posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 11:52 AM
In order to effectively answer a question like this, you have to understand that the fundamental dynamics of the two country's military thinking has
First off, too many people still see Russia in the same light as the USSR. They know they're different, but they have a hard time translating that
into active thought. Russia uses the exact same equipment the USSR did, but that's really where the similarities end. The USSR and its military of
1987 is nothing, and I emphasize nothing, like the Russian Federation and military of 2007. Therefore, recognize the fact that military strategies
have changed considerably as well.
The U.S. and NATO, in 1987, could not employ a "Shock and awe" strategy in a war with the USSR. Why? Because it would end in a disaster. Shock and
awe is not a very effective strategy against an enemy that is not only three to four times your size (maybe more), but also packs a whole hell of a
lot more firepower than you. The U.S. instead resorted to a combination of Active Defense and AirLand Battle, which were far better, if not effective
ideas, than going straight after the USSR and Warsaw Pact. In 2007, the U.S. military utilizes network-centric warfare as its new strategy, in
conjuction with shock and awe. The U.S. is now the master, so to speak. It has the advantage against any country it faces. For all of Russia's still
considerable size, economic troubles and capitalism has made it a weaker country overall. From this perspective, it seems like shock and awe would be
very effective. The weakened centers of gravity in the Russian Federation actually makes it a very vulnerable nation to attack, despite its size.
There is just nowhere near the amount of power and capability and size there used to be to control and field a massive country. Size means little if
you cannot control all of it and there are still doubts as to whether the government has effective control of the military.
Finally, and this is the one that is most important but people always neglect, why are the U.S. and Russia fighting? I say the U.S. and Russia will
fight over oil and only oil. In the 1980s, the Persian Gulf was seen as the spark that ignites World War III, even if the bulk of the fighting is in
Central Europe and the North Atlantic. It was very likely NATO and the USSR would fight over Persian Gulf oil reserves. That was when the Persian Gulf
was just overflowing with oil. Now, scientists say we've exceeded the peak in the region and with Islamic terrorism and regional instability in our
faces, we may have to begin looking elsewhere for energy. One country that has a lot of it is Russia. One unforseen benefit of the USSR's collapse
was that now it isn't in need of or consuming resources at an alarming rate. Despite the U.S. and European domination of the Persian Gulf, the
USSR's collapse helped Russia maintain its own reserves and by the early 2000s, million and billionaires were popping up all over Russia. Should
Persian Gulf oil run out or the region plunges into Hell, the world's energy future will be in the hands of Russia. Given this, it is very possible
that a war between the U.S. and Russia will erupt.
Plenty to think about. For the purposes of answering the question, the U.S. clearly has the upper hand, but a victory will result in heavy losses and
poor-decision-making could lead to defeat.