NationStates Jolt Archive

Suppose a magical fairy came to earth and observed mankind, upon finishing it's assessing mankind it concludes that mankind is a threat to themselves and others and that leaving WMDs in their hands would be unwise so with a flick of it's wand WMDs dissappear off the face of the earth. A few days later some Russian guy finds a magical lamp, said Russian is a fierce patriot and wants to see Russia become wealthy and thrive. He wishes that multitudes of precious metals, oil and other resources become abundant in Russia and that the whole world knows about it so as to make the world jealous. As a result the US and it's allies invade in order to secure those resources and prevent Russia from becoming a threat.

(the story was just so that the only form of warfare that could be used is conventional warfare)

So it all boils down to this, in a conventional war between NATO, US and Russia who would win?

My guess is that WMDs are the only thing acting as a deterrent and that Russia's military overall is in a piss poor state which would allow the armies of NATO and the US to do a better job conquering Russia than "securing" the Middle east.

.



Netherlands.

The US, We have Sarah Palin, And she can see Russia from her porch!

He wishes that multitudes of precious metals, oil and other resources become abundant in Russia and that the whole world knows about it

'multitudes of precious metals, oil and other resources' are abundant in Russia and the whole world does know about it. Well, maybe not the whole world, but the important bits, anyways.

I think it depends a lot on what you mean by "WMD's"(an annoyingly imprecise acronym that has become way over-used). Hell, if you stretch the definition, 'Das Kapital' is a weapon of mass destruction.

Everyone dies - the end.

So it all boils down to this, in a conventional war between NATO, US and Russia who would win?
Go read some Tom Clancy.

It'd involve a whole lot less flaming (but perhaps more questionable politics).

Oh, and Russia already has a whole load of precious resources, including oil.

'multitudes of precious metals, oil and other resources' are abundant in Russia and the whole world does know about it. Well, maybe not the whole world, but the important bits, anyways.

I think it depends a lot on what you mean by "WMD's"(an annoyingly imprecise acronym that has become way over-used). Hell, if you stretch the definition, 'Das Kapital' is a weapon of mass destruction.

When I posted that I meant that they would have those resources in amounts so great that it would make the oil reserves and the mineral deposits of the rest of the world combined seem minuscule.

WMD as in nukes, long range missiles, cruise missiles, SCUDs ect ect.

Take the US out of NATO and it might be a fight worth watching. Nato would still win though.

A large scare campaign would begin to find the fairy and get her to bring back the nukes. Russia would say she's in America, America would say she's in Russia, so they fight each other to death and general nastiness prevails.

In a hypothetical situation involving a fairy that powerful, why not have a battle between God and the Devil while you're at it?

A large scare campaign would begin to find the fairy and get her to bring back the nukes. Russia would say she's in America, America would say she's in Russia, so they fight each other to death and general nastiness prevails.

In a hypothetical situation involving a fairy that powerful, why not have a battle between God and the Devil while you're at it?

USA = god. Russia = devil.

Hell, if you stretch the definition, 'Das Kapital' is a weapon of mass destruction.
Weapon of mass boring-tion, more like it.

Land war in Asia. Haven't you ever watched "The Princess Bride"? Or played Risk?

Or played Risk?
Yes. Oh, God yes.

WMD as in nukes, long range missiles, cruise missiles, SCUDs ect ect.

So basically, you're looking at a technology level that's approximately 1945-ish? To answer the question, if the only rationale for the conflict is the need for materiels, why would we bother? With a general technology level that's approximately 1945-ish, you'd need a lot less of all of that stuff, and it'd be easier to obtain almost anywhere else without having to suffer through the inevitable Russian winters and the need to 'pacify' the populace.

The answer is that no, nuclear weapons are not the only thing stopping America and NATO from attacking Russia. They also have significant conventional forces and the third-largest military expenditures in the world.

So basically, you're looking at a technology level that's approximately 1945-ish? To answer the question, if the only rationale for the conflict is the need for materiels, why would we bother? With a general technology level that's approximately 1945-ish, you'd need a lot less of all of that stuff, and it'd be easier to obtain almost anywhere else without having to suffer through the inevitable Russian winters and the need to 'pacify' the populace.

Not really. The armies of the world will still have modern vehicles and weapons only all the WMDs are gone.
For example the US will still have drones, the same vehicles and ground to air AA missiles, the navy will still have ship to ship missiles and AA missiles and the Airforce will still have air to air missiles however there's be no WMDs that wipe out entire bases and cities in one shot.

Yes. Oh, God yes.

On the other hand, Australia and South America are very easy to defend. :)

On the other hand, Australia and South America are very easy to defend. :)

Except that there's a bridge that stretches from South America to Africa.

USA and NATO would pwn Russia. They would pwn Russia so bad that by the time it was over, the country would be renamed "Bitch". *nod*

Still, like I said, if the sole rationale for the conflict is need for materials, the materials needed are much more easily obtained from almost anywhere else. War with Russia would be foolish and pointless.

Why would anyone say NATO and US, because US is a member of NATO... NATO would probably beat Russia easily, Russia is only stronger in numbers. Just give NATO a few days and they will kill the bear.

The answer is that no, nuclear weapons are not the only thing stopping America and NATO from attacking Russia. They also have significant conventional forces and the third-largest military expenditures in the world.
Also that shit is huge and there's no point.

Still, like I said, if the sole rationale for the conflict is need for materials, the materials needed are much more easily obtained from almost anywhere else. War with Russia would be foolish and pointless.

The rationale for the conflict was to see who would win in a fight. Now let's move on to pirates and ninjas.

