US Would Fight Without Air Support for Weeks if War With Russia Began

I think an awful lot of you ought to get you heads looked at.Let's have a few facts. The USA has never, in modern times, had a wartime attack on its soil. Unlike Europe. The USA has never had any cities destroyed, never had it's major industrial centres destroyed. You all waffle on about our aircraft, our army etc, etc. Do you not recognise that these are US man and womens lives. Maybe 1000s of lives, bbuut, bbbuut no civilians.
What if you had a few thousand men, women and children killed on US soil because of your sabre rattling?
Oh no, you want to come over and f# up Europe again while your citizens sit at home and mourn the fallen safe in the knowledge that they will be completely safe in a conventional war.
When will you people learn EUROPE HAS NOTHING THAT RUSSIA WANTS and if it did want something they would not waste one Russian life to get it. They would just buy it. Like the Chinese are doing in the US now.
Invade, war, bollocks.

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: grey580

Hello grey580...

Russian troll???? You got some nerve, and not much of a brain..

I post an article... by a USA military magazine... and basically figure the article might be right. Then I encourage folks to read it for themselves, and decide for them selves, and "that" makes me a Russian troll...???

Only thing worse than an idiot is a toxic idiot..

Pravdaseeker

I do not have the time to list all the numbers, but the combined forces of Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States forward military bases in England/Germany/Italy would quite simply overwhelm Russia.

Russia would have initial gains in the Balkans and in some Central Euro theaters but would quickly get swamped down by the overwhelming amount of opponents in Europe.

We would never allow any aircraft to be chewed up by air defenses initially.

If there is one country to worry about in a military sense that country is China.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: carewemust

When its had nearly a trillion dollars annual thrown at it since 9/11, the idea that it "needs" "rebuilding" is insane.

That was mainly logistics.

The majority of our forces consist of platforms from the 60-80s, which has been fitted with newer systems. The B-52 was introduced in the 50's and is still flying.

a reply to: pravdaseeker

Your op sounded like propaganda.

I wasn't the only one to think so.

originally posted by: Fools
I do not have the time to list all the numbers, but the combined forces of Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and the United States forward military bases in England/Germany/Italy would quite simply overwhelm Russia.

Russia would have initial gains in the Balkans and in some Central Euro theaters but would quickly get swamped down by the overwhelming amount of opponents in Europe.

We would never allow any aircraft to be chewed up by air defenses initially.

If there is one country to worry about in a military sense that country is China.

Moste NATO aircraft would have to be on the move constantly. Its not like they would be left alone at any airport. At least no airport that give NATO aircrafts reach into Russia.

Every airport and runway that have NATO aircrafts on them would be a priority target for diffreent types of missiles.

In a pressumed war with Russia NATO aircraft would probably not find a airfield to land on. After the first few hours of war.

They would probably have to land on different strips of roads because they can not land on any fields. And on many of these roads there might not be a support team to refule and re-arm them.

After a few days these modern jets we have would have no places to do maintenance. And many of our jets would just be left where they stand.

In a war with Russia things will not be like anything we think. NATO dont work that well togheter either. There is a language barrier and a technological barrier within just about everything.

The only power NATO really have is their teamwork when it comes to political sanctions before a war actually breaks out. NATO can try and weaken and isolate Russia as much as possible. But all that will break down if a shooting war breaks out.

a reply to: spy66

Moste NATO aircraft would have to be on the move constantly. Its not like they would be left alone at any airport. At least no airport that give NATO aircrafts reach into Russia.

I am pretty sure I remember reading that has been in the preparations back in the 1980's when the Warsaw pact was still around. I don't think anything has changed since then.

Every airport and runway that have NATO aircrafts on them would be a priority target for diffreent types of missiles.

Ballistic missiles can be shot down these days. And that is the majority of their long range artillery (as it is everyone's)

In a pressumed war with Russia NATO aircraft would probably not find a airfield to land on. After the first few hours of war.

And would Russia have airfields to land on?

They would probably have to land on different strips of roads because they can not land on any fields. And on many of these roads there might not be a support team to refule and re-arm them.

Repeat thought. There has been allowance for that since the 1980's. Now can a F-15 land on a normal two lane road? I doubt it, but I do imagine there are stretches of highway here and there where it could.

After a few days these modern jets we have would have no places to do maintenance. And many of our jets would just be left where they stand.

I don't think that would happen as quick as you think.

In a war with Russia things will not be like anything we think. NATO dont work that well togheter either. There is a language barrier and a technological barrier within just about everything.

