United States v.s. Russia?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 03:09 AM
link   
$tranger you do not speak russian?

You should rethink having that yuie USA as a source site for your signature.

The site's name is "Kill the USA". And is probably the most twisted site I've ever read, other than the Nazi Party site.




posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by 10DeadInside10
If it were just Russia and the United States against each other one on one, with no strings attached, just all of our military might againt theirs, who would win in the end and why?

definitely russia... may i remind you that no one has successfully defeated them on their terrain?

and you can't possibly factor out the nukes...
even if we could block them with our 'patriot missiles' and what not... they would just shower us with icbm's.

[Edited on 4-10-2003 by echelon]



posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 08:49 AM
link   
In case you missed it, I was complimenting the Russians, not dissing them.


Yep, I've seen some evidence that we got some of the shuttle technology from the Russians....I have no problem with spying, done by anyone, and I can appreciate a job well done when I see it.



posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ????????????????
$tranger you do not speak russian?

You should rethink having that yuie USA as a source site for your signature.

The site's name is "Kill the USA". And is probably the most twisted site I've ever read, other than the Nazi Party site.


i can read russian, and i used that site only for the pic and the zhirinovsky video.

and whats that crap you write in russian?? theres no russian words in there.



posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 09:30 AM
link   
ohhh now i see the font i changed it.



posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ”¡ÛŸ³¡×²Œ×¹‰ŒÛš·
And Russia can barely fight Chechyans, what makes you think they could fight the USA?


barely fight chechens?

it is the same setuation as in israel.
and soon in iraq.



posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 10:32 PM
link   
”¡ »¦³¦¤¦, Œ ފŒ¡‰¤ÿ ­¦-³¹²²ÀŠ.

No Chechnya not the same as Israel, Israel is forced to accept the Palestinians, no one is forcing the Russians to accept the Chechyans, they simply are too evenly matched. Russian equipment suck.

And Iraq won't turn into that.



posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 10:35 PM
link   
definitely russia... may i remind you that no one has successfully defeated them on their terrain? Posted by Echelon

That is true. Many military men from Napoleon to Hitler, have lost thier lives and campaigns in Russia. Of course, the main advantage is that Russia simply has enough land to continuously "fall back" almost indeffinitely.

However, in any upcoming war, no nukes will likely be used, and with certainty, it will be settled, one way or another, without a single soldier from either country setting foot in the others country.



posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 11:05 PM
link   
dragonrider, no.

What would happen is massive mechanized movements by US with Airborne and heavy Air support. Your ideas of "haarp" are still unfounded. But afterall this is a conspiracy site. But you're too much. Don't quit your day job



posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 11:22 PM
link   
What would happen is massive mechanized movements by US with Airborne and heavy Air support. Your ideas of "haarp" are still unfounded. But afterall this is a conspiracy site. But you're too much. Don't quit your day job Posted by whoever the hell

Really??? This is an interesting scenario... Do you really think we would be able to overcome all of Russias nuclear deterrent capabilities, without incurring huge losses at home, and without rendering large amounts of Russia uninhabitable, thereby making any kind of ground assault not only unfeasible but unthinkable?

Your scenario totally discounts all the nuclear deterrent capacities both countries have built over the past 50+ years. How would we overcome this, without a massive nuclear exchange (which would make a physical ground invasion an impossibility)? Unless of course, you contend that some other X Technology exists that would somehow neutralize these deterrents?????? (Can you say HAARP?)

Guess you never heard of the Final Option project?

Both the US and Russia have thier own variants of the Final Option. In the US, we have 3 known MX silos with missles ready to lauch. These 3 missles however do not carry nuclear warheads. Instead, they carry powerful radio transmitters. If Final Option is ever initiated (in the event that US defeat is inevitable or has already occurred), one or all three missles will achieve orbit and deploy its antenna array. It will lock onto and communicate with any and all US nuclear assets on the planet. Without immediate intervention (IE, shooting it down) Final Option will transmit a Final Failsafe Code which will launch any and all nuclear assets immediately at all predesignated targets. No human intervention at that point will prevent the final massive launch.

Russia is known to have an identicle project.

Now, assuming that by some miracle we avoid a massive nuclear exchange, and we do somehow end up in a ground war with Russia. Do you expect the US to simply waltz in on the ground, like we were invading, oh say, Iraq? Russia, with the worlds 2nd largest airforce? (US air superiority would NOT be assumed as it is in other areas) Then, if we did get on the ground? I do agree with Echelon, ground assaults in Russia have historically been a very bad idea.

As versatile as the US army is, we have NEVER fought an arctic campaign.

Of course, none of the above will happen. Any serious conflict between the US and Russia would be over in 6 hours or less, with massive casualties, without a single physical weapon being launched or impacting.



posted on Apr, 10 2003 @ 11:52 PM
link   
Oh I mistook your belief of no ground war to come from Lasers in space kind of crap


I don't think Nukes will ever be a problem.

For one ICBMs are on the fast track to becoming useless due to the growing ability to intercept missiles, if need be they probably could rig up a decent "network" within a year, however that would be costly.

US wouldn't ever use Nukes, because it would most likely win conventionally, or at least would try that route first.

Russia probably wouldn't use Nukes anyways, knowing that a similar response would be recieved, and while a nutty Leader who is going down with the ship wouldn't mind that, the person who really has his hand on the button, or the Army would definately stop it from happening.

After all they wouldn't kill Russians to save the Soviet, what makes you think that they'd kill russians just to destroy America?

nukes are really only a threat in my opinion, from rouges.

From other nations, due to "MADD" conventional routes would be sought first, and when that fails, most likely WMDs will never be used by well to do Nation States.

After all Hitler had chemicals gas, and biological weapons, and he had one VERY good reason to use them, so that he could win at anyway possible and finish his "mission".