On the other hand, Australia and South America are very easy to defend. :)
Aye, goddamn Oceanic territories always hold back my advance in the end for at least 5 or so turns :tongue:

The rationale for the conflict was to see who would win in a fight. Now let's move on to pirates and ninjas.

Pirates, hands down.

We are not talking about why fight a war, but what would happen if a war started.

Russia does have a crappy military. Their guns are far more inaccurate, can't shoot as far, planes are unstealthy and easy to bring down (Georgia for example brought down a few and they don't even have much of a military), Are by far terribly trained and equiped, have terribly loud subs, and have weak armour on their tanks.

Don't argue about their air force. It plain out sucks. Read some Tom Clany books and they will give you a good understanding. Their planes may be fast and look cool, but they have a pathetic radar system and are easy to detect, allowing our planes to see them, shoot at them, and kill them before they even know that they have been targeted or that we have a plane in the area.

Don't even think about saying that they have a good navy. Their navy is a joke. Their most common and best subs, have a loud sonar signature compared to our more silent ones. The Russians also lack a passive sonar system. This system is quite and detects things as they move, not informing the sub that they have been detected, but informing whoever operates the sonar. Active sonar just gives everything away and gives away your position like crazy if you are operating it.

In the end, Russia has a pathetic military. They spend most of their money trying to maintain their nukes and their outdated weapons. They even spend a large chunk of it trying to decomission their old crap that they always keep.

Take the US out of NATO and it might be a fight worth watching. Nato would still win though.

NATO can't really do much. They're slow and ineffective.

But after that, NATO would be able to defeat Russia easy, providing no nations drop out...

We are not talking about why fight a war, but what would happen if a war started.

Russia does have a crappy military. Their guns are far more inaccurate, can't shoot as far, planes are unstealthy and easy to bring down (Georgia for example brought down a few and they don't even have much of a military), Are by far terribly trained and equiped, have terribly loud subs, and have weak armour on their tanks.

Don't argue about their air force. It plain out sucks. Read some Tom Clany books and they will give you a good understanding. Their planes may be fast and look cool, but they have a pathetic radar system and are easy to detect, allowing our planes to see them, shoot at them, and kill them before they even know that they have been targeted or that we have a plane in the area.
...

Tom Clancy isn't actually a good source for military analysis. His books are all based on the premise that America kicks so much ass it's awesome. Yes, if you put the US and Russian armies in a big arena, America would probably win.

But an offensive total war against Russia would be a geopolitical and logistical nightmare for the U.S. and NATO. There is no possible outcome that is not bad. How do we build up forces for an attack without triggering a Russian response? What is our objective? Do we occupy Russian cities? Are America's forces equipped for cold weather warfare? What do we do when Russia shuts off its pipeline to Western Europe? We couldn't properly invade and occupy Iraq. I'm in no mood to try Russia.

Tom Clancy isn't actually a good source for military analysis. His books are all based on the premise that America kicks so much as it's awesome. Yes, if you put the US and Russian armies in a big arena, America would probably win.

But an offensive total war against Russia would be a geopolitical and logistical nightmare for the U.S. and NATO. There is no possible outcome that is not bad. How do we build up forces for an attack without triggering a Russian response? What is our objective? Do we occupy Russian cities? Are America's forces equipped for cold weather warfare? What do we do when Russia shuts off its pipeline to Western Europe? We couldn't properly invade and occupy Iraq. I'm in no mood to try Russia.

But what about Russia invading the US?:p

But what about Russia invading the US?:p

They already have, and no one noticed...teh commie Obama!one one one!

Invading Russia is a bad idea.

Seriously.

NATO can't really do much. They're slow and ineffective.

But after that, NATO would be able to defeat Russia easy, providing no nations drop out...

Ive foudn them to be ok on land. their problem is getting to the battle. Russia is right there so its ok.

They already have, and no one noticed...teh commie Obama!one one one!

So...

Now Obama is a Muslim-Atheist-Commie-black-white-marxist-unamerican-Russian?

Invading Russia is a bad idea.

Seriously.

The trick is Invade from turkey and don't go anywhere that it gets very cold.

So...

Now Obama is a Muslim-Atheist-Commie-black-white-marxist-unamerican-Russian?

You forgot terrorist.

Invading Russia is a bad idea.

Seriously.

Of course it is, but we don't have to invade Russia, merely starving the population from the outside, send in enough precision airstrikes, a few sabotage operations, they'l be begging for a surrender.

wow, i can be scary when i want to be.

Suppose a magical fairy came to earth and observed mankind, upon finishing it's assessing mankind it concludes that mankind is a threat to themselves and others and that leaving WMDs in their hands would be unwise so with a flick of it's wand WMDs dissappear off the face of the earth. A few days later some Russian guy finds a magical lamp, said Russian is a fierce patriot and wants to see Russia become wealthy and thrive. He wishes that multitudes of precious metals, oil and other resources become abundant in Russia and that the whole world knows about it so as to make the world jealous. As a result the US and it's allies invade in order to secure those resources and prevent Russia from becoming a threat.

(the story was just so that the only form of warfare that could be used is conventional warfare)

So it all boils down to this, in a conventional war between NATO, US and Russia who would win?

My guess is that WMDs are the only thing acting as a deterrent and that Russia's military overall is in a piss poor state which would allow the armies of NATO and the US to do a better job conquering Russia than "securing" the Middle east.

Before:

"Our armies are at our Zenith, while Russia's Armies are at their Nadir" - Adolf Hitler, 1941.

"And after setting up camp in Moscow, I will be welcomed in St. Petersburg!" - Napoleon Bonaparte, 1812.

