Russia vs Israel- Who would win?

reply to post by Ranger23


It is prophesied in Scripture that Isreal will turn russia back and destroy all but 1/6 of russia.

Originally posted by xmotex
Given that a direct military conflict between the two is absurdly unlikely, it's kind of a silly question.

Given that Russia is a massive country with 10,000 nukes, and Israel is a tiny one with a couple hundred, most of which Israel has no means of getting to Russia, it's even sillier.

Who would win, a lion or a housecat?

No matter how tough the housecat might be pound for pound, it's still doomed in a one on one fight.

I agree with all that you said, and I want to add the following:

It's more than silly!

Why does one bother to post a piece of militaristic masturbation like the OP? People, aren't there more intersting topics to discuss.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Israel has shown in several wars that it rendered Russian equipment & tactics virtually useless. Israel excels at conventional tank warfare ( the only way to invade) and has over 6,000 armored vehicles. Also, don't forget F-15's & F-16's spanked top-line MiG's in the early 1980's in the Bekaa Valley campaign. Israeli F-15's shot down over 60 Syrian MiGs without a single loss. I don't think Russia can airlift enough troops/equipment either. It's a non-starter.

And if you bothered reading ALL those MiGs that were sold to Mid-East nations did not have the sophisticated equipments that Russian ones do.
The F-15/16 have NEVER went up against Russian MiG's they only went up against non-Rus "export" MiGs.

[edit on 30-9-2008 by wantawanta]

[edit on 30-9-2008 by wantawanta]

This thread must not be serious, probably a joke but I'll bite anyway:

in either conventional or nuclear war Russia would destroy Israel about as easily as they did Georgia.

Originally posted by sty
we would all die in atomic holocaust if this would happen.

No, we wont, Since nuclear weapons are the least of our concerns these days that may very well not be useful knowing. Either way you can find relatively cheap books that would allow you to easily ride out the physical effects of a nuclear strike.

30 Atomic bombs at once are enough for atomic winter to start.

There is absolutely nothing in our physical models or established nuclear testing that is suggestive of a nuclear winter scenario ever materializing.

www.answers.com...

jimmyakin.typepad.com...

Among the key assumptions underlying the nuclear winter hypothesis is the uniform
distribution of the smoke cloud. An experiment in Britain studied the local atmospheric
effects of smoke. The smoke was generated on a dry, clear day, when washout was expected
to be minimal. The smoke injection caused temperature gradients, resulting in local air
circulations Clouds developed that would not otherwise have occurred. Such clouds would
tend to scavenge the smoke before it could diffuse into the continental-scale smoke pall
that is the starting point of nuclear winter calculations, (Note that the black rain at
HiroRhima was an example of this effect.)The experiment was reported by BW Gelding, et
al Importance of Local Mesoscale Factors in Any Assessment of Nuclear Winter," Nature
314:301, Jan. 23, 1986,

www.physiciansforcivildefense.org...

300 a-bombs at once would ensure total destruction of the global environment.

If suitably deeply buried in tectonically unstable areas to create sufficient movement of the earth's crustal plates, perhaps.... If detonated at ground level not at all.

Well.. there are over 40 000 nukes on both sides. So my guess- NOONE would ever win .

Well someone always wins so and since those who start these wars don't mind casualties we should at least force them to allow us to protect ourselves as best we can.

Stellar


[edit on 1-10-2008 by StellarX]

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
Israel has shown in several wars that it rendered Russian equipment & tactics virtually useless.

What Israel has shown is that it has a capacity to learn from it's mistakes and to quickly implement the lessons. Since their weapons were normally not significantly superior and other time markedly inferior one can clearly not prescribe their victories to their inferior American and European equipment or just to shortcomings in the enemies they faced.

Israel excels at conventional tank warfare ( the only way to invade) and has over 6,000 armored vehicles.

Sure but they won the original battle for survival without having anything like that.

en.wikipedia.org...

To suggest that they need such wonderful equipment today to have much the same affect isn't in my opinion justified.

Also, don't forget F-15's & F-16's spanked top-line MiG's in the early 1980's in the Bekaa Valley campaign.

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

There were pretty good aircraft (mostly ground attack ) on the Syrian side but without ground control and without AWACS support they were largely sitting ducks. Either way i am confident that the Israeli's would have managed to win the battle( or at least not fight it knowing their position ) if the equipment were switched around.

Israeli F-15's shot down over 60 Syrian MiGs without a single loss. I don't think Russia can airlift enough troops/equipment either. It's a non-starter.

