What happens if we end up at war with Russia?

Wrabbit2000

marbles87
Hahaha another world war will not happen. It's not profitable to have a world war just ask those involved in the last two. Nuclear war is off the table just because no one has the balls. The world super powers are in a stalemate against the people and the banks. So we are stuck here bearing our teeth at each other, and that's where it's profitable.

Those same words preceded World War I, World War II and Korea.....and were 100% totally, absolutely wrong, all three times. They were repeated and I heard them myself in 1989 for Panama and 1991 for Kuwait. Again, 100% totally and absolutely wrong to everyone who said and believed it.

War absolutely can happen...and the surest way for it to proceed is for a majority to believe it's not possible. History shows that to be the most dangerous position for a population under threat to take.

War is also the single largest profit producing industry known to man in the modern times ...so profit motive as a reason NOT to go to war is badly misreading everything about international geopolitics right now, IMO.

Super powers are not conquered via military any more. They are waged on the economic and cyber level. Only countries that don't "get along little pony" are taken by military. Building a military is very profitable using said military is very costly to resources. That's how Afganistan beat Soviets and the US, Vietnam vs USA also. Very costly to battle them on their terrain. Can't put a poor country in debt. Same thing happened with economy collapse here.

reply to post by marbles87

Super powers are not conquered via military any more. They are waged on the economic and cyber level.

Any more? When do you think World War II happened? a thousand years ago?? There are people still walking around with first person experience and memory of events, for how recently World Powers faced off for an ultimate showdown. The 2nd time in 100 years...and to add to a number of proxy wars that could easily have jumped the proxy battlefield ...carrying right into the present day with proxy fighting against Russia in Syria. That's a long way from a hot war at this stage to American or Russian people ...but that can also change fast with events. It's a story without an end.

I'm glad you're so confident SO much has changed...because the men running this and deciding fates are not of the "new high tech me generation". They're of the old school, and almost to a person among the relevant world leaders right now. Whats worse, it's a real mix of the VERY professional, cunning and experienced ...vs the rank amateurs and clowns on the world stage.

Very dangerous times.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by spiritspeak

 

I've got something of a new perspective since my September post on this thread...

Put and Russia are patient..within limits. It depends on what they want here. If they want the US to simply be sidelined while they re-take their place as a respected world power, fine...

The way I see it, the US needs to be kind to Russia to receive some real respect, but for that certain things must change otherwise there might not even be an oppertunity. For the EU this is different because of WW2 events. Many Arab countries would likely side with Russia, the same for India. I don't understand China very well yet and how South Korea and Thailand fit in the puzzle even though I have visited the latter. It was the only time I actually heard artillery fire in an actual conflict near the borders of Laos/Bhurma.

It's not that big a deal by comparison and given what fall our President has already lead us down, here? It's not that much more to add salt into the wound at this stage.

But it is a big deal because respect is tied to value and this determines gross national product, what an individual contributes to the world community and this determines their function and so their outlook for the future, their self image and self respect and someone who has enough is happy and will do more good things.

However....the US is weak and indecisive right now. That won't last. Not by a long shot. People in the world thought the US was kaput and falling for power in the 1970's too. Vietnam just ended...morale in the military was in the crapper and we had a succession of crooks, seat warmers and incompetent fools in the White House. It made the US a paper tiger and a laughable one by the time 1980 rolled around.

Do people not see a connection between events in the early seventies, leading up, about certain rights and how this evolved to present day propaganda.

Patience in Russia is real...but real limited with that 3 year timeline. Lets hope just sidelining is all they seek.

edit on 9-2-2014 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

In three years things might look very different. Still the same military assets, even better with probably more uav's and ugv's and digital warfare (remote controlled/communications) but people might view eachother differently simply because of global communications over the internet which affects the home, which affects police forces, military and then on the other side the same but not always with the same laws and goals. In this certain countries really need to talk and educate the masses.

reply to post by spiritspeak

The way I see it, the US needs to be kind to Russia to receive some real respect, but for that certain things must change otherwise there might not even be an oppertunity.

I'd say the entire breadth and width of our disagreement on world view can be summed up and totalled by that one sentence alone.

We need to be kind to Russia to get respect.....as you'd see it.

Well, it's fair to disagree. You feel kind treatment and warm intention begets kindness and warmth. I can see that point and couldn't possibly disagree more strongly with it.

Russia, in my view, respects strength. They have, literally, centuries of history to show that and show it very clearly. (History isn't a laughable annoyance to everyone in the world)

They pause on the power of others and sieze where it is lacking. Russia has been a quiet one for about 25 years now. Their total collapse and defeat in 1989 was profound and took a very long time to recover from. I recall seeing tanks, more than once, right in the streets of Moscow on live TV and no real idea how those days were going to end for the people over there.

Strength (short of arrogance)....begets respect. Weakness...begets guidance given by force of others, IMHO.

What will happen?