"Novgorodian Rus' shall fall to us, like China" - some Mongol leader I cannot recall the name; anyways, he didn't win.

After:

"How could the Russians have beaten us?!?!?!" - Adolf Hitler, 1945.
"My only mistake was invading Russia" - Napoleon Bonaparte, 1816.
"We have lost thousands, let us retreat, and leave this mean and savage place" - the Mongol guy.

Why can't we all just listen to Bismarck:

"Do not ever try to conquer Russia; Against any military strategy, the Russians will answer with their own tactics, so stupid, that the brilliant military strategy will be defeated!"

I'll just give one example: usually if side A attacks, side B defends. Counter-attacking into the attack would be silly and suicidal, right? Well that's what people generally thought, until Kursk, when Zhukov pre-empted the Nazi attack, and later, when the attacks took place simultaneously at Prohorovka, thereby negating the Nazi range advantage, giving the USSR the manuevrability advantage, and ended with the Russians winning.

How many conquerors have Russia ruined? And yet still more wish to come. Why? That is beyond me...

So...

Now Obama is a Muslim-Atheist-Commie-black-white-marxist-unamerican-Russian?

he sounds like a very confused man. before you know it there won't be an America to fight with, it will be converted to....wait for it...
The Obamamuslimistcommunalblackandwhitemarxistrussiaforatheists!
Otherwise known as
OMCBWMA

Of course it is, but we don't have to invade Russia, merely starving the population from the outside, send in enough precision airstrikes, a few sabotage operations, they'l be begging for a surrender.

wow, i can be scary when i want to be.

Russia's top imports are machinery and consumer goods, not food. And they're net exporters of energy.

Invading Russia is a bad idea.

Seriously.
Look what happened to Napoleon and his unstoppable army. Then look what happened to Hitler and his Blitzkreig...

You forgot terrorist.
And time-traveling Nazi (reference from The Colbert Report)

Russia's top imports are machinery and consumer goods, not food. And they're net exporters of energy.

Yah, but if Russia was cut-off from business with the outside world it would slowly suffer.
and the sabotage campaigns could target energy sources in Russia. A few virus bombs and the rest is history.

Yah, but if Russia was cut-off from business with the outside world it would slowly suffer.
and the sabotage campaigns could target energy sources in Russia. A few virus bombs and the rest is history.

If America gets virus bombs, then Russia gets their WMD back, too.

If America gets virus bombs, then Russia gets their WMD back, too.

okay fine the US can send in a clone army of Chuck Norris's.
and you can't call that a WMD.

okay fine the US can send in a clone army of Chuck Norris's.
and you can't call that a WMD.
Each with a BB gun.

okay fine the US can send in a clone army of Chuck Norris's.
and you can't call that a WMD.

Sir, one Chuck Norris is a WMD. A clone army of them? I shudder to think of it.

Sir, one Chuck Norris is a WMD. A clone army of them? I shudder to think of it.

I suppose it is a bit unbalanced, hows about Russia has a clone army of jedi knights with lightsabers?
that ought to even things up a little.
okay gotta go talk laters.
remember don't do anything i wouldn't do.
:p

I suppose it is a bit unbalanced, hows about Russia has a clone army of jedi knights with lightsabers?
that ought to even things up a little.
okay gotta go talk laters.
remember don't do anything i wouldn't do.
:pThat still wouldn't be fair. The Force is no match to Chuck Norris. How about a retarded clone of Chuck Norris? Maybe an army of them. Russia probably couldn't clone a bacteria, AND THEY CLONE THEMSELVES!!! (sort of)

Before:

"Our armies are at our Zenith, while Russia's Armies are at their Nadir" - Adolf Hitler, 1941.

"And after setting up camp in Moscow, I will be welcomed in St. Petersburg!" - Napoleon Bonaparte, 1812.

"Novgorodian Rus' shall fall to us, like China" - some Mongol leader I cannot recall the name; anyways, he didn't win.

After:

"How could the Russians have beaten us?!?!?!" - Adolf Hitler, 1945.
"My only mistake was invading Russia" - Napoleon Bonaparte, 1816.
"We have lost thousands, let us retreat, and leave this mean and savage place" - the Mongol guy.

Why can't we all just listen to Bismarck:

"Do not ever try to conquer Russia; Against any military strategy, the Russians will answer with their own tactics, so stupid, that the brilliant military strategy will be defeated!"

I'll just give one example: usually if side A attacks, side B defends. Counter-attacking into the attack would be silly and suicidal, right? Well that's what people generally thought, until Kursk, when Zhukov pre-empted the Nazi attack, and later, when the attacks took place simultaneously at Prohorovka, thereby negating the Nazi range advantage, giving the USSR the manuevrability advantage, and ended with the Russians winning.

How many conquerors have Russia ruined? And yet still more wish to come. Why? That is beyond me...
historical point of order. the mongols occupied Russia for 200 years. Look up the Golden Horde.

WWI Germany kicked the teeth out of Russia and caused its collapse during WWI. And annexed a 3rd of its population.

1939 a bunch of Finns on skis raped the Soviet Union.

I hate to break it to you Russia is far from unbeatable. And on Offense Russia's performance has been sub-par, and the old stand buy of let send wave after wave of soldiers at the enemy doesn't work when you have declining and greying population.

historical point of order. the mongols occupied Russia for 200 years. Look up the Golden Horde.

WWI Germany kicked the teeth out of Russia and caused its collapse during WWI. And annexed a 3rd of its population.

1939 a bunch of Finns on skis raped the Soviet Union.

I hate to break it to you Russia is far from unbeatable. And on Offense Russia's performance has been sub-par, and the old stand buy of let send wave after wave of soldiers at the enemy doesn't work when you have declining and greying population.

