable and reprimand both violating nations in the process. Neither the US nor Russia have the right to determine through nuclear weapons the outcome of political ideologies.

No one wins this war, and ultimately it could be the dismantling of both nations in the process.

Peace




[edit on 18-6-2008 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arc Angel
...So as I said, it wouldn't even be a war. Given Russia's size...if we went all out...I'd give it 3 weeks before we'd have complete control. Minimal casualties. F-22 would also rock the # out of that new fighter that Russia is trying to build. We'd blow those son's of bitches out of the air before they'd even see us. I don't know what the fighter is called, but I can almost gaurantee that they're using US Generation 1 stealth technology that we sold to them. Too bad that's already obsolete by our standards. God bless America."

Anyone who disagrees is wrong.


Obviously. We'd kick their butts even worse than Hitler and Napoleon combined!



Why is this even a topic? The US and Russia aren't anywhere near being on hostile terms and even if they were, the US army is already stretched pretty thin and unable to finish off the two wars it's currently fighting. You act like Russia has no allies. And the American people certainly aren't in the mood to put up with the level of sacrifice it would take to fight such a war.

And what is there to gain here, anyway?



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevensuf
1.6 billion barrels of oil would last the US 50 days on current consumption, shale oil is unwinnable unless you use some miraculous free energy device to tap it, it costs more than barrel to get a barrel out.

As for nuclear war,well on the assumption the US has some alien or nazzi flying saucer stuff and hidden ray guns, the russians wouls win, greater land mass with far wider population dispertion means less losses by nuclear assulat more people left over after all the bombs are dropped, naval assualt a joke, easily nuked/ missiled.

old chairman mao was once quoted as laughing at the US, saying let them drop every bomb they have , their will still be half a billion of us left!

The ruskies have far more nuclear shelters , a population far more dispersed, in a n all out nuke war theyd win no problem, well initialy anyways, no one quite knows the long term results.

Nuclear power station bombings would provide far more fall out than the bombs themselves, ie they are the real danger in a war to mankinds survival, never mind any supposed winner!

its silly people who give the americans a bad name.

Im scottish and have lived in the US for a while,I found the normal people the same as anywhere else, just the arse holse more outspoken there.



Actually, I #ed up on a type-o. 1,500 billion barrels of reserves in the West. Go to the article yourself.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I like how everyone targets my facts because I added to the end of this post, "If you disagree you're wrong." The fact is that if you disagree with my decision that the U.S would win you are wrong.

Source: Cold War

Never specified if it was going to be a future war, or any war at all. I gave my 2 cents on tactics and WW2 theories of what we should do, as well as some information on oil and US Power Projection, but that's about it. The war between USA and Russia already happened, and U.S came out the victor.

Nice to see alot of liberals on this site, with the exception of a few conservatives. Thanks goes out to the guy who posted up the article on our sattelite defense systems. I noticed not once did anyone give facts on Russia vs. US where they had a Russian victory w/o including China or nuclear weapons. Hmm...interesting.

Another thing I'd like to voice my opinion on is the logistics of attacking Russia via the ground. If you look on wikipedia, you can see we have bases located all around the world. I don't think in this day and age of technology would it be difficult to transport goods and materials such a long way. Sure, cold weather hampers operations, but the US would be able to protect it's sea lanes with our large Navy.

One last thing I'd like to add, I am very patriotic about my country, however I do respect my enemies. The Russians are much more resourceful then us, however I think American's are superior fighters to them. People talk about the mess in Iraq...well, that's what a Counter-Insurgent war is like. Iraq is actually pretty safe for an American. Why?
More than 4,000 people die in America each year from car accidents. We've lost 4,000 people over there in 5 years. Don't doubt our #ing military. "How can you make a war zone safer then your homeland?"

And speaking of the Russian military, hows that second Chechen war going? They got an insurgent warfare on their hands, and they've fought 2 wars over that place.

en.wikipedia.org...

And to the dude who's 54 years old living with 25 year old Russian boys...that's just #ing creepy. Either you're making it up or you have some problems. To the Americans who doubt our military, go up to a Marine and call him a pussy.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:35 PM
link   
US would win no doubt but as for who has the best fighter im pretty sure that russia's Sukhoi PAK FA would beat our F-22



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   
Why argue about resources and technology? America has proven that when they go into a country where they are not familiar with the terrain they do not succeed. Vietnam comes to mind. All the technology one has will not make for the fact the that someone who knows thier own country will have a better chance of defeating someone who stumbles around lost in unfamiliar territory.



posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Deleted

[edit on 19-6-2008 by cosmos11]



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   
you dont storm in to russia with 250.000 soldiers trough thr east and the other 250 000 trough the east.why man? hitler tried and failed and so will anyone .russia has arround 150 000 milion people ,id be a bloody bloodbath.again why?



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
i meant west there...



posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Arc Angel
 


Is that where you get your wonder resources from wikipedia?Its like all your posts your just living off that site.




top topics



 
3
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join