What happens if we end up at war with Russia?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by devildogUSMC
 


Mutually assured destruction. That's why there wont be a war (we hope).




posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
We would annihilate Russia in days....

They are a shell of the former Soviet Union.

"Russia is a tiny Country".... Barrack Obama .



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   

dellmonty

gotya


Russia doesn't want

won't

start a war

with the

USA


This may be true,but they won't back down either.Look on youtube at the many video replies and responses russia has given.And it sounds as though they are pushing back.


maybe but i hope it doesn't happen.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by devildogUSMC
 


Don't kid yourself. The US has always had battle plans with Russia on the table. They are always ready for anything.

The US being spread out could be a plus for US forces. Being spread out would allow the US to attack multiple fronts.

Yes, it leaves the homefront vulnerable, but the military would still carry on. There would be no winners in that kind of conflict.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Thorneblood
 


And there is this as well.



Actually pretty realistic



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   

devildogUSMC

What happens if we end up at war with Russia?


We call the ones we love, and tell them so.

We make peace with our gods, and forgive those who weve held grudges against.

We let go of fear.

And we watch the world end.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
America would prevail and suffer only modest and acceptable civilian casualties of no more than ten to twenty million killed. Tops! Watch the movie Dr. Strange Love for more details.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   

openminded2011
reply to post by devildogUSMC
 


Mutually assured destruction. That's why there wont be a war (we hope).


Exactly.

Who wins?




posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by openminded2011
 


"Mutually assured destruction",, ya for one hour apparently,, cause i figure thats a bout how long,, unless new borders were agreed too before hand.
what do u think they talked about at the G8.??
ohh another popular topic "what the hell is this Damascus prophesy thing???" un-quote,, i heard.a finacial $$$ type.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   

whyamIhere

"Russia is a tiny Country".... Barrack Obama .


That quote alone scares the bejesus outta me.

He probably believes it.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by devildogUSMC
 


I agree, the US has NEVER looked so inviting as a target for a formal military.

We are indeed spread way too thin. Where I disagree is that we are ultimately defenceless. You may not have said such, but it is to be understood. We could not repel a land invasion into the US by a medium sized force.

Not initially. We could however turn all our industry into a war machine that would dwarf that of the WW2 era.

If a land invasion were to happen in the US and certain assets were to be lost to them the situation would look dire, though the whole continent would be a second Asia /Russia to the invading army. Any territory gained in a short time would be lost over a period of months. The invading force would be involved in a game of severe attrition. A heavily armed populace brimming with highly trained ex military and security forces.....that is one hell of an uphill.


All that said,
Russia would not need to attack the US. The UN would be the mechanism used. Russia may in this scenario take the lead, and a Russian general would be in charge of the forces given to him for the pacification of the US.

China would be their war machine and the Chinese the supply of cannon fodder. Russian special forces would be used for small critical engagements. Europe would supply the air power, though I would guess that it wouldnt be European pilots.

In this hypothetical situation the UN would be used as a mechanism to organize the military forces against the US. In the US our own government would bail and a provisional government would be the enemy. The first real government we would have in the last 100 years or so.

If the US were to lose this war, we would be divided into military zones of governance with a Russian general at the helm. The US would then be organized according to Agenda 21 plans as a wild life reserve and serve as bread basket to the world. In essence we would be disarmed and made to revert to our agricultural roots.

Only a fraction of the population would be necessary so the war before the fall would be drawn out artificially until our numbers were reduced.

Our own present government would be reinstated shortly after our pacification as per the rule of agreement between all world power. You take the country and the people but you cant touch me and my blood line. End of story.

Now, Do I think that will all happen. NO. Because anything planned is as good as a child´s bed time story. You could literally wipe your butt with the paper it is written on when everything changes as per "life".

What I think will happen is that Russia will take a more favorable light in world affairs. They were allowed to clean up every instance of their black market arms sales in the middle east for example. The US was not. Hence why we wanted air strikes. We are going to be made into something ugly and repulsive to the world.

Then perhaps the UN will take on an Eastern European direction. Wealth will flow there and the interests protected will surround that area of influence.

I say good. Russia can have the big boy seat. They can also pay the price for world leader. Lets see how the Russian and Chinese century turns out.....lol

The US needs a couple hundred years "vacation". We need to pull a "UK", and just grow a little spiritually without the empire behind us calling us to arms or sacrifice.