WWI kicked everybody's asses. When you get a modernized nation fighting basically a feudal society, the latter's going to take some heavy losses.

The Finns fought extremely hard, and it was on their own home turf, as the Soviets were invading.

When invaded itself, Russia usually does fairly well. Invading from the west is difficult, as they can just pull back endlessly while your supply lines get longer and longer and then winter happens. This tends not to work out for the invader so well.

Invading from the east has worked before to some degree, but only really for the Mongols. This strategy calls for moving extremely fast across their sparsely populated area so that you've already conquered most of their country by the time you really hit their military. This is probably unlikely to work today.

Chuck Norris? Clearly a WMD. A whole army of Chuck Norris? That's more powerful than 50 billion nukes!

historical point of order. the mongols occupied Russia for 200 years. Look up the Golden Horde.
Exactly
WWI Germany kicked the teeth out of Russia and caused its collapse during WWI. And annexed a 3rd of its population.
Actually their collapse was more due to Czar Nicholas II's general incompetence, although 2 military defeats in a row certainly aided the Bolsheviks cause tremendously...
1939 a bunch of Finns on skis raped the Soviet Union.
That was on their own turf, the Finn's didn't invade. Although yes they did beat the soviets with a much smaller force and with obselete equipment.
I hate to break it to you Russia is far from unbeatable. And on Offense Russia's performance has been sub-par, and the old stand buy of let send wave after wave of soldiers at the enemy doesn't work when you have declining and greying population.
It is however, a good idea to keep in mind the failures of Napoleon's and Hitler's attempted invasions if you do indeed plan on invading Russia.



Edit: what is it with peoples obsession with Chuck Norris?

World war 3 is going to happen no matter what, and most likely most of us will be fighting in it

It is however, a good idea to keep in mind the failures of Napoleon's and Hitler's attempted invasions if you do indeed plan on invading Russia.

In both cases, the invaders were defeated in large part by logistics and severe weather.

In both cases, the invaders were defeated in large part by logistics and severe weather.

Exactly my point. If you are going to invade Russia, keep in mind the severity of their winters and plan for it. Do not assume (as both Napoleon and Hitler did) that you will be able to conquer them quickly enough that you will be able to use their resources to protect yourself from the Russian winter.

In both cases, the invaders were defeated in large part by logistics and severe weather.

The logistics of invading Russia are always difficult. And you can't really expect wonderful weather there, either. The Russians will be very difficult to defeat on their own turf until these stop being true.

These topics have been done to death. -_-


tl;dr, it's impossible to invade Russia/USA.

My guess is that WMDs are the only thing acting as a deterrent and that Russia's military overall is in a piss poor state which would allow the armies of NATO and the US to do a better job conquering Russia than "securing" the Middle east.




Quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read all week.

historical point of order. the mongols occupied Russia for 200 years. Look up the Golden Horde.

WWI Germany kicked the teeth out of Russia and caused its collapse during WWI. And annexed a 3rd of its population.

1939 a bunch of Finns on skis raped the Soviet Union.

I hate to break it to you Russia is far from unbeatable. And on Offense Russia's performance has been sub-par, and the old stand buy of let send wave after wave of soldiers at the enemy doesn't work when you have declining and greying population.

Umm, Russia paid tribute to the Golden Horde, but if you look up the Republic of Novgorod, you'd find out that it was actually a part of Russia not conquered by the Golden Horde. WWI - Russia was on offensive - Tannenburg wasn't a Russian city. The OP is about Russia losing on Russia's turf, that's what I have a problem with. On offense, Russia's performance is probably 50/50. However on defense, and the OP is talking about defense, Russian performance has been stellar. And Finns couldn't rape the Soviet Union, because they weren't in the USSR, it was an offensive war. Georgraphy can help you out.

These topics have been done to death. -_-


tl;dr, it's impossible to invade Russia/USA.

Very true. But then again, there are people here with a Saakashvilian view on these things.

Edit: what is it with peoples obsession with Chuck Norris?Could it be the fact that Chuck Norris is a god?

WMD as in nukes, long range missiles, cruise missiles, SCUDs ect ect.

Conventional long range missiles (which would be cruise & ballistic [SCUD]) are WMDs now?

Conventional long range missiles (which would be cruise & ballistic [SCUD]) are WMDs now?

Saddam Hussein hats were WMDs for CNN/Fox News/Economist in 2003, so why not conventional missiles?

When invading Russia, your biggest obstacle isn't the military or the populous. It's the infamous Russian Winter. If you can properly prepare for the dreaded winter months, you could probably take most, if not all, of the important targets. It was the winter that defeated Napoleon and brought Hitler's Blitzkreig to a standstill. Niether conqueror was prepared for the Russain Winter. After training enough troops in Alaska and Canada, NATO could probably defeat Russia.

When invading Russia, your biggest obstacle isn't the military or the populous. It's the infamous Russian Winter. If you can properly prepare for the dreaded winter months, you could probably take most, if not all, of the important targets. It was the winter that defeated Napoleon and brought Hitler's Blitzkreig to a standstill. Niether conqueror was prepared for the Russain Winter. After training enough troops in Alaska and Canada, NATO could probably defeat Russia.

Good luck maintaining your supply lines. American adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq had huge expenditures in munitions and spare parts, rapidly draining what were thought to be sufficient stocks to fight a major war with a first world power, and IIRC, there's a net reduction in the more complex munitions stocks versus what can be reduced.

Going through Russia would see an exponentially higher munitions expenditure, one that will see the majority of American heavy hardware grounded from lack of spare parts and ammo, if the current supply lines and production capabilities aren't ramped up.

