NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, I KNOW the Cold War ended over a decade ago, but it's not like Russia just drop down and died. Russia has been re-building it's army, and now they are building new nuclear weapons. Now while it is highly unlikly the U.S. will go to war against Russia(its more probable we'll go to war with China), there are certain...situations where a war(or at least small confrontation) could occur(looks nervously towards situation in Ukraine).

INFO ON NATIONS:

United States of America

Official language None at federal level
English de facto nationwide
Capital Washington, DC
Largest city New York City
President George W. Bush
Area
- Total
- % water Ranked 3rd
5,984,685 sq. miles (9,631,418 km²)
4.875%
Population
- Total (July 2004 est.)
- Density Ranked 3rd
293,027,571
49/mi² (32/km²)
Independence
- Declared
- Recognized Revolutionary War
July 4, 1776
September 3, 1783
GDP

- PPP
per capita
- Nominal
per capita
2003

$10,871,095 million (1st)
$37,352 (2nd)
$10,881,609 million (1st)
$37,388 (6th)
Currency US dollar ($)
Time zone UTC -5 to UTC -10
National anthem "The Star-Spangled Banner"
Internet TLD .gov .edu .mil .us .um
Calling Code 1

Military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Military)

Russian Federation

Official language Russian (among many others in political subdivisions)
Official script Cyrillic alphabet
Capital Moscow (Moskva)
Largest city Moscow
President Vladimir Putin
Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov (Michail Fradkov)
Area
- Total
- % water Ranked 1st
17,075,200 km²
0.5%
Population
- Total (2003)
-Density Ranked 7th
144,526,378
9/km²
Independence
Dates Russia Day: June 12, 1990
Finalized: December 26, 1991
GDP (PPP)
- Total (2003)
- GDP/head Ranked 9th
$1.287 trillion
$8,900
Currency Ruble (RUB)
(RUR - obsolete)
Time zone UTC +2 to +12
National anthem Hymn of the Russian Federation
Internet TLD .ru (.su is still reserved by the RF)
Calling Code 7

Military (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_military)

___________________________

Just for the record, there are no "rules" per se. Think of it as both nations are going all out, but trying to refrain(but not ruling out) from the use of Nuclear Weapons. Their allies can (but don't have to) help them.

*grabs popcorn, sits on front row*

Russia! Russia!

george bush is too stupid to go to war with russia. anyone catch the debates? he said putin is doing a good job

Russia has neither the numbers nor the technology or money... The US would probably win in case of a confrontation (but luckily the chances of such a confrontation are very low). I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to use nukes, not even George W. Bush is THAT stupid.

*grabs popcorn, sits on front row*

Russia! Russia!

*puts marshmallows on sticks, hands one to Legless *

Make sure you face in the direction of the flash, Legless...

nuclear annihilation.
its gonna happen sometime.



ban the bomb.

As a native-born Russian who lived there until 1991, I can assure you that the US would win. Russians, while proud and strong, don't have the technology or the training anymore to defeat the US. Even throughout the cold war, Russia was behind. America just never realized how far ahead they were...hense the "scare."

And don't take nukes into account. No one outside of terrorists would use them.

anyone catch the debates? he said putin is doing a good job
Besides the fact that he happens to be a personal friend with Putin, the Russian president really isn't doing too poorly of a job. It's just that he's doing well the same way Hitler did well, helping the country through fascism.

nuclear annihilation.
its gonna happen sometime.
ban the bomb.

Hmm. It's such a popular item, and so many countries want one, I don't see how you could possibly ban it. On the other hand, suddenly using all of them at once would probably give better results.

*puts marshmallows on sticks, hands one to Legless *

Make sure you face in the direction of the flash, Legless...
mmmm popcorn and marshmallows... my favorite food

*wears a moustache*
Russia! Russia!

Besides the fact that he happens to be a personal friend with Putin, the Russian president really isn't doing too poorly of a job. It's just that he's doing well the same way Hitler did well, helping the country through fascism.
I wouldn't call Putin a fascist, but he did claim it was 'a great day for democracy' when his puppet party gained the two third majority necessary for being able to amend the constitution (and the elections weren't exactly fair either).

Who would have thought 10 years ago that a President of the United States would be the personal friend of an (ex-)KGB agent?

Yo yo YO!

Don't turn this into "Well George Bush sucks" thread! It's about IF there was a war! Not who rules who!

If USA would attack, both would die. Just before Putin commit suicide, he would send all nukes on USA. After all, he's a former KGB. There doesnät seem to be a democrachy in Russia. Putin has too much power.

Putin is supporting the pressident of Ukraine, who cheated his way into office. A former KGB agent tried to assasinate the true president. Wouldnät be surprised if that former KGB agent was one of Putin's pals under the cold war.