The language barrier in Western Europe is almost non existent. I would say without being foolish, that every single German and Dutch and Danish person in existence over the age of 15 can speak clear and concise English. Eastern Europe I am betting Poland is at least 50 %, elsewhere, not so good. So in some places that would be a problem. You are correct.

I believe a war with Russia would be exactly what I think, it would be terrible. Beyond belief terrible. Probably the worst war fought to date. And I hope it never happens.

I have trouble taking the concept of war with Russia seriously. Does anyone actually think Russia wouldn't start chucking nukes as soon as they started losing?

a reply to: Fools

I am pretty sure I remember reading that has been in the preparations back in the 1980's when the Warsaw pact was still around. I don't think anything has changed since then.

A lot have changed since then. Russia have built different types of missiled that will overcome our defences.

Our ground airdefence is not all that great. It is not big enought to compe with a mass attack of missiles.

Russia dont actually have to hit all our airfields either. Just the idea that they can hit our airfields will force our aircrafts to the air. You dont want your assets on a airfield that can be hit at any time. THe problem is where do they land if the airfields are hit?

NATO will use the airpower they have to try and overcome Russias air defence systems. But Russia have a more capable airdefence system in place then we do. But we will have no choice but to try and over come them.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I have trouble taking the concept of war with Russia seriously. Does anyone actually think Russia wouldn't start chucking nukes as soon as they started losing?

Yes they would. But they would use their tactical nukes on EU nations first. This will create a buffer for Russia when it comes to NATO's article 5. NATO wont be very effective with a conventional response if this is the senario.

THe US would have to step in either with conventional or with a full scale nucklear load out, or not do anything at all. The choice would be up to the US in the end.

Russia would probably use their tactical nukes on EU NATO members before a full scale Nucklear war between the US and Russia. This gives the US a choice when it comes to their reaction.

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: mekhanics

Thanks mekhanics... EXACTLY... and I didn't even mention China...

And another contributor thinks because of the great imbalance in military spending, the USA would win hands down?

Unbelievable really...Ha! So with that type of thinking, the F-35 is invincible because it cost so much??? I hardly think so...

People forget, or do not realise that John Bolton was an original member of the PNAC plan squad...

Is he in a position of power now to see this very bellicose PNAC plan come to it's inevitable conclusion?

Bolton claims he is only there to enforce Trump's policies, and etc.. not to promote another terrible war...uh huh...ok...mayyyybe, maybe not.

I posted this article because of the recent "rush to war" thinking of the west. And yes, news cycle-wise, it has been Russian oriented. The Chinese side of it all, is on the back burner this last few weeks.. The article points out just one area of many, that the USA is way behind the curve.

The Civil War had Fort Sumter... Spanish American War had the USS Maine... WW1 had the Lusitania... WW2 had Pearl Harbour, Viet Nam had the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. The honest facts behind each of these incidents are/were far from their significant reasoning for war, at the time. All were sort of like "false flag" events. Basically engineered.. except maybe the Maine exploding.. That was an onboard fault in the coal bunkers, and it got "turned around" that a Spanish mine did the deed.. and, boom, another war gets started.

Pearl Harbour will always remain a mystery too. Many solid arguments are made that it was kind of set up by pushing Japan into a corner, I.E. embargoes... and getting them to attack first. Yeah, the world was pretty upset with Japan by that time too, with what they had been doing in China, etc for a long time already. So, maybe a war was needed to stop them. They needed "something" to get the citizens "motivated" and support a war. FDR had long "conspired?" with Churchill to get USA into the fight also..

The rush to kick out diplomats has historically speaking always been a big step towards a shooting war between countries. Last count I know of is 20 countries kicked out some diplomats.. good grief, that's pretty drastic.. diplomatically speaking.

It saddens me deeply to think that the unfortunate poisoning of two ex spies in the UK is the "Pearl Harbour event" for maybe starting off WW3 with Russia. Liken it to the assassination of Duke Ferdinand and his wife, as the catalyst for WW1 perhaps?

And they honestly really can't prove that it was Russia in the first place at this time. (I am not saying it wasn't Russia..by the way, but maybe it wasn't Russia until you know for sure) My point is you (a nation) should not go rushing off to war over such flimsy proof or reasons. To commit to a big war, like one with Russia and/or China would be; one certainly needs rock solid proof.

And it had better justify the extreme sacrifice it most assuredly will bring upon the people and the planet.

It would also help if it wasn't possibly another case of the "pot calling the kettle black"... but I digress..Ha!