Saddam Hussein hats were WMDs for CNN/Fox News/Economist in 2003, so why not conventional missiles?

Because we're less biased?

The problem with fighting with a high-tech army like America's is that you require much more maintenance and much more logistical support. Any sort of protracted combat or attrition would be highly disadvantageous for the U.S. and other countries with U.S.-style armies.

Good luck maintaining your supply lines. American adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq had huge expenditures in munitions and spare parts, rapidly draining what were thought to be sufficient stocks to fight a major war with a first world power, and IIRC, there's a net reduction in the more complex munitions stocks versus what can be reduced.

Going through Russia would see an exponentially higher munitions expenditure, one that will see the majority of American heavy hardware grounded from lack of spare parts and ammo, if the current supply lines and production capabilities aren't ramped up.

then Uncle Sam goes to Ford/GM and so on and tells them to stop manufacturing cars and start manufacturing munitions. Not like we had a stock pile of munitions in 1941.

then Uncle Sam goes to Ford/GM and so on and tells them to stop manufacturing cars and start manufacturing munitions. Not like we had a stock pile of munitions in 1941.

With what money?

With what money?

We will borrow it from China.

We will borrow it from China.

I don't think the current arrangement works that way...

With what money?

We actually cut a lot of the crap out of the budget, and expect people to start doing things for them selves like the victory gardens, and ration-based carpooling that we had back in WWII. We have the cash, we just spend it on generally meaningless things like giving Amtrak money, or subsidizing Floridian sugar companies and so on and so forth.

Russia vs. US?
...How many times has this been done? o_0
Invading Russia, or the US, while not impossible, is incredibly difficult, and most definitely not worth any gains that could possibly be made.

With what money?

War bonds.

Just a reminder to keep this on topic. Let's keep the Chuck Norris hijack out of here. If it continues on, warnings will be handed out.

That seems to have died off already...

Russia vs. US?
...How many times has this been done? o_0
Invading Russia, or the US, while not impossible, is incredibly difficult, and most definitely not worth any gains that could possibly be made.

are you kidding invade from Turkey Georgia, Afghanistan, and Japan. Also you capture
you avoid the cold areas so General winter doesn't kick your ass.
you pretty much cut off all their ports and their major source of trade will be over land Via china. (not enough to get in food much less other needed goods.)
Just because Russia is hard to invade from Europe doesn't mean other directions are so hard.
Take a hint from the Mongols Invasion of Russia from central Asia is easy. and can quickly capture resources.

Good luck maintaining your supply lines. American adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq had huge expenditures in munitions and spare parts, rapidly draining what were thought to be sufficient stocks to fight a major war with a first world power, and IIRC, there's a net reduction in the more complex munitions stocks versus what can be reduced.

Going through Russia would see an exponentially higher munitions expenditure, one that will see the majority of American heavy hardware grounded from lack of spare parts and ammo, if the current supply lines and production capabilities aren't ramped up.

Which of course, they would be. The US hasn't really shifted to a wartime economy where the entire industrial capabilities of the nation are solely geared towards winning the war for Afghanistan and Iraq.

You can bet that if there was a conventional war with Russia, the economy would be shifted to a true wartime one.

are you kidding invade from Turkey Georgia, Afghanistan, and Japan. Also you capture
you avoid the cold areas so General winter doesn't kick your ass.
you pretty much cut off all their ports and their major source of trade will be over land Via china. (not enough to get in food much less other needed goods.)
Just because Russia is hard to invade from Europe doesn't mean other directions are so hard.
Take a hint from the Mongols Invasion of Russia from central Asia is easy. and can quickly capture resources.I didn't say anything about geography. Invading Russia would be a logistical nightmare, doesn't matter which direction you come from.
And, please tell me how the United States would invade from Central Asia. China would most definitely object to US military forces with the strength required to invade Russia "passing by."
...Kazakhstan? o_0

I didn't say anything about geography. Invading Russia would be a logistical nightmare, doesn't matter which direction you come from.
And, please tell me how the United States would invade from Central Asia. China would most definitely object to US military forces with the strength required to invade Russia "passing by."
...Kazakhstan? o_0

U.S. military bases in Central Asia. (http://www.cfr.org/publication/8440/)

We actually cut a lot of the crap out of the budget, and expect people to start doing things for them selves like the victory gardens, and ration-based carpooling that we had back in WWII. We have the cash, we just spend it on generally meaningless things like giving Amtrak money, or subsidizing Floridian sugar companies and so on and so forth.

Also, in a fullscale war, unemployment is not a problem. At all.

The problem is Amtrak doesn't have enough money to be a truly great train system, so it will never get good ridership.

Anyway, when it's needed, the US can churn out war supplies, paid for with war bonds and borrowing.

U.S. military bases in Central Asia. (http://www.cfr.org/publication/8440/)
Each airfield houses roughly 1,000 U.S. troops and civilian contractors.So, all we need to invade Russia is roughly 2,000 Americans?
Damn, we're better than I thought! :p
A regional group led by Russia and China has pressured the United States to remove its forces from Central Asia....Did you even read the article? :confused:

I didn't say anything about geography. Invading Russia would be a logistical nightmare, doesn't matter which direction you come from.
And, please tell me how the United States would invade from Central Asia. China would most definitely object to US military forces with the strength required to invade Russia "passing by."
...Kazakhstan? o_0

China is in the far east well somewhat central Asia. to invade from Central Asia we go via the Pakistan-> Afghanistan route. If the Pakistan government objects use India. Even Bush could play them off against each other to get what he wanted.