He didn't do this, probaby more due to the other Military commanders around him...I've not actually looked into it.

But I do think your fears of it turning nuclear is a false fear, it's not been disproven yet, but I can bet you WW3, will be fought conventionally, and all those WMDs are there just so the enemy's WMDs dont get used on them...not as a "last revenge".



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 12:03 AM
link   
The simple answer is both countries would lose. Maybe everyone only wants to refer to the US as the only superpower. Russia has always been step to step with us. Have they not?



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ”¡ÛŸ³¡×²Œ×¹‰ŒÛš·
But I do think your fears of it turning nuclear is a false fear, it's not been disproven yet, but I can bet you WW3, will be fought conventionally, and all those WMDs are there just so the enemy's WMDs dont get used on them...not as a "last revenge".


I personally believe that WMD might be used, everyone is different and you can't be inside the mind of everyone. What would smaller countries have to lose if they used a nuke? Both parties would end up losing. Some would lose it all and others would lose almost all.

No one would win, but I can imagine another country using a nuke. After all, America has used nukes and is the only country that has.



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I have no idea why you seem to think that Russia or the US wouldnt use nukes, if push really came to shove. Keep in mind that Russia has a longer history of being invaded than any other country on the planet (with the possible exception of France, but the difference is that Russia never surrendered, and kicked everyones a$$ who attempted it).

I do agree that ICBMs are going to become obsolete, if not already, but that has nothing to do with interceptor missles. Such weapons have had only lackluster success, and thier programs exist only as a diversion for funds into other projects.

HAARP does exist, and is in operation, and if used, would be nearly 100% effective against any incoming missles.

That doesnt mean that nukes wouldnt be used. If Russia seriously felt backed against a wall, they would undoubtedly initiate thier Final Option plan, as a final gesture if nothing else. Also, Russia isnt about to give up her nuke capability, as I am sure they have thoroughly researched our HAARP system, and have thier own scalar weapons. They probably A, have researched a method to cancel out our HAARP transmissions, or B (Russians will ALWAYS have a plan B) KGB/Spetznaz sleeper cells in the US have likely worked out plans to take HAARP out of action through covert actions.

Of course, dont think that the CIA/DARPA/DIA/ONI, ect dont have the exact same contingency plans in thier little black books.

As a Plan C, I am sure both sides have already thought up plans for employing portable "backpack" nukes in the event that thier primary launch platforms are noneffective.

Dont worry, you will never get to see an American landing craft discharging M1 Abrams at Polyarny shipyards.



posted on Apr, 11 2003 @ 07:58 PM
link   
if russia and the US went to war, it'd be because of something big. i think that the cause for war is more of cause for concern than the war itself. does anyone else agree with me. and dude with your tag in russian or whatnot, haarp has been proven as a weapon many times, it's your choice to be skeptical of the proof provided to you.

also palestine did exsist, it's just that after world war two, we had a lot of disgruntled and displaced jews with nowhere to go, so we threw them in the middle east which we knew to be oil rich, and to manipulate it to have at least one ally in war in the area, i mean look at the ties we have with israel. the palestinians are fighting for a noble cause. i ask you, if we threw all of france in your backyard would you be very happy? i think not!



posted on Apr, 12 2003 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonrider
I have no idea why you seem to think that Russia or the US wouldnt use nukes, .


but what about the year 1995? russia almost launched a topol-m icbm at america because of some weather baloon



posted on Apr, 12 2003 @ 01:38 AM
link   
I agree with you Pheonix :-)

I would like to add though that the Palestinians welcomed the Jews at first (I think they were the only ones who would take them in). Perhaps many didn't realize what they were getting into because it didn't take long before trouble started.



posted on Apr, 12 2003 @ 09:05 AM
link   
but what about the year 1995? russia almost launched a topol-m icbm at america because of some weather baloon Posted by Stranger

Oh yes, I knew about that. I never said Russia *wouldnt* use nukes, and I never said the US wouldnt either. I was just saying that nowadays, it would be over before any even left thier silos.



posted on Apr, 12 2003 @ 03:14 PM
link   
It's highly unlikely that Russia and the US would go to war against each other. Relationships between the two countries are now better than they have been in a century. Russia is embracing capatalism and the US is helping them to get the system off the ground.


Theoretically, if the two countries did go to war conventionally, the US would be the easy winner. The Russian military is NOT the Soviet military. They have a lot of trouble maintaining their hardware, let alone upgrading it to the technological standard that the US has achieved.
Somebody here said that the terrain would stop the US because it has always been a saviour in Russia's past. Not any more. Modern warfare means that vast distances can be travelled in days and supply lines are more dynamic than they used to be (look to Iraq for example).
You could also add to this the fact that the Russian military might not even put up much of a fight. Morale is very, very low in their armed forces. The generals aren't seeing the money that they used to be showered in, in the Cold War days and some troops don't even receive their regular salary.

Nuclear war is a different story. Everybody loses.



posted on Apr, 13 2003 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I agree, the US and Russia are not very likely to engage in direct warfare (although I dont think it impossible!). This is essentially due to the *next level* of MAD, backed with nuclear weapons, but the new front line weapon is going to be scalar technology. I do however see a new generation of "cold war brush wars" similar to VietNam, ect. N Korea is likely to be the first wave, with much of the Mid East being used as pawns.

I really dont think there is very much likelihood of any kind of extended conventional warfare between the US and Russia, especially that would lead to large scale military invasion and occupation of the others land. Granted, the Russian military is not in the best of shape, and in very poor morale, however, their history has long periods of invasion, and I believe Russian nationalism would be whipped up against us.

Although we have superiour technology, they have the advantage in manpower and terrain, and they do have sufficient technology to negate many of our advantages.





new topics
 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join