The video you posted does show a very regimented and precise military. They got the march down pat mate. There were some shots towards the end of that video that showed worm out soles, loose soles on boots etc...no problem.. A lot of bare foot soldiers fought in Korea too, and other theatres of war.

Sorry for the verbose reply... but your response as short as it was... spoke volumes... especially after seeing the reality in the video. A lot of folks don't realise how big China is, and it current industrial capacity... and that is with China NOT on a "wartime footing" where all is focused to winning a war.

Short but great response, thanks.

Pravdaseeker

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I have trouble taking the concept of war with Russia seriously. Does anyone actually think Russia wouldn't start chucking nukes as soon as they started losing?

Yes they would. But they would use their tactical nukes on EU nations first. This will create a buffer for Russia when it comes to NATO's article 5. NATO wont be very effective with a conventional response if this is the senario.

THe US would have to step in either with conventional or with a full scale nucklear load out, or not do anything at all. The choice would be up to the US in the end.

Russia would probably use their tactical nukes on EU NATO members before a full scale Nucklear war between the US and Russia. This gives the US a choice when it comes to their reaction.

And you seriously think the US won't counterattack with nuclear weapons when Russia launches nukes at EU member states?

No ones going to attack anyone as the Russians have home field advantage if NATO etc decide to go in and both sides know its just the same as trying to invade the USA in that the maps just too darn big to hit those areas so all the Russians have to do is keep their missile system up to a decent spec, if theres a chance the f22/35's might be visible and thus easy targetable and it might just be down to some guy sitting outside seeing a fighter and thus giving the system a lock.

Theres no value to the USA for a major world war as a cold war keeps the war machine nice and well funded and theres no dead soldiers in body bags to cause political problems.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Wayfarer
I have trouble taking the concept of war with Russia seriously. Does anyone actually think Russia wouldn't start chucking nukes as soon as they started losing?

Yes they would. But they would use their tactical nukes on EU nations first. This will create a buffer for Russia when it comes to NATO's article 5. NATO wont be very effective with a conventional response if this is the senario.

THe US would have to step in either with conventional or with a full scale nucklear load out, or not do anything at all. The choice would be up to the US in the end.

Russia would probably use their tactical nukes on EU NATO members before a full scale Nucklear war between the US and Russia. This gives the US a choice when it comes to their reaction.

And you seriously think the US won't counterattack with nuclear weapons when Russia launches nukes at EU member states?

That is the big question. Would the US sacrifice it self for their old partners in Europe? I doubt it.......

And why should they. The US can live fine without the queen of england.

EU also dont want to gamble on that either. That would be foolish of them.

a reply to: spy66

Except the only game in MAD that doesn't end with Russia losing is the fact they're aiming their nukes at the US. If they start chucking nukes EU side the US responds in kind and the EU is glassed, Russia is Glassed, and the USA is the last man standing. I have a hard time believing even Putin is willing to take that risk.

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: spy66

Except the only game in MAD that doesn't end with Russia losing is the fact they're aiming their nukes at the US. If they start chucking nukes EU side the US responds in kind and the EU is glassed, Russia is Glassed, and the USA is the last man standing. I have a hard time believing even Putin is willing to take that risk.

Hehehhehe......

Russia have placed their nukes ready to hit any EU coutry. THat was done when the US put up their missileshield in different countries within Europe. Before that Russia already have their ICBM's on standby to travel to the US if the US does something foolish.


Both Russia and the US are talking about accepted reduced nuklear attacks. THis means that the US probably would accept a scaled down Russian nuklear attack against its partners. And Russia would accept a scaled down US nuklear attack as long it is not on Russion soil.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: spy66

Except the only game in MAD that doesn't end with Russia losing is the fact they're aiming their nukes at the US. If they start chucking nukes EU side the US responds in kind and the EU is glassed, Russia is Glassed, and the USA is the last man standing. I have a hard time believing even Putin is willing to take that risk.

Hehehhehe......

Russia have placed their nukes ready to hit any EU coutry. THat was done when the US put up their missileshield in different countries within Europe. Before that Russia already have their ICBM's on standby to travel to the US if the US does something foolish.


Both Russia and the US are talking about accepted reduced nuklear attacks. THis means that the US probably would accept a scaled down Russian nuklear attack against its partners. And Russia would accept a scaled down US nuklear attack as long it is not on Russion soil.