So, all we need to invade Russia is roughly 2,000 Americans?
Damn, we're better than I thought! :p
...Did you even read the article? :confused:

Air born and air assault troops could make that number about 10k in 48 hours. the stryker brigades could be in with in a week. and heavy Armour would be in with in 6 weeks.
Air bases can land these things called planes which carry people and supplies pretty quickly at that.

So, all we need to invade Russia is roughly 2,000 Americans?
Damn, we're better than I thought! :p
...Did you even read the article? :confused:

Someone else said that the U.S. couldn't invade through Central Asia because no one would let them through. I wasn't saying an invasion force was built up right now in real life. Geez.

Someone else said that the U.S. couldn't invade through Central Asia because no one would let them through. I wasn't saying an invasion force was built up right now in real life. Geez.I said that China would object, not "no one".
In fact, all of the SCO would object.
Air born and air assault troops could make that number about 10k in 48 hours. the stryker brigades could be in with in a week. and heavy Armour would be in with in 6 weeks.
Air bases can land these things called planes which carry people and supplies pretty quickly at that.
Karshi-Khanabad Air Base is located in southern Uzbekistan not far from Tajikistan, both of them are SCO members.
Manas Air Base is situated just north of Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Located in Kyrgyzstan, which is[ an SCO member, as well.
The members of the SCO are China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
The SCO is a regional security body.
How would you propose we land an armed force of this size within an ally of both China and Russia?

I said that China would object, not "no one".
In fact, all of the SCO would object.
Karshi-Khanabad Air Base is located in southern Uzbekistan not far from Tajikistan, both of them are SCO members.
Manas Air Base is situated just north of Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. Located in Kyrgyzstan, which is[ an SCO member, as well.
The members of the SCO are China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
The SCO is a regional security body.
How would you propose we land an armed force of this size within an ally of both China and Russia?

the Sofa agreement with both the host countries allows us to send troops there. The countries are going along with the SCO with out actually using the treaty terms to get us out. they are sort of being allies of both at the moment.

And Russia and China are not in a military position to dislodge our troops in those areas.(which is why they are trying to get us out of there.) Russia supply system doesn't work well past Western Europe and with a small secondary supply system centered on Vladivostok. They just were not geared up for protecting that large of expanse between china and europe.
China's supply system focuses on the east coast. they have a singular train line to Tibet then after that they would have a considerable distance to march west.
its the reason the US simply ignores the SCO. Neither Russia or China are capable of deploying a force in the region to even be worth rattling the saber at us from or they would have done so already.

And Russia and China are not in a military position to dislodge our troops in those areas.And the United States is not in a good position to deploy here. It relies entirely on air power, and while we have one of the world's premier air forces, two small bases are not capable of sustaining a constant fleet of C-5s.

And the United States is not in a good position to deploy here. It relies entirely on air power, and while we have one of the world's premier air forces, two small bases are not capable of sustaining a constant fleet of C-5s.

that's why we have the Army core of engineers.
First plane lands with bulldozers and crew.
Also why we have Send in Airborne and Air assault units at first their planes don't need to land in order to deploy to a new theater of operations. well air assault does but its lighter equipment.

that's why we have the Army core of engineers.
First plane lands with bulldozers and crew.
Also why we have Send in Airborne and Air assault units at first their planes don't need to land in order to deploy to a new theater of operations. well air assault does but its lighter equipment. Forgive me for being skeptical of the ingenuity of the Corps of Engineers, but how long do you think it would take them to expand the air fields into a suitable size to sustain an air force that could land a force of the size needed to invade Russia with any realistic chance of success?
Too long to go without detection. Unless the Chinese and Russians are stupid. Which, by all accounts, they most definitely are not.

the Sofa agreement with both the host countries allows us to send troops there. The countries are going along with the SCO with out actually using the treaty terms to get us out. they are sort of being allies of both at the moment.

And Russia and China are not in a military position to dislodge our troops in those areas.(which is why they are trying to get us out of there.) Russia supply system doesn't work well past Western Europe and with a small secondary supply system centered on Vladivostok. They just were not geared up for protecting that large of expanse between china and europe.
China's supply system focuses on the east coast. they have a singular train line to Tibet then after that they would have a considerable distance to march west.
its the reason the US simply ignores the SCO. Neither Russia or China are capable of deploying a force in the region to even be worth rattling the saber at us from or they would have done so already.

Russian Technology + China's manpower vs. 2,000 Americans? Wow. Wait, didn't the US have to bomb Serbia into submission, because they couldn't defeat it on land? Or was that NATO? Wait, can we get those mighty 2,000 to catch bin Laden?

In all honesty, now there's so much focus on defensive warfare, that any invasion would be tough to carry out, provided that the nation getting invaded knows how to fight. Russians have enough conventional missiles to take out the US Air Force, even if only 1 in 10 hits. Remembers that in the recent Georgia-Russia War, the Russians were stellars, but the biggest threat remained SAMS - Surface to Air Missiles. And for those of you going "we'll just fly high" and the Russians will just fly lower, and destory the bombs before they hit the ground. It'll be US Army vs. Russian Army on Russian Territorry. Have fun with that - worked pretty darn well in Georgia. Oh wait, no it didn't. What was the wounded ratio there, 1 to 10? 1 to 20?

*waits to get blasted for being honest*

Russian Technology + China's manpower vs. 2,000 Americans? Wow. Wait, didn't the US have to bomb Serbia into submission, because they couldn't defeat it on land? Or was that NATO? Wait, can we get those mighty 2,000 to catch bin Laden?