Who would have thought 10 years ago that a President of the United States would be the personal friend of an (ex-)KGB agent?

Right after I heard that a President of the United States had soaked one of his cigars inside one of his interns.

Right after I heard that a President of the United States had soaked one of his cigars inside one of his interns.
who cares and who cares?

EDIT: Russia! Russia!

when will it start?

" Don't turn this into "Well George Bush sucks" thread! It's about IF there was a war! Not who rules who! "


George Bush does suck. Enough said.

" Don't turn this into "Well George Bush sucks" thread! It's about IF there was a war! Not who rules who! "


George Bush does suck. Enough said.

...

it's people like you who ruin NON-PARTISAN threads like this.

Well, Lightning, give us a blow by blow CNN account of how you see the war going down then.

Well...i don't think that ANYONE besides terrorists wuold use nukes....nobody.....it is basically mutually assured destruction if you do happen to use them.....In a ground war, US would surely win....in an air war.....US would win, but it would be fun to watch....idk about russia's naval caoabilities, but i doubt thatg theh have much to match the triton subs....

Putin is gorby with a cooler name and without the hammer and sickle....;)

Hmm. It's such a popular item, and so many countries want one, I don't see how you could possibly ban it. On the other hand, suddenly using all of them at once would probably give better results.
something of that destructive magnitude should not exist - not just ban the bombs but desrtoy and disarm them. I dont know how (wish i did) but a concerted world effort should be made towards this goal. that's what i think anyway.
think about this: how many scares/near misses have we had (the world) since the invention of the bomb. Since July 16, 1945, lets say a 60 year period there has been:Hiroshima and Nagasaki of course, The Cuban Missile Crisis, numerous and continued scares in the Cold War, the War on Terror and the threat of 'suitcase bombs', numerous others relating to the use of nuclear weapons (cant think of any more right now).

Also its worth noting that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were devastating (killing circa 195,558 people) but only had a yield of 13 kilotons of TNT. Nuclear weapons are being improved all the time, with a 58 MEGAton warhead tested in 1962 by the USSR. At the end of the Cold War, the USSR and the USA had over 10,000 nuclear warheads, of similar capacity, each.

Sorry - i try not to shove my views down other people's throats, but ill make an exception for this issue. As the British strategist Basil Henry Liddell Hart commented: “with the advent of atomic weapons, we have come either to the last page of war or the last page of history”. From the evidence, war has continued. There have been threats of nuclear weapons use. They will spell the end of history.


Yes, the United Nations ruled in July 1996 that the use of nuclear weapons in warfare was contrary to the rules of war, except in “extreme circumstances”, but this is not enough imo.

" Don't turn this into "Well George Bush sucks" thread! It's about IF there was a war! Not who rules who! "


George Bush does suck. Enough said.

You suck. Get out of this thread. 'nuff said.

My worry is that when Russia is losing they would use their tactical nukes to slow the advance of the armies or as a weapon to destroy cities well behind the lines to try and disrupt lines of supplies, and that from there more nukes would fly...and if not a total armegedon the cost would be horrendous in lives and property...

Then again maybe thats what would be needed to make it obvious to the human race that these weapons are just too destructive to have around....then on the other side of the coin they give a great reason not to get into an all out war in the first place...so maybe we need a few of them around just to keep egomaniacs in place....

After all...like one person said "Even Bush isnt that stupid"...I dont think he is stupid...but from someone who does think he is ... it is a valid point....Only a madman would think he could win an nuclear war...and the greater nations tend to weed these yahoos out of the running fairly low in the political process...Look at Pat Buchanan or David Duke or Ralph Nader....not that I think Nader is mad but I felt I had to add a liberal type just to balance the listing.....I am sure there are a large number of extreemists on both sides of the fence that have no bussiness being anywhere near the nuclear button.

Be well

No-one would win. Many lives would be lost.

Who is the Missile Defense Shield supposed to defend George Bush from? Nobody had any plans for a new arms race until this zombified resurrection of the old Strategic Defense Initiative came into being.

Now Putin and whoever's in charge of China these days wants to play one-up. This second cold war is, incredibly, going to make even less sense than the last one, as the only realistic potential threats the US will face are the systems being put in place in response to MDS.

It's utterly ludicrous.

something of that destructive magnitude should not exist - not just ban the bombs but desrtoy and disarm them. I dont know how (wish i did) but a concerted world effort should be made towards this goal. that's what i think anyway.
<snip>
Yes, the United Nations ruled in July 1996 that the use of nuclear weapons in warfare was contrary to the rules of war, except in “extreme circumstances”, but this is not enough imo.

Unfortunately you can not put the genie back in the bottle...the knowledge that they work is out there and what type of materials ( Uranimum, Plutonium ) you need to make them... even if the particulars of the construction are closely guarded secrets if you have enough money for the scientists and the materials and enough time you can have your own nuclear arsenal....