Millions and Millions of dead Americans and Russians and war that ends in a stalemate as neither side would have a hope in hell of sucessfully invadeing the other. USA would end up losing it status as world superpower due to the beating it would take. EU or China if they kept out would then rise to take its place on the USA and Russia shattered ruins.

whyamIhere
We would annihilate Russia in days....

Yeah another country had that same thought twice ....... It begain with a G...Germany? O and another country F...France?

Russias military has always been a shambles when it comes to operations abroad. When it comes to fighting for there homeland? compeletly diffrent.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by spiritspeak

 

Well, it's fair to disagree. You feel kind treatment and warm intention begets kindness and warmth. I can see that point and couldn't possibly disagree more strongly with it.

No that wasn't my point, my point is about money and the value of a human life through the eyes of different societies, but not literally ofcourse. The definitions of warmth and kindness might be very different and one of the two might not even be able to accept certain things. They might let it exist for educational purposes but otherwise they have already shown how they feel and it is up to the west to see this.

Russia, in my view, respects strength. They have, literally, centuries of history to show that and show it very clearly. (History isn't a laughable annoyance to everyone in the world)

Yes they do. I was surprised to find out they rescued or aided my country once, some say even liberated (the Cossacks) only two centuries ago, which is just a few generations. If it wasn't for the Americans in WW2, it might have been Russians who liberated my country, again.

They pause on the power of others and sieze where it is lacking. Russia has been a quiet one for about 25 years now.

You mean you haven't followed them for such a period. There has been lots of things going on in Russia, just like in any other country in the world.

crazyewok
What will happen?

Millions and Millions of dead Americans and Russians and war that ends in a stalemate as neither side would have a hope in hell of sucessfully invadeing the other. USA would end up losing it status as world superpower due to the beating it would take. EU or China if they kept out would then rise to take its place on the USA and Russia shattered ruins.

edit on 9-2-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

You do have a way of cutting right to the heart of things, eh?

I can't disagree tho.. In the end? We'd see both nations shattered ruins of what they'd once started as ..and ultimately, no one will have really won anything for the nations that took part. Only those outside it would remain in good standing afterward, eh?

reply to post by tadaman


Exactly,spot on!

reply to post by Thorneblood


It doesn't matter how many weapons there are per american head. They can't use them all at once.

Russia and China would not invade the US With boots on the ground as priority number 1. They Would bomb the hell out of all of the American infrastructure and Power supply first. Then they will let you suck it up. And as you americans are fighting each other for bread crumbs. They will invade With full force.

That is how i would have done it. 313 million americans without electricity and fuel that is going to stir up some problems.

Wrabbit2000


You do have a way of cutting right to the heart of things, eh?

I can't disagree tho.. In the end? We'd see both nations shattered ruins of what they'd once started as ..and ultimately, no one will have really won anything for the nations that took part. Only those outside it would remain in good standing afterward, eh?

Exactly. There wouldnt be a winner between Russia and America just losers that end up bankrupt and shatterd with a whole Generation of dead men and women.

Only winners would be those that kept out the crap storm and come out in one peace. It why the USA took the superpower spot after ww2, UK, France and Germanys Industry and econemy ended up wrecked and in ruins. USA although got involved kept its economy and industry intact. In a USA verse Russia war both there Industry and economy will go down the toliet.

Same would happen in a USA verse China or Russia verse China It would just end in both countrys death as world powers.

Being nice only works if the person you are being nice to respects you. The same holds true on the scale of nations. If the nation you are dealing with doesn't not respect you, you can be as nice as you want and it won't matter.

There's a reason why Teddy Roosevelt said "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Speaking softly means being nice, but always carry that big stick to make sure that as soon as someone thinks they can take advantage of you or disrespect you because you are weak, you can flex that stick and show them how wrong they are. Right now, no one really respects our stick. Sure, we may have the biggest, but it has been so long since we've really used it in any meaningful way that they don't respect us.

That doesn't mean we have to go out and glass everyone, but the idea of winning hearts and minds needs to go. If we go to war, we either need to go to total war or we need to not go. And we need to understand and prepare for what total war means, both for us and for those whom we are waging it against. Because we aren't willing to do that but continue to pretend to wage war around the world, we are viewed as weak and unwilling to really fight.

Note: That doesn't mean that I think we need to be fighting everywhere because I'm don't think those fights are worth total war. As Sherman said, war is hell. But we've about put ourselves into a position with all these play wars where we are going to have to fight a real war because someone serious if going to really try to take a big bite out of us. As I said, no one respects us or thinks we can or will really fight even if pressed.

crazyewok

whyamIhere
We would annihilate Russia in days....

Yeah another country had that same thought twice ....... It begain with a G...Germany?

O and another country F...France?

Russias military has always been a shambles when it comes to operations abroad. When it comes to fighting for there homeland? compeletly diffrent.