Wait, so now we have to fight the Russians and the Chinese, and we can only use 2000 troops? This is getting increasingly unfair.

Wait, so now we have to fight the Russians and the Chinese, and we can only use 2000 troops? This is getting increasingly unfair.

I was responding to Greed and Death's silly point about Russians and Chinese not having the military might to drive Americans out of central Asia.

That seems to have died off already...

Things have a habit of re-occuring here. It may have died off a bit earlier, but it was a warning to not stray again.

Which of course, they would be. The US hasn't really shifted to a wartime economy where the entire industrial capabilities of the nation are solely geared towards winning the war for Afghanistan and Iraq.

You can bet that if there was a conventional war with Russia, the economy would be shifted to a true wartime one.

It takes time for an economy, and the entire industry, to shift to wartime production. Unless America does all that ramping up before going to war, it will only be able to resupply at the current rate until the industry has been geared for wartime production.

And to be honest, you wouldn't be able to hide that kind of gearing up.

It takes time for an economy, and the entire industry, to shift to wartime production. Unless America does all that ramping up before going to war, it will only be able to resupply at the current rate until the industry has been geared for wartime production.

And to be honest, you wouldn't be able to hide that kind of gearing up.

There's no telling how long such a war would last.

However, invading Russia is just plain stupid.

There's no telling how long such a war would last.

However, invading Russia is just plain stupid.

I agree that the war is stupid overall. What would the objective be? Self defense? If that was the case, Russia would already be leading the way with first strike attempts at strategic US assets, and it would be a Russian invasion. Resources on the other hand, is worth less than what you'd have to invest in to take it from Russia.

And even if you take out the nuclear warheads, they still get to keep their missiles. You might not be able to load them with nukes, but I would imagine Topol-Ms and their derivatives loaded with chemical/biological/high explosive warheads would be very powerful opening weapons to use, especially against the war industry.

that's why we have the Army core of engineers.
First plane lands with bulldozers and crew.
Also why we have Send in Airborne and Air assault units at first their planes don't need to land in order to deploy to a new theater of operations. well air assault does but its lighter equipment.

What happens when the Russian Army, seeing the writing on the wall, invades the central Asian steppes and crushes your infrastructure before you can start moving in defensive assets?

Hell, they could just bomb it to ruins safely from bases in central Russia.

Air born and air assault troops could make that number about 10k in 48 hours. the stryker brigades could be in with in a week. and heavy Armour would be in with in 6 weeks.
Air bases can land these things called planes which carry people and supplies pretty quickly at that.

Until the Russians see troops massing and shell the airbases into the ground.

Note: Before someone goes on about sovereignty, if they invaded Georgia when there was little or no threat. Then they certainly would invade an allied nation, or get the ally to intern what they believe to be hostile troops, in matters of national security.

Until the Russians see troops massing and shell the airbases into the ground.
I would think NATO still has the relevant plans sitting around somewhere, regularly updated. Basically the entire strategy was to make sure the American main forces could arrive and join the fight in one piece while there was still something to fight over. Even if the Russians were to go ape and launch preemptive strikes, that would still fall well within the parameters of NATO planning.

There was this supremely awesome documentary (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0180657/) in Germany 10 years ago. I recommend everyone watch it (http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=5019344230626951787).

Basically the entire strategy was to make sure the American main forces could arrive and join the fight in one piece while there was still something to fight over.
Yes, that's pretty much it.

The entire NATO is quite capable of making Western Europe impossible to seize intact, and not worth seizing otherwise. (Destruction is still not preventable - in this age, it's not a problem, and it's not like conventional carpet bombing wouldn't provoke a nuclear response anyway.)

The non-US part of NATO has always been designed just to win the time to let US carriers and ships arrive, that and just that. Even in the current state of Russia, it's still not designed to fight without US.

Economically, EU is undoubtedly stronger than Russia, but it would take a couple decades of gearing up to warfare, plus the terrain disadvantage would still always play against EU.

I would think NATO still has the relevant plans sitting around somewhere, regularly updated. Basically the entire strategy was to make sure the American main forces could arrive and join the fight in one piece while there was still something to fight over. Even if the Russians were to go ape and launch preemptive strikes, that would still fall well within the parameters of NATO planning.

I very much doubt NATO planning allows for Russia to wait until the full NATO task force establishes a beachhead before launching several tactical (or strategic for the lulz) nuclear weapons on their own soil.

If even one gets through, NATO loses a huge chunk of their fighting capability, and they won't be able to retaliate at the nuclear tactical or strategic level unless they want MAD to come into play since they'd be launching into Russia as opposed to defensive strikes on their own soil.

Mind you, this is still working on the OP's assumption of an offensive into Russia, and although nuclear weapons are off the table, they still have a huge arsenal of missiles capable of some really heavy payloads.

Ridiculous notion

Economically, EU is undoubtedly stronger than Russia, but it would take a couple decades of gearing up to warfare, plus the terrain disadvantage would still always play against EU.
If it comes to defense, today's EU would be able to deal with today's Russian military. Against the Soviet Union it was a tough ask, but that was why the Bundeswehr was twice the size it is today, for example. But today's Russia is still recovering from the nineties, and a lot of its modern technology isn't particularly widespread with the actual forces. Smartly, the Russian leadership isn't hurrying the upgrades either and instead spending the money where it has some purpose - the exception being the nuclear forces, which provide more bang for the buck, if you pardon the pun.

I very much doubt NATO planning allows for Russia to wait until the full NATO task force establishes a beachhead before launching several tactical (or strategic for the lulz) nuclear weapons on their own soil.
To be fair, I don't think it allows for invading Russia at all. I suppose it's likely that there would have been attack plans as well, but the assumption throughout the later half of the Cold War was certainly for NATO to defend against a Soviet assault. At any rate, the idea that there could be a surprise landing is kinda silly.