Still think it wouldnt be a total Armegedon....but bad enough that I dont think you could say anyone "Won the War"....

Hoping you and I never see that particular type of flash....even if Legless is wanting to toast marshmellows in a whole new way.... :)

Be well

Well, Lightning, give us a blow by blow CNN account of how you see the war going down then.

I presume you are talking about the Russia-U.S. War?

If so, here what I think.
Map o' Ukraine:
http://go.hrw.com/atlas/norm_map/ukraine.gif

Lightning's Ukraine Scenario!(Dun dun dun...):

After the re-count of the Ukrainian Elections, Viktor Yuschenko turns out to be the leader. East Ukraine, which had been saying it would leave Ukraine if he won, surprisingly actually DOES leave Ukraine on January 4th, 2005. Russia, not exactly happy with the results of this election, decides that one united Ukraine that's pro-Russia is better than half of Ukraine that's pro-russia, so they arm the East Ukrainian Forces and send 20,000 Russian Soldiers to the East Ukraine-West Ukraine Border. On January 23rd, 70,000 East Ukrainian and 20,000 Russian Forces storm the border, and by January 27th they have captured Kiev and 90% of West Ukraine.

The U.N, NATO, and the E.U. are not happy with this, and demand that Russia leave Ukraine. Russia responds by showing false information and claiming that West Ukraine was a threat to their nation(hey, if the U.S. can make fake documents why can't Russia? They have the KGB, after all.) The U.S., seeing that this is VERY bad, decides to send 5,000 U.S. Marines to West Ukraine. The Entire E.U. and NATO decide that Russia's act of agression has gone too far, and 10,000 E.U. and 3,000 NATO Forces are deployed to the region. Also, the U.N. decides to send 15,000 Peacekeepers to the area also. By February 17th, 33,000 Pro-west ukraine forces have been deployed to West Ukraine. Russia shows that it is not afraid by sending and extra 30,000 Russian Troops to the area. The allied forces, situated around the city of L'viv, begin to come under Russian and East-Ukrainian Artillery and aircraft fire. The Allies respond by bombing Russian and ally posistions with their combined airforces(which are much more powerful than the Russian Airforce). During this time, an additional 2,000 U.S. Marines are deployed to the region, as well as 5,000 Polish Troops(One of Ukraines most powerful neighbors)

On March 3rd, the Allied Forces (Now numbering 40,000 strong) break out of the L'viv area and begin a quick push to knock the Russians out. There is a fierce battle around the city of Rivne with the allies suffering 4,000 casualties and the Russians 9,000 , but most of the advance is met with little resistance. The West-Ukrainians flock to their banner, and thousands of partisans begin to rise up against the Russian Invaders. By March 20th, the Allies have liberated everything west of the Dnieper River. The East-ukrainian and Russian defence crumbles in the face of the wave of Allied Troops, and on April 12th, after a fierce battle in and around the city, Allied Forces raise the Ukrainian Flag over the city of Donets'k.

Battles

Russian Advance: January 23rd to February 23rd
Battle of KievJanuary 24th(West Ukraine vs. East Ukraine and Russia)Victor: Russia

Battle of SambirJan 26th(U.S. Marines vs Russia)Victor: Marines, although forced to withdraw due to overwhelming enemy numbers

Battle of L'vivFeb 16th- March 3rd(Allies vs. East Ukraine and Russia) Victor: Allies

Allied Liberation:
Battle of SarnyMarch 7th(Poland vs. East Ukraine)Victor: Poland
Battle of RivneMarch 12th-14th(Allies vs. Russia)Victor: Allies
Battle of OdesaMarch 22nd(West-Ukraine vs. East Ukraine) Victor: West Ukraine
Battle of Donets'kApril 2nd-April12th(Allies vs. East Ukraine and Russia) Victor: Allies

Casualties

Russian Side
Russian Casualties:
KIA:5,383
WIA:12,209
MIA:262

East-Ukrainian Casualties:
KIA:14,293
WIA:23,490
MIA:1,293

Pro-U.S./Allied Side

U.S. Casualties:
KIA:954
WIA:4,383
MIA:3

E.U. Casualties:
KIA:1,293
WIA:5,282
MIA:7

NATO Casualties:
KIA:438
WIA:1,393
MIA:1

U.N. Peacekeeper Casualties:
KIA:3,291
WIA:6,393
MIA:23

Polish Casualties:
KIA:124
WIA:473
MIA:0

West-Ukraine Casualties
KIA:22,483
WIA:32,419
MIA:5,493
______________
Victor of Entire War=Allies

Stalemate, stand off, however you want to put it. Both could leave the world in a nuclear winter. Only way to win is not to play. It's a lose, lose situation.