The 'without' a single loss is not something i would stake my name on but it was certainly a well conducted operation against a enemy that had means enough to avoid being so completely blindsided.

As for the original question Russian would not have to airlift anything unless it want's to fight a conventional war. That would be taxing and knowing the Israeli's not in any way easy or with a obvious short term conclusion.

Stellar


[edit on 1-10-2008 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by sty
we would all die in atomic holocaust if this would happen.

No, we wont, Since nuclear weapons are the least of our concerns these days that may very well not be useful knowing. Either way you can find relatively cheap books that would allow you to easily ride out the physical effects of a nuclear strike.

30 Atomic bombs at once are enough for atomic winter to start.

There is absolutely nothing in our physical models or established nuclear testing that is suggestive of a nuclear winter scenario ever materializing.

www.answers.com...

jimmyakin.typepad.com...

Among the key assumptions underlying the nuclear winter hypothesis is the uniform
distribution of the smoke cloud. An experiment in Britain studied the local atmospheric
effects of smoke. The smoke was generated on a dry, clear day, when washout was expected
to be minimal. The smoke injection caused temperature gradients, resulting in local air
circulations Clouds developed that would not otherwise have occurred. Such clouds would
tend to scavenge the smoke before it could diffuse into the continental-scale smoke pall
that is the starting point of nuclear winter calculations, (Note that the black rain at
HiroRhima was an example of this effect.)The experiment was reported by BW Gelding, et
al Importance of Local Mesoscale Factors in Any Assessment of Nuclear Winter," Nature
314:301, Jan. 23, 1986,

www.physiciansforcivildefense.org...

300 a-bombs at once would ensure total destruction of the global environment.

If suitably deeply buried in tectonically unstable areas to create sufficient movement of the earth's crustal plates, perhaps.... If detonated at ground level not at all.

Well.. there are over 40 000 nukes on both sides. So my guess- NOONE would ever win .

Well someone always wins so and since those who start these wars don't mind casualties we should at least force them to allow us to protect ourselves as best we can.

Stellar


[edit on 1-10-2008 by StellarX]

With all this talk about what would cause nuke-winter or not, you guys got me thinking crasy thoughts? Stell, what WOULD happen if 300 25-Megatone nukes where placed side by side together, on the earth's surface and detonated, with the blast force going down into to earth, how much of the earth would be blown in

With all this talk about what would cause nuke-winter or not, you guys got me thinking crasy thoughts? Stell, what WOULD happen if 300 25-Megatone nukes where placed side by side together, on the earth's surface and detonated, with the blast force going down into to earth, how much of the earth would be blown in

Probably not that much of a hole. I'm not good at explaining the EXACT science but the basic principle is that the larger that a single bomb is, the more energy it loses as in comparison to several bombs spread out that have the same nuclear yield in megatons. So if you take 300 nukes all "side by side" as you said, that would in effect be like one giant multi gigaton bomb but would be no where near as devastating as the same yield used through many bombs spread out. This is why instead of dropping one big 10 megaton missile they'll send an ICBM with 10 MRVS of let's say a megaton each, so that the MRVS spread out over the city and wreak far more destruction than the more 'localized' effect one bomb would have.
Look up pictures of the "Giordano Bruno" crater on the moon. It's a smallish crater that was supposedly hit by a comet with the force of 120,000 megatons, that's the equivalent of 120 GIGATONS. Your 300 25 megaton warheads is the equivalent of 7.5 gigatons.


This image is of a meteor crater in Bolivia I believe that supposedly was equivalent to 500-1000 megatons and it's 5 miles wide crater but it's different I suppose since the comet was traveling at probably 40,000mph or something like that and smashed into the earth.
Either way I would expect 7 gigatons to do quite some damage but nothing to end the earth or split the earth in half as even the comet that might have wiped out the dinosaurs is stated to have been in the 'hundreds of millions' of megatons yield and it didn't wipe out the earth although it wiped out most life on earth which I believe is hundreds of thousands of gigatons whereas your example is only 7 gigatons.
The problem is the earth would absorb alot of that energy into the crater evenly, now if you blew that thing up in the atmosphere there might be some nasty consequences, who knows maybe rip the ozone apart and send hypercanes/hurricanes out in all directions.

If Isreal goes to war with Russia do you know who wins?

The United States

Because... we might not get involved, particularly if we know Russia will wax at us with major nukes...

But what if we let Isreal go it alone...

They always said they had purpose from G-d and have suffered, perhaps within Isreal is the notion of... doing it for the good of the world, more Jews live in the USA than in isreal anyway...