But by what logic would the USA just accept Russia nuking all of our allies and then assume, 'ok, they're done now, we're all good here'. I can understand your point, but it just smacks of a feckless US counter-response to Russia lobbing nukes at other nations, which can only reduce our position of power in any future engagement.

It feels like it's akin to saying if Russia starts attacking our allies with nukes, we'll just let them get glassed and all of a sudden make Russia our new best friend bestest ally. From that point onward the USA would have zero allies....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Tell me where China lies in these organizations. India? Russia?

Take a look at this link
On the map about 1/4 down .

You'll see the block there , dwarfing Europe . You'll see the Middle East is halfway excluded . Turkey is under SCO membership , hence the handwringing .

The SCO seems very well organised , and worth joining , and making amends over eg Pakistan and India are both members and probably for Britain too, there would be some benfit in linking China and it's allies as it is where manufacturing power including tech is now growing from . Some people are of that opinion already , with Europe there wouldnt appear to be an issue with it ,, it would be Britains advantage over them .

What the establishments of europe's countries have done is to go with the power of America however , with the WTO , UN , and other uniilateral treaties . Meanwhile the US has since the 1950s sought to operate clandestine affairs to build Europe into one unified ally . Eg The Marshall Plan, and war debt repayments .Why 'Europe' did not make inroads to the Ukraine earlier is unknown , while there was opportunity for it after the Soviet collapse . Read further down the linked you may find how Putin announced that he would not be happy pointing Russia's missiles at the territory, but he would be forced should the West advance there , as nearly was the case . He has a point . Russia, or at least the Putin Empire has also shrugged off inroads towards power made by Western fronts such as the Kordokovsky/Rothschild affair , where the pair funded the opposition . He had their candidate kidnapped , apparently, or so the story goes ! Either way he'd disappeared by election night .

There is organisation and it can or could be effective , and it is a given that any organisation can suffer bad management .
It appears the sco has the upper hand on this front , they dont really battle so much with liberal free thinkers in those areas , but work ethics is a cultural factor instead . They have the moral high ground (read multipolar world signatories)
It's debateable whether Western leaders could would or maybe should step down from their alliance, and we know the world carries on in apparent general mayhem , but then chaos is an easy factor to define . The West does have clearly defined lines , and it is being taken seriously, while strategic flights from Russia do not serve any purpose other than to continually warn it off . Also while there is an undue amount of money and resources which flow towards the US , it's central power , which also helps determine IMF and WTO policy for examples , there would be those countries viewing its modus operandi as being subject to scrutiny , from a safe distance of course .

Of course, I have zero idea what he result would be, but know this, I won't lose one minutes sleep over it.

Who said you might ? It may be easy to sleep at night in the US , it has been that comfortable way for many years . Without wishing to create a disturbance however , the world has moved on . What good , for example , is an aircraft carrier , in the face of supersonic anti-ship missiles? North Korea has developed ballistic missiles , and be sure that they can make those work as well as anyone else can . Also , don't forget , where the thread was started , there's reds under the beds lol !

a reply to: Wayfarer

But by what logic would the USA just accept Russia nuking all of our allies and then assume, 'ok, they're done now, we're all good here'. I can understand your point,

I dont actually think many people do understand what is going on. Our media is not really covering our part of the action towards Russia that much. But we do cover what the Russians are doing towards us. This creates a missconseption of what is really going on. We are being lead to beleive that Russia is creating a threat towards us along our EU NATO borders. Ukraine in particular.

It is actually a retaliation towards what we are doing. But we seam to ignore that at all cost and our polititions are 100%. Because they have to support their membership in NATO. NATO is not just a military allience. Its a political entity as well that is why our polittions are playing along with all this bull# we are being fed through our media. It is a political game so far.

.....................................................

It is probably not one American now who knows who is supporting ISIS. But does it matter? No.

In Syria it is no longer ISIS who is our problem..... it is the Russians, Iran and Assad. If you fallow the UN meetings you know very well who the US spokeswomen is clandering. She blames Russia and Assad for every bad thing that takes place in Syria. But non of us care to think about what we do there, and who we support. The reason for that is because we are part of a team...a side in this conflict. You cant deny that........

....................................................................................


Our military leaders know all about tacticks and how tactick work when it comes to Russia. We have simulated their pressumed repsons a 100 times. And we know that Russia can take out all EU NATO members ability to respond properly in a conventional war. Russia can overrun EU NATO members within 36 hours with just conventional missile assets. It is simmulated.....