I dont know if that was what you were looking for, but thats what I say.




edit on 9 12 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by devildogUSMC
 


In a conventional war Russia and America wouldn't be a well matched fight. American military assets are positioned around the world to engage multiple targets with 12hrs notice. There were rumoured to be secret bases in Afghanistan, if true then America knows what the Russians are up to and are fully prepared for an assault or an assault of their own. If you really think about this then there is only one option for a ground based attack on the U.S. and that's through Alaska. A build up of Russian troops would be all over intel' reports. One more thing to keep in mind is a strike from the Russians in Alaska would be reciprocated by EUCOM on Moscow. Not a good sign in my opinion.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   

whyamIhere
We would annihilate Russia in days....

They are a shell of the former Soviet Union.

"Russia is a tiny Country".... Barrack Obama .



Barrack O bama VS Ras Putin

should be a classic.

1914

2013

One hundred years war ,,sounds about right,, did u know Europe had Wars that lasted 100 years?.
Seems like they still do.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   

openminded2011
reply to post by devildogUSMC
 


Mutually assured destruction. That's why there wont be a war (we hope).






posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by devildogUSMC
 

Good thread devildog, this is why RAND got so many computers to use. Mine's about shot. F&S.

I'll try and keep the imps runing around upstairs with pinless grenades out of the possible options I none the less see...
a. Proxy war would grind us down even further into the mud and we'd be truly third-world for the picking... just like Rwanda. You're dead right, we can't hack the sack full right now.
b. Limited exercise with conventional weaps against the Persians. These guys are suited up too and not that depleted from being deployed all over the map.
c. When everything else fails.. and the one I'm worried about, is the US having to adopt the Zionistas' Samson Option after we're a couple of divisions backed into the corner. Everybody loses except those guys with the islands and/or nicely stocked mansions in the earth's crust.
The only people who win in any scenario are the puppet masters, because any escalation or start of military action by us will be like cleaning it with one in the hole.
It's what they've been trying to do to us for 60 plus years...
most of us don't want to think about it, but after pulling the plug on our money and our not being able to make stuff we've outlived our usefulness to them.
But like any old guy I remember what happens to your side when the C.I.C. pulls your punches for you...ain't good.



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
you cant really say it be russia vs usa
it be a world brawl for power
lots of back stabbing and random alinement between countries you really wouldn't even think were friends
russia doesnt hold us by the balls but they do have someone who does CHINA
US owns alot of money to china so imagine when china will say give it back?
they will crumble without a gun shot (dont be denial cause you know its true)
whats keeping US economy afloat? the us dollar being the world trade currency
take that away and US goes below a third world country on the economy list

so are we going to war - hell no
there is just to much to lose



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 07:00 PM
link   

gotya

openminded2011
reply to post by devildogUSMC
 


Mutually assured destruction. That's why there wont be a war (we hope).


Exactly.

Who wins?



For the globalists it is different. Not Winning is Losing.. so losing isn't losing if you make sure no one else wins.


I feel that since TPTB have been spotlighted after 100's of years in the shadows, they are on uneasy footing and things aren't as smooth as they seem.

When the decision to go full throttle was made it must have been out of no options. And knowing they either make their goal or die trying.

TPTB are like YOLO... I just did that..lol



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by EA006
 


Not necessarily. If a series of nuclear explosions were detonated over the atmosphere above us, and an air drop of an initial large force were to be done shortly after on our west coast, a fortified beachhead could be secured by the invading force. There is allot of empty land in the west, more so than the east. Plenty to get lost in. There are plenty of natural fortifications at any ones disposal. Not to mention lots of military assets already laying around which are secured against civilian threats, NOT with a formal military threat in mind.

World wide US assets would be a problem for a multi pronged attack on the US main land to who ever carried out such an attack, sure. The thing is they are deployed for the conventional warfare we have been engaging with. They have much support, with not much enemy forces to account for en mass. They are NOT deployed in accordance for tactical nuclear warfare. All could be eliminated with only a small number of nuclear weapons in under 12 hours.

They would need to scramble and redeploy quickly in order to be of any use to the US mainland.

This is all hypothetical I know, but it does bring to light the disservice the US has been done by engaging in everyone elses wars. We have a highly trained and responsive military.....everywhere but home.

Our idea of homeland defence is geared around defending from a civilian force (ours), not a formal foreign military.
That just seems weak to me.


edit on 9 12 2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by tadaman
 


I agree in some aspects of your post but America is not an inviting target. People tend to forget that the U.S M.I.C isn't rag-tag soldiers with Ak-47's and cardboard armour. An assault on American turf will be met with highly destructive hi-tech weapons, advanced armour and patriots fighting for their families and homes.
If you remember a quote from the CinC himself, "The united states doesn't do pin prick strikes...."



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by tadaman
 


Dropping troops in the west? Then they would face mountain ranges. And Russia had some hard times dealing with mountains in Afghanistan.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join