OR

Maybe this as a European/ Usa/ Nato wet dream

Lets think about this Isreal strikes Irans reactors, Russia and our remaining enemies in the Middle East strike back...

Isreal is obliterated quickly of course but Launches nukes... 100 or so of them...

Iran: Gone

Saudi Arabia: Gone

Pakistan: Gone

Russia: 20-30 cities and much of it's Nuclear capacity devestated...

for all intentes and purposes this is the end of Russia, 30-40 Nuclear strikes and there is nothing of a nation, sorry sad but true...


So what's Left? But a peaceful world?

No more India/Pakistan Hotspot, no more Russia pushing China against the USA and Europe... NO more Islamic Movement

Asia and Europe and America and India...

sorry no offense but... with Isreal, Greater Islam and Russia gone

The world would be without true power rivalries and genuine gloabl hot spots aside from... NK

and it would be very alone indeed...

and I say this and I'm a jew... and wouldn't want to see Isreal gone...


But... I think the USA is not so stupid and most jews actually live here and

we might just let Isreal go this alone and take oput our enemies without a single shot...

condemn Isreal... not aid Isreal...

But Isreal can and would defeat the region before it keeled over and died a Nuclear death, not WIN against Russia... But come on, what would be left of Russia if... it lost 20 major cities?

Nothing of course

reply to post by Lambo Rider


I don't know when you were born, and certainly have no idea where you got your information that in 1967 Israel surprise attacked three countries that were ill trained/equipped.

That is dead wrong.

Israel was using older French, British, and American equipment, while Egypt, Syria, and Jordan were using some really updated Soviet equipment.

The Israeli's had 264,000 men, 800 tanks, and 400 aircraft. Egypt had 240,000 men, 1,180 tanks, and 450 aircraft. Jordan had 58,000 men, 200 tanks, and 30 aircraft. Syria had 105,000 men, 550 tanks, and 120 aircraft. Iraqi forces had 50,000 men 630 tanks, and 120 aircraft. Saudi forces had 50,000 men, 100 tanks, and 40 aircraft.

Israeli tanks consisted of 250 British Centurians, 200 American M-48's, 150 French AMX-13's and 200 Super Shermans from the Second World War. They only had 20 Super Mystere fighters and 40-60 older Mystere fighters that were ten years old, to fight the 130 Egyptian MiG-21's, 80 MiG-19;s, 180 Mig-17's, 20 Su-7 fighter bombers, 30 TU-16;s and 40 Ilushin-28's, a fomidible first strike capability, and enough helicopter to deliver over 3,000 men in a single flight.

So Israel faced over 400,000 men, 2,700 tanks, and more than 700 high tech aircraft on three different sides.

Just one problem. The Soviets trained them and they were using Soviet tactics.

The odds say Russia would win. History indicates that isn't necessarily true.

Besides, Russia upon attempting to invade Israel would be in for some very unpleasant surprises in their major cities, without any launch. And the US hasn't even gotten involved yet.

I don't think Russia and Israel would fight.
There is many Jews in Russia and Russians in Israel.
Would they want to kill there own people?
Similar with USA and Russia.
There is many Russians living in America.
Many Americans in Russia.
Its not like it was during the cold war.
They would have to kill there own people on either side.

Originally posted by dooper
Just one problem. The Soviets trained them and they were using Soviet tactics.

Like the Vietnamese and Koreans were? Why do people keeping claiming this as if doctrine is a export product?

The odds say Russia would win. History indicates that isn't necessarily true.

Sure.

Besides, Russia upon attempting to invade Israel would be in for some very unpleasant surprises in their major cities, without any launch. And the US hasn't even gotten involved yet.

So Tom Bearden claims, yes. Why would you trust those 'friendly' nations to risk themselves for Israel or for the US?

Stellar

Originally posted by mopusvindictus
Maybe this as a European/ Usa/ Nato wet dream

Maybe the wet dreams of their various leaders; certainly not that of the people.

Lets think about this Isreal strikes Irans reactors, Russia and our remaining enemies in the Middle East strike back...

What remaining enemies? The US has no enemies in the middle east that are not enemies because of the US national security states choice to fund Israeli outrages....

Isreal is obliterated quickly of course but Launches nukes... 100 or so of them...

Iran: Gone

Saudi Arabia: Gone

Pakistan: Gone

Why would Israel attack Pakistan? In fact how would it attack Pakistan?
Why would Israel spread the few nuclear weapons it has so thinly?