This creates a problem for the US to uphold their artical 5 respons when it comes to a conventional response. Russia dont need to invade EU NATO mebers to keep them pinned down. Russia have missiles and very long range missile artillary to keep EU NATO members pinned down. Russia also have assets to keep the US from being able to acces EU NATO mebers with a proper conventional support over seas. The US would have to fight their way over the Atlantic both at sea and in the air.

Russian subs dont only carry cruise missiles they also carry sea to air missiles that can take down our air assets. Transporting US tropps and accets to EU NATO members will not be a walk in the park. THey would be challenged.

THe other issue is US landing spots with in EU NATO states. Where would US support be safe from Russian attacks?


The problem with NATO is its EU memberstates abillity to respond to a russian attack. And its abillity to defend it self from a Russian attack.

Dear ATS Readers, Writers,

a reply to: moebius

Thanks Mobius, I think..LOL.. Good grief.. MR Propaganda??? Ha! Kinda harsh there mate.

I just posted the news article.. but thanks for your input regardless I suppose.

The Soviet Union lost over 80000 tanks in WW2 compared to about 20000 german losses. That is a ratio of one to four.

By the way any tank turret can be shredded to pieces if you know where to hit. There are tons of videos of Russian tanks being taken out by all kinds of missiles.

That is kind of what I mean... how many lame F-35's... is the USA gonna have for example? China and Russia certainly have the output capacity to probably get a better than 4 to 1 ratio established..in whatever weapons system..

They may have lost 4 to 1 in tanks, but at the end of the day, they still won. USA's manufacturing capacity has been dismantled in large part, boxed up and been sold to China, for example. The USA, for example doesn't have even one lead smelter still functioning. Kinda hard to make bullets without a little lead..

On the Russian tank video's... mobius, I was "mentally" inferring to the new types of tanks Russia is cranking out, and replacing/enhancing older tank stocks with. Sorry, that is my fault for not being specific on meaning the "brand newies" vunder veppins from Russia. As in the new T-14 Armata line of war machinery. And the new T-90M types.

If you know of videos showing these newer tanks being shredded, please post the link, I would be most interested in seeing them.

The point I so poorly was trying to make is I think the American tanks, although perfect for Desert Storm, aren't so bloody fantastic in todays war scenario's and newest anti-tank defence capabilities.

It seems a frantic rush to war is going on. Well, to me anyhow..it seems as history repeating itself..or at least "rhyming" real good with events of the tragic past historically.

I don't think two big oceans will protect, or offer much protection for America in the "next" world war; as it did during WW2. Thus allowing the long precious time needed to "gear up" with mono-wing high speed fighter planes, massive Navy and support fleet, build an army from scratch almost, etc, etc.

To pick a conventional warfare tactic without the stick being "obviously" big enough to win with.. seems almost suicidal.

As one poster said... that the situation would probably rapidly get to where someone felt the need to shoot off a nuke, or several.. to fight the war with. And, sadly, this writer is probably right. With what I read as quotes from various leaders, and generals on all sides of the issues; they all seem to mention nuclear weapons almost "flippantly" at times.

When things get too crazy..

It is like the worlds nations are individuals in a crowd. This crowd of people is closely standing/crowded around and watching this "amazing" 2 headed juggler daredevil who juggles "dozens" of live hand grenades all at the same time!

This 2 headed juggler has a body whose one side is composed of the "west" mindset and side of the fence. The other half of this amazing juggler is the "east" mindset, and side of the fence..each half composed of many nations and tongues.

All it is going to take is for one half of this amazing juggler to drop one of those juggled live hand grenades.. I.E. Ukraine, Crimea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Russia, China, Taiwan, Africa, far east Pacific island "disputes", freedom of the seas cruises, probing spy plane flights, flying nuke bombers up to others borders to test their defences, etc, etc the list is long mate...

Too many bloody things being juggled these days, the 2 headed juggler is going to drop one of the grenades, and it will "take out" the crowd of nations watching with it's explosive destruction when WW3 gets started for some crazy reason.

Surely this 2 headed juggler knows that if one of "the balls" are dropped, it will take out the juggler as well.

In the meantime these two seperate heads are going off at each other like "mad chooks"... Arguing, tweeting, speeches, verbal slurs, false accusations... madder and madder at each other..while deep down secretly each head would love to take over the other half of the juggling act, and do away with the then un-needed extra head.

The more these 2 heads distract one another with their squabbling; the odds of a juggled hand grenade being dropped increases by magnitudes, in my opinion.

Weird analogy I know, but it works for me, for today..Ha!

Pravdaseeker