Stalemate, stand off, however you want to put it. Both could leave the world in a nuclear winter. Only way to win is not to play. It's a lose, lose situation.

Not exactly.

What if it's a war on neither countries territory, like my situation in Ukraine?

It would come down to nukes if it were in each other's home territory, but these days a war like that would be HIGHLY unlikely.

Not exactly.

What if it's a war on neither countries territory, like my situation in Ukraine?

It would come down to nukes if it were in each other's home territory, but these days a war like that would be HIGHLY unlikely.

Americans would win air and probably by sea. Russia would win in troops.. simply put the Russians way out-number the Americans. I still don't see a winner.

Besides the fact that he happens to be a personal friend with Putin, the Russian president really isn't doing too poorly of a job. It's just that he's doing well the same way Hitler did well, helping the country through fascism.

Fascism? Communism, surely. Mind you, at a certain point they stop being so different and merge into one. Anyway, armeggedon seems most bloody likely. :mad: However, as this is purely hypothetical...

Well first of all, nukes will not be used. now really think about it, i know the U.S. wouldnt use nukes but why would russia use then. if your going to end up dead then whats the point of using them. second of all i think the U.S. would win if we fought.

Americans would win air and probably by sea. Russia would win in troops.. simply put the Russians way out-number the Americans. I still don't see a winner.

#1 Im not sure about your Russias army is bigger thing. Show me a trustable source(I.E. Wikipedia) and I'll believe ye.

#2. Numbers mean NOTHING! For example, the U.S. In the first Iraq War went up against an army many times it size. Winner? The United States. Why? Because the U.S. Army is WAY better trained. The U.S. Army is also WAY better trained and armed than the Russian.

#3. Do you think that both nations would send all of their troops to fight in Ukraine? Highly doubtful. Probably just a fraction

#4. The U.S. has ALOT more allies. Seriously.

#5. If Russia is the agressor,(which is probably what will happen), then the U.S. will have the backing of the world.

The US wouldn't go to war if Russia tried to take back the Ukraine...

The US wouldn't go to war if Russia tried to take back the Ukraine...

Yes it would.

Why?

Because Russia will have invaded a sovereign country against the wishes of the entire world. Also, the western world has alot riding on Ukraine. It would also be like a balkans situation. A few thousand U.S. Troops with a helluva lotta NATO and EU troops. And U.N. Troops.

bump

In a nuclear war between the US and Russia, Russia would win. As in the US would be more irradiated and more Russians would be left alive.

In a conventional war, NATO vs. Warpac. NATO would win. The Russian military cannot sustain an attack long or deep enough into Europe to avoid being bogged down and chewed up.

In a nuclear war between the US and Russia, Russia would win. As in the US would be more irradiated and more Russians would be left alive.

In a conventional war, NATO vs. Warpac. NATO would win. The Russian military cannot sustain an attack long or deep enough into Europe to avoid being bogged down and chewed up.


Actually, think of it this way. More Americans would die FIRST, but withing a few weeks the massive amounts of radiation and stuff left of from the thousands of nuclear weapons needed to destroy America would slowly engulf the entire planet, killing the Russians as well.

Think of it as revenge from the afterlife ;).

#1 Im not sure about your Russias army is bigger thing. Show me a trustable source(I.E. Wikipedia) and I'll believe ye.

#2. Numbers mean NOTHING! For example, the U.S. In the first Iraq War went up against an army many times it size. Winner? The United States. Why? Because the U.S. Army is WAY better trained. The U.S. Army is also WAY better trained and armed than the Russian.

#3. Do you think that both nations would send all of their troops to fight in Ukraine? Highly doubtful. Probably just a fraction

#4. The U.S. has ALOT more allies. Seriously.

#5. If Russia is the agressor,(which is probably what will happen), then the U.S. will have the backing of the world.

Well, I think it would also depend on where the war was fought. If it was for example in Europe, I think Russia would have the edge. Also don't forget, the Americans don't have a whole lot of friends left in the world. It would be interesting to see who Europe would actually side with. Given Russia is not the same threat to democracy they once were.

However in reality, I can't see at least at this point in time why they would go to war at all any way. I know it's a hypothetical question. However I don't think you can really give a straight forward answer on who would win without specifics. There would be so many factors in play.

Americans would win air and probably by sea. Russia would win in troops.. simply put the Russians way out-number the Americans. I still don't see a winner.
Still, no nation has ever won a modern war without air superiority. On top of that, Russia, Central Asia and Eastern Europe are filled with planes (as in the flat land, not aircraft), so bombing should be easy. Also, compared to the US, Russia has a navy that is good only as a coast guard, and is nowhere near where it was.
But if ground troops become a problem, I'm sure that many Europeans would back the US, and at least fend them off. But even if no one did, the US still has a decent-sized force left over in Germany.