Russia: 20-30 cities and much of it's Nuclear capacity devestated...

for all intentes and purposes this is the end of Russia, 30-40 Nuclear strikes and there is nothing of a nation, sorry sad but true...

How? No ICBM's and Israel does not have strategic bombers? Why would losing thirty cities be the end of Russia when their air defenses were at least in theory designed to deal with a us strike involving several hundred ICBM's?

So what's Left? But a peaceful world?

At that stage the world would be all but peaceful!

No more India/Pakistan Hotspot, no more Russia pushing China against the USA and Europe... NO more Islamic Movement

India would have and could have taken care of the Pakistan 'hot-spot' long ago but mainly there would not be much of a hot spot if it were not for the US backing of Pakistan. The Pakistani's are well aware of their situation and they would fade into relative obscurity the moment they realise that there wont be any external hope in case they piss of the India too much.

Asia and Europe and America and India...

sorry no offense but... with Isreal, Greater Islam and Russia gone

What about Indonesia and India and good parts of north Africa? You think you can get rid of a billion odd Muslims that easily? All you would do with such a war is to forever radicalize ( no, they wont become terrorist but they will remember) the remaining 90% of Muslims resulting in the outright destruction of Israel and a slightly depopulation Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and so forth. Since two of these countries are still oil rich they would rebuild with proper investment in good time.

As for Russia Israel has no admitted ( secret technologies aside) capability to attack Russia.

The world would be without true power rivalries and genuine gloabl hot spots aside from... NK

And look how that turned out for the third world in the last nearly 60 years of US terrorist policies against them? Europe could always defend themselves ( so what if the US taxpayer could be duped into picking up the tab) and these days many SEA countries, including Japan and India could easily do so themselves. We are truly starting to enter the age of a multi-polar world and if we can keep the warmongers from starting a world war ( nuclear being the least of our problems) the next century might truly be a period of almost unheard of growth and prosperity.

and it would be very alone indeed...
and I say this and I'm a jew... and wouldn't want to see Isreal gone...

While some might believe that the world cares about the few millions people of Jewish decent or the few tens of millions of the 'faith' i must advise you that we don't and we largely couldn't care less consider the problems we all face in our own countries. Few will miss Israel when the MSM new coverage stops. In fact the only people would really miss Israel are those few who actually hated what it stood for or hated Jews; basically not me or 90% of the rest of the worlds population.

But... I think the USA is not so stupid and most jews actually live here and we might just let Isreal go this alone and take oput our enemies without a single shot... condemn Isreal... not aid Isreal...

The US is not stupid but since the leaders are not doing what it's citizens wishes for many things are in fact possible. Either way Zionist ( the few at the top) and the Zionism will surely lead the the destruction of Israel in the long or short run as their aim has always been to use and abuse Jews for their own purposes.

But Isreal can and would defeat the region before it keeled over and died a Nuclear death, not WIN against Russia... But come on, what would be left of Russia if... it lost 20 major cities?

Nothing of course

If Israel starts a war with Russia they might not have very much time to wreak havoc on their enemies in the region but either way i don't see how it wont end in Israel's destruction. I am still not sure how Israel would actually destroy Russian cities but if the war escalates to involve the US and other NATO countries Russia is likely to suffer serious consequences of the nuclear or non nuclear variety.

Just like you i would rather not find out. I suppose there is always that to agree upon.

Stellar

We could go back and forth for days on the semantics of it all and then for days again on the possible military scenarios...

But all I'm getting at is:

England gave the Jews Isreal, the USA gave it Nuclear weapons

on top of that the most religous of jews live in the USA, Brooklyn where I grew up particularly nad Quote Un Quote... "we live here because Isreal is going to be destroyed in the final war"

Told that... my whole life

Just religous prophecy? or Something more...

Isreal put there by the west, armed by the west

Goes off and...deals with Russia and the Middle East

and we... "shocked" by thier unilateral action don't support them

No matter how I look at this... it is a win/win situation for Europe and the USA

and I have to wonder... maybe this is why we put Isreal there in the first place

It's not like Isreal and connections to all sorts of conspiracies is a rare thing


Russia and the Mideast have... long stood in the way of trade and cultural exchange between east and West... from the spice road, from before the spice road...

It all seems to make sense, the rise of China, our incredible economic dependence on them and vice versa... India being the worlds largest democracy

I don't think .."all of Islam" Pakistan and it's Nukes are a wild card... a potential Israeli target for one or two of 100 Nukes

and what would it take?