You think you know it all but you know very little about Europe. You are missing propaganda from psychiatry starting from Freud, Bleuler and those 'thinkers' (or observers and interpretors as the 'soul doctor') and how this was used in WW2, then you would get a better picture. And understand it all came from Greece, if only because of linguistics (latin/greek). Concepts like atoms for example were 'invented' more or less in Greece, by Greeks along with many other concepts used today by the West. It forks basically at some time in history between Europe/Bavarian nations and Prussia. Also it helps to understand royal families have leading thoughts and ideas and how they formed over the centuries but also how they interacted with other royal families, back to emporers and tribal kings.

reply to post by spiritspeak


Eh?

reply to post by crazyewok


I notice you don't mention Nuclear weapons any more than I have. Intentional or oversight? I'm thinking it would remain conventional outside perhaps a few isolated exchanges of low yield stuff for specific things. Likely at the outset. What I'm specifically thinking is US carriers and perhaps anything of similar high value in Russian inventories that would be isolated enough in kind to be removed and erased but not cause collateral damage for a requirement to escalate more. Losing a city leaves even a weak leader with no choice but to fire back with a good % of the inventory. Losing a US Carrier at Sea? Well.. *I* wouldn't appreciate the difference...but the current leadership doesn't view military loss the same way, in my view.

Conventionally though? Oh.. Yeah.. no holds barred and ugly as we would imagine it to be, I'd guess. At least by the end, we'd all see it within both the nations fighting.

You're right, in my view, that isolation in World War II is the primary reason the US came out as the top power and Super Power after World War II. We're the only large nation in the war that fought "Total War" for total commitment at home and abroad...but never lost a factory or a production plant to enemy action. Everyone else was being bombed into stone age production as effectively as the other side .,..either side... could manage to do it.

Geography made the difference as the quirk. It's something we'll never enjoy again, either. Everyone who matters, has weapons range now.

Not going to happen. If it did, It would be a massive nuclear exchange as that's the only thing Russia has to match us. Even at that, our warheads would strike faster and first and from more directions. We would also should down a fair number of their missiles. Conventional warfare would follow and we have superiority there, as do our allies and mainly, Oz, UK, France, Spain, Germany, Israel, Canada...I mean the wild card is China, but the would ride it out peacefully and profit from the rebuilding afterward being the real nuclear superpower afterwards. Make no mistake though, we would lose a fair number of cities. DC, NY, Denver, Dallas, Houston and LA, I believe for sure. Hard to tell if Portland, Seattle, Sacramento, Miami, Las Vegas, San Francisco St Louis, etc would make it. Some would.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I'm thinking it may change some things about the conventional ground game somewhat because now everyone knows that everyone else has nukes in their back pocket.

The big thing would be who could disable/remove that threat from the table.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yeah im thinking in a conventional sense like you wil only tactical nukes. If it was a full blown nuclear war everyone loses.

In a USA verse Russia conventional war? Only the USA and Russia lose.

USA obviuosly has the means to take the war to Russia and Russia cant really take the war to the USA. But a conventional fought on Russian Soil? It never ends well. Logisticaly its a nightmare and population wise its a nightmare. And Russians have shown themselfs time and time again to be sucidal when it comes to protecting the homeland.

Still if Russia ever developed the means to invade the USA? I think the same logistical issues would hit them and the same fantical sucidal populance.

crazyewok
Still if Russia ever developed the means to invade the USA? I think the same logistical issues would hit them and the same fantical sucidal populance.

It's a fun topic for fantasy discussions but a successful invasion of the mainland US is pretty much a tactical impossibility.

Non-conventional warfare is a different story, internal dissent triggering a civil war certainly but the idea of a foreign country being able to transport, supply, communicate and maintain a campaign on the mainland just isn't plausible.

I think many of the same reasons that make a successful campaign against the mainland US impossible also make the same against Russia not realistic.

reply to post by ketsuko


We've already seen wars and fights between WMD armed powers that didn't escalate into use of them. India and Pakistan. Israel and Syria by proxy and more directly at times as just two examples. No nukes popped. No chems slimed. They could have...but didn't...because both sides knew it would likely give the one pushing "the button" an hour to live ..maybe.. and odds of somehow surviving by pure happenstance would drop to 0 when follow on hits came to insure that lucky shot didn't happen. It's a very powerful deterrent to using those weapons, if not to war itself. (If only... on that last part). War still happened though and no one was 'just kidding' in how they pursued fighting for periods it's go on, I'm sure.

For that reason, I could see some Russian Naval assets and even far flung outposts getting erased after a couple US carriers got nuclear tipped torpedoes. Obama wouldn't go full retaliation for that and would probably sue for peace on the spot....though it wouldn't be taken up at that point. Just war-gaming here...but that's really a way I could see it going if some unknown trigger event really blew the stack between Putin and Obama in that serious a way.

As far as invasion? Putin was the equivalent of a Deputy CIA Station Chief in a very high traffic station ..and they made him their President. Not a bad move ..for a Russian.. but a bad moment to have a community organizer playing any games with a chess master.