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.

 

United States v.s. Russia?

page: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 08:54 PM
link   
LOL exactly my point!!!! If it goes nuclear nobody wins. No need for this thread...outcome is obvious!!!!!!!




posted on Oct, 22 2006 @ 09:09 PM
link   
In my opinion, I believe insurgents are harder to fight than standing armies. They are like a disease and just sprout up from nowhere and spread.

Russia and the United States will never go to war with each other anyway. Seriously. If they didn't go to war during the Cold War, they won't go to war now.

I'd rather have Russia be the superpower with the US again than China, that is for sure. But it looks like China will take that seat.



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 01:08 AM
link   
If anybody thinks that the US can overwhelm/successfully invade Russia(conventionally) an capture Moscow(Iraq-Style) then they can please waltz over to the military fora and propose their strategies..

All this hogwash about Russia being totally toothless w/o nukes and their weapons being old/unreliable/WWII relics etc etc.. utter nonsense..
People forget that till the end of the cold war it was The US which was at a conventional disadvantage in western Europe and the threat to use pre-emptive nukes was a US threat..
The conventional superiority(esp armored) the Soviets had in Europe was absolutely overwhelming..

Why is this thread even being allowed in the Terrorism Forum?


too many people to name here.. But yall plz come over and lets have this talk in the Military Forum..
StellarX and Iskander amongst others are waiting..



posted on Oct, 23 2006 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
too many people to name here.. But yall plz come over and lets have this talk in the Military Forum..
StellarX and Iskander amongst others are waiting..


Actually please don't waste your time, if you don't like talking to a wall with a know it all attitude who can't be bothered with sources for outlandish claims then it's best not to come to the Military Forum to discuss such a topic.


[edit on 23-10-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 07:35 PM
link   
In a war between Russia and USA, it would be a close one, the 2 countries military wise are pretty damn close. They each got their strengths and weaknesses. But you see, I havn't seen another country's forces on US soil since the British burned down the White house in the early 1800s. Russia has been invaded many times. So, we don't know what would happen if a big strong force ended up on US soil. But anyway, I'd be betting all my money on Russia. But Russia would probably take heavy damage, too. That is NOT counting nukes. If nukes are used, then bye bye world. Lets hope it doesn't happen. I think it would be better if US and Russia became good friends. Use their power to do something useful for themselves and the world.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
I agree, we should work together to persue deep space achievements.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 08:05 PM
link   
No current country located in another continent has the logistical means, let alone to do it while under attack, to land any sizable force in the CONUS. Nor do they have a launching point, you cannot conduct a large enough amphibious assault over an entire ocean with the US military standing in your way.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Exactly...so how is it again that Russia is just gonna come over here and destroy the US? LOL. Good luck getting all that rusted @ss equipment you have across the pond to come "take over". Me thinks we will pick you guys off like ducks on a pond and birds in the air if you start sending that stuff this way.

Good luck. Thanks for playing.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Good luck getting all that rusted -snip- equipment you have across the pond Good luck.


Now, if I was the commander of the combined Russian forces and wanted to invade North America, I would immediately attack by hop-scotching across the Aluetians (sp?) and establish my primary forward base in Alaska. This would enable me to get all that equipment in place without needing to cross the Atlantic.

Not that I'm a Russian Commander...just saying.



posted on Oct, 24 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   
The Japanese tried that in WWII, which is why today Alaska is home to major US military instillations to ensure than the Great White North remains firmly in good hands. But yeah it is a better plan than sailing across the ocean.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Russia can find a way into US. Russia isn't exactly easy to get into, either. It would be a pretty close match, though, for the two superpowers. Both are a force to be reckoned with. However, in today's world, I see more Guerilla warfare coming up, rather then all out battle. Lets just hope this war doesn't happen.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Only one country has the ability to project and sustain significant military force outside of its borders and that country would be America.



posted on Oct, 25 2006 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian soldier
Russia can find a way into US.


This is doubtful, Russia has the capability to attack the CONUS, this is true, both conventionally and not, but it does not (currently) have the capability to land and sustain a sizable force inside the CONUS.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Exactly. Let Russia try to bring all their equipment over here via Alaska rather than corsssing the pond. The would be even dumber!! At least if they tried to bring it across the ocean it would be dispersed somewhat and we would at least have to work a little to pick it off the water. If they tried to cross the Bearing Straight and bring it through Alaska, well, we have bases there and to top it off all their equipment would be concentrated in one area. Dumb move. Either way, like i said, good luck getting everything over here and "taking us" over LOL.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   
Neither country is really capable of invading the territory other.

While the US may have the means to get the troops there, it simply doesn't have nearly enough troops to do the job.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Russian soldier
Russia can find a way into US.


This is doubtful, Russia has the capability to attack the CONUS, this is true, both conventionally and not, but it does not (currently) have the capability to land and sustain a sizable force inside the CONUS.


What about that strait near Alaska? Even if they could get into America through that way (not saying they can't) it's probably loaded with subs from both sides anyway.



posted on Oct, 26 2006 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Alaska would be the battleground but they'd have to win that, then from here go through Canada to get in the lower 48. Easier Said then done when the US mainland is only hundreds of miles away.



posted on Apr, 25 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Hey@ everyone...
Was going through your topic... First of all about stealth aircrafts, Russia doesnt have one presently... But it is in heavy collaboration with one of its asian ally India... India is flying its first stealth proto type by 2015... and India flying it means the Russians will fly it too...

Secondly... If ever US and Russia fights it wont start from the gulfs... it ll start from the Mid East... It ll start from India and Pakistan... India is a very big ally of Russia... And the only existence of a Safe Base and full operational Defency Unit of the US is in Pakistan... And as the whole world knows India and Pakistan are arch rivals... with full nuclear capabilities... They just need some sort of spark... Pakistan with their jehadi millitants try to piss India by a terrorist attack (already tried a few) India gets pissed... Seeks permission from US... which US will diplomatically decline... India consults Russia (big brother) over rides US permission and bombs off Pakistan with heavy losses of its own... US and Russia have an EGO clash and they they bomb each other... If its one on one... Some of US geographic land might be left... but it ll be some suburbs... rest all will be destroyed... Both the countries have enough nuclear war heads to clean an entire continent... If you put the strike rate at 50% (General cases it is between 60-75) u loose half of the amercan continent thats is the US territory...
If you look at it in a real life scenario... US will be backed by UK... And Russia will be backed by China, India, (France will go neutral)... Here you have the six permanent securtiy concil members divided in the ratio 3:2... Do the calculations yourself...
and i read somewhere "If i was in Russia i would be thinkin where to get a sandwhich from, rather than to bomb what first"... Who ever that was your totally mistaken... Sometime when you have time go and visit Russia... U ll laugh at yourself... and don give me # like you were talkin abt d beggars.. i ve come across enough beggars in d US who cant even afford to change their stinky ol underwears... (NO offence)...

So you know US might win , it would be back to the stone age though...



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Heh no one would win!!! as if one country loses the other will nuke em dead.So both would be destroyed.



posted on Oct, 17 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
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 changed.

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.




top topics



 
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join