A very good question . I could be wrong but I think that Russia political leaders would want to proportionally ensure there was less casualty's in
order to preserve the country population .
im talking of military casualties only. if they fight based on numbers, and those numbers are poorly equipped in comparison to their enemy, they will
suffer heavy casualties, especially when large scale military movements can be monitored intensely by modern tech, meaning even if Russia made the
first move, there's little doubt that Europe would not know about it and that they would be properly prepared to counter if not even perform an
effective pre-emptive counter attack. This is not to say, though, that numbers don't matter, and i agree on that point, and it is possible that Russia
could still make an effective move, but at the loss of a lot of men. But take into consideration that if you can think of this hypothetical situation,
then the military strategists in the European Nations and the US who are deeply interconnected in their interests have thought about it as well, so
any surprise movement from Russia is most likely already expected meaning effective counter measures are most likely in place, such as the new missile
defense system which everyone knows isn't just for protection from Iran.
Just look at what happened to the Germans in WW2 despite having the likes of the Tiger Tank or the Me262 for instance allied material superiority
swamped them . Its no good having the best design of whatever weapon if you are faced with ten of the enemy you will come unstuck . What you may call
faulty may simply be a design of something that is just good enough to get the job done and that is all it has to be . The notion that a higher tech
army will beat its lower tech and mass production friendly enemy is a myth . The problem is that when you rely on a myth rather then sound policy only
you come to believe it and not your enemy's . Just ask the British about the impenetrable Jungle in Malaysia .
i agree that numbers do play a large roll, but when you postulate Russia invading Europe, there are plenty more factors involved than the size of the
army, and those factors inhibit the potential advantage of numbers, and one of those specific factors is better technology on Europe's behalf. And
when you look at Germany during ww2, you have to remember they had themselves surrounded, much like i suggested would be the same case for Russia if
they decided to go the same route as Germany. this means they would most likely suffer the same fate as Germany, unless they had China to essentially
guard their rear, otherwise the US has a superior naval force to the Russians, and to expect the US to stand aside as Europe is getting attacked is
not reasonable unless the US is already tanked in its own woes by then, which even still i dont believe the US would sacrifice such an advantageous
oppourtunity to bring down the old enemy Russia and take its northern resources when it is involved in a battle with Europe that would most assuredly
require Russia's full attention and efforts. and such focus on a western front would also distract from the US and NATO having footholds in the
middle east, which gives them a vantage point to counter.
Your mean climate not terrain right ?
yeah a combination of both. the climate is only helpful when in retreat, which has been Russia's choice of policy for the major wars, or at least how
it always ended up being whenever it chose to leave its borders. with terrain, im hinting at the vastness of the Russian landscape. i dont think it is
beneficial to any offensive party, whether it be the home or the visitors. in defense, yes, but offense, no, as the separation between supplies and
civility is too great. there are too many ways to work around the russian front because it is so large, and it would not be wise for russia to spread
its military so thin just to protect and enforce the entire western border.
my thinking is that you cannot separate Europe from the US. this is a very important partnership. politics and economies can potentially divide it,
but militaries will unite it unless they are fighting against each other. I'm not really sure about the role of the UN. If Russia were to attack, it
would in effect be sacrificing it's seat since it is not working for the benefit or propagation of peace and security and it IS attacking fellow
members. obviously the current UNSC would have little meaning anymore. But my main point, is that Russia could not succeed in conquering Europe even
with its total 20 mil strong force. i think all of europe's active and reserve forces combined would have at least half that amount. invasion would
cause a sense of nationalism and vehemence in europe towards russia that already exists, which at the very minimum could muster another 3-5 mil into
the armed forces, and to say that europe and the US are incapable of mass manufacturing just isn't true. Germany itself is an industrial powerhouse.
there are resources that can come from french and US holdings in northern africa, and also no doubt the middle east would be used to its maximum
potential in the name of fueling the regions economy with industry based off the military requirements...if its oil and gas reserves, well who
basically owns afghanistan and iraq at the present? US and UK oil companies would have a ball playing the oil game during war. what about canada?
faulkner islands? australia? there are plenty of ways to get resources.
russias best bet in offensive procedure is its airforce. but the RAF, USAF, ALA, and Luftwaffe combined could easily match those numbers. btw when it
comes to the use of nuclear weapons, you cannot trust a person's word, especially one that is so hypocritical as the White House, no offense to the
US, but the US is looking to enhance its nuclear arsenal as we speak, and in the event of a nuclear attack, i am doubtless nuclear policies would
change. refusal to use nukes is just talk, and its for the sake of prevention. but if preventative measures do not work, obviously the talking will
A better target than Europe would be the rest of Asia so that an ocean separates it from the east where naval attacks would inevitably be waged by the
US, or better would be for Russia to get China on its side in order to take India and Japan, then steadily move across the pacific to the US. China
has holdings in Africa, which would help to get Europe from below, but that is after getting US from the pacific and atlantic. cutting off the north
atlantic union is very important if russia is going to take europe. they have to divide an conquer on much much larger scale than ever before, and
that will not be easy.
edit on 20-11-2010 by asperetty because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-11-2010 by asperetty because: (no
edit on 20-11-2010 by asperetty because: (no reason given)