Leningrad and Moscow to go down for Russia to fall? A few more cities? Iran? One City? 2? Pakistan 1 city 2

and who would they Nuke in retaliation if... Europe and America condemned Isreal and offered aid?


no one... but Isreal, and Isreal is very small... Not quite the Global Nuclear winter or horror show you'd think it woul take to end much of the Mideast and Russia

I mean really... even 5 major cities, Russia would be.. from where it is now no more, have to park it's subs... Isreal has subs maybe it gets a few..

You know it would be over for every one between the west and the east

and I am just kind of

seeing this

the WHY everyone asks about Isreal

I think this is Why we did it...

NATO stand up for Isreal? The only NATO country that would stand and fight would be the USA. Russia at war with Isreal? For what reason million of Russian Jews live there. Who is stronger no doubt Russia Isreal isnt even in the ball park. It s like comparing the USA to Cuba. Russia would side with Isreal especially if they could see it making a wedge between USA and NATO

More realistic war NATO coming to the aid of the Arabs against Isreal like they came to the aid of Muslium terrorist against Christians Sebians. I can see Russia selling missles to Isreal and the Americans sending fighters and tanks to Isreal to aid Isreal NATO would back off or lose its most important member and still lose the war.

reply to post by StellarX


Like the Vietnamese and Koreans were? You either don't know your history, or you made the mistake of comparing apples to oranges.

North Korea, after a spectacular advance got their asses kicked right back up north, right to the Korean/Chinese border. It was a massive Chinese attack that caused the whole thing to end up more or less along the original borders. That had nothing to do with Russia, other than Russian pilots and equipment.

Our pilots were fighting North Koreans and Russian pilots flying their own best stuff, and we kicked their asses too. They were good, but not good enough.

The war in Viet Nam until after the Tet of 1968 was a guerilla war of Viet Cong in the South. It wasn't until 1972 that North Vietnames regulars entered the fray, and they in turn were shredded/destroyed.

The Russians have never done all that well against anyone but Nazi Germany who was fighting a war on three sides, outnumbered significantly. And the Germans still managed to eat up millions of Russians. Russians, when defending their homeland are tough, but they never do well when required to attack across their borders.

Back to Israel. Masses of top Russian equipment, provided by Russian advisor, using Russian tactics, and in overwhelming numbers, were defeated by the much smaller Israeli forces not only in 1967, but again in 1973. I just call it as I see it. Against overwhelming masses of Russian equipment, advisors, and tactics, Israel is 2-0.

In Afghanistan, is was masses of Russian equipment, manned by Russian soldiers, commanded by Russian generals, using Russian tactics. Then only American equipment of significance was the Stingers. Russia got their asses kicked out of there too.

To go against Israel, Russia would have to telegraph their intention, and due to geography, take an anticipated line of approach. That would be their destruction. The Israeli's have an uncanny ability to have assets in place at the highest levels in every enemy and potential enemy government. Why should Russia be so different, with such a large Jewish population, full of smart, determined Jews?

I'll say it again. The numbers and pure logic would indicate a Russian slaughter. But history and intuition indicates an Israeli slaughter. I'd go with Israel.

Israel would only have to hold the pass for two to three days before the US and other forces would reinforce. And traditionally, historically, intuitively, their equipment doesn't match up, their tactics are easily anticipated, and their skill levels while very high do not match up through the ranks. Certainly not motivation.

Originally posted by torresm1
NATO stand up for Isreal? The only NATO country that would stand and fight would be the USA. Russia at war with Isreal? For what reason million of Russian Jews live there.

Now that you mention that i remembered discussing that some time ago.

If you could go the following link you should find some interesting articles to inspect that for some strange reason suggests that the Russian mafia have largely taken over the Israeli 'underground' ( whatever that means).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well let me know what you think...


Stellar

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Another happy post. Why would Russia invade Israel? Or how Russia will invade Israel - no common border?

Could Russia get involved with any retalitorial strike after Israel attacked Iran?

Russia,as i'm sure you are aware, has embarked on major global military movements of late. Seemingly getting a little too friendly with 'anti' US countries.

Please consider these articles

Originally posted by ZeroKnowledge
Another happy post. Why would Russia invade Israel? Or how Russia will invade Israel?

Would Russia retaliate against Israel following an attack on Iran?

Why has Russia embarked on a global military excercises? Seemingly getting friendly with 'anti' US countries.

Here's two relative links to ponder

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

In reality, Russia has had a lot to do with a couple of middle eastern countries, in recent years. All militarily biased. The news stories are not hard to find. Try google.

Sorry, totally cocked that post up.

Too eager with the mouse pad!

The links work though.