Suppose a magical fairy came to earth and observed mankind, upon finishing it's assessing mankind it concludes that mankind is a threat to themselves and others and that leaving WMDs in their hands would be unwise so with a flick of it's wand WMDs dissappear off the face of the earth. A few days later some Russian guy finds a magical lamp, said Russian is a fierce patriot and wants to see Russia become wealthy and thrive. He wishes that multitudes of precious metals, oil and other resources become abundant in Russia and that the whole world knows about it so as to make the world jealous. As a result the US and it's allies invade in order to secure those resources and prevent Russia from becoming a threat.

(the story was just so that the only form of warfare that could be used is conventional warfare)


Yeah. Still, you might want to ease off the magic mushrooms for a while.


So it all boils down to this, in a conventional war between NATO, US and Russia who would win?

Only the warmongers on all sides.


It takes 200,000 US Soldiers to try to get to grips with an insurgency and sectarian strife in Iraq.


It took between 5,000 to 10,000 Russian Soldiers to destroy the US-trained Georgian Army, and even then, they took it easy on them, even though in the initial stages in the field they were outnumbered.


My guess is that WMDs are the only thing acting as a deterrent

Many have arrogantly assumed Russia could be tamed.


Hitler thought Russia was a rotting house that simply needed it's door kicking in.


What happened to him anyway?


He heard the Russian guns boom in Berlin. He saw his empire crumble.


and that Russia's military overall is in a piss poor state


Hitler and Napoleon thought that too.



They were wrong.



which would allow the armies of NATO and the US to do a better job conquering Russia than "securing" the Middle east.



Hitler and Napoleon thought they could conquer Russia.


Again, they were wrong.

If it comes to defense, today's EU would be able to deal with today's Russian military. Against the Soviet Union it was a tough ask, but that was why the Bundeswehr was twice the size it is today, for example. But today's Russia is still recovering from the nineties, and a lot of its modern technology isn't particularly widespread with the actual forces.
War is simpler than it's considered to be. Technology makes much less difference than on the shows when it's not used in the textbook scenario, and in an actual war it rarely is. EF2000 imight be better than Su-27, but 200 EF's won't beat 2000 less advanced but still modern fighters, backed by extensive ground forces and AA network.

Plus, the distances. Europe is small - you can't throw a rock without it crossing a couple countries. Russia isn't. Every single city or facility in Europe is an easy target that can be attacked directly and destroyed within the first hour of the war. In Russia, only Petersburg and a few other cities are as vulnerable. Moscow, Severodvinsk are reachable. But Norilsk, Vladivostok, Kamchatka? Europe doesn't even have any plane or cruise missile theoretically supposed to reach that distance, much less one capable of doing it through the distributed defenses.

WWII. The Reich successfully conquers the edge of the European part, roughly the size of Western Europe, but the industry in the Urals and Asia rises up and goes steamrolling the entire continent, stopped only by US-UK allies intervening and liberating their half of the Western Europe first.

And EU doesn't have half the logistics the Reich had.

Russian Technology + China's manpower vs. 2,000 Americans? Wow. Wait, didn't the US have to bomb Serbia into submission, because they couldn't defeat it on land? Or was that NATO? Wait, can we get those mighty 2,000 to catch bin Laden?

In all honesty, now there's so much focus on defensive warfare, that any invasion would be tough to carry out, provided that the nation getting invaded knows how to fight. Russians have enough conventional missiles to take out the US Air Force, even if only 1 in 10 hits. Remembers that in the recent Georgia-Russia War, the Russians were stellars, but the biggest threat remained SAMS - Surface to Air Missiles. And for those of you going "we'll just fly high" and the Russians will just fly lower, and destory the bombs before they hit the ground. It'll be US Army vs. Russian Army on Russian Territorry. Have fun with that - worked pretty darn well in Georgia. Oh wait, no it didn't. What was the wounded ratio there, 1 to 10? 1 to 20?

*waits to get blasted for being honest*


Your knowledge of modern warfare is quite limited.

NATO held ground troops out of Kosovo for political reasons, not military ones. If you really think the Serbian Army could hold of the any decent sized NATO force then you're a fool.

As for an invasion of Russia, why bother it's far more trouble then it's worth. Any conflict between the US and Russia would be over the Russians moving on ex-Soviet satellites. The US/NATO has spent 20 years retooling its posture to counter such a move. Don't be fooled by the current focus on terrorism, NATO's forces are still very much geared toawrds the WWIII scenario.

We are not talking about why fight a war, but what would happen if a war started.

Russia does have a crappy military. Their guns are far more inaccurate, can't shoot as far, planes are unstealthy and easy to bring down (Georgia for example brought down a few and they don't even have much of a military), Are by far terribly trained and equiped, have terribly loud subs, and have weak armour on their tanks.

Don't argue about their air force. It plain out sucks. Read some Tom Clany books and they will give you a good understanding. Their planes may be fast and look cool, but they have a pathetic radar system and are easy to detect, allowing our planes to see them, shoot at them, and kill them before they even know that they have been targeted or that we have a plane in the area.

Don't even think about saying that they have a good navy. Their navy is a joke. Their most common and best subs, have a loud sonar signature compared to our more silent ones. The Russians also lack a passive sonar system. This system is quite and detects things as they move, not informing the sub that they have been detected, but informing whoever operates the sonar. Active sonar just gives everything away and gives away your position like crazy if you are operating it.

In the end, Russia has a pathetic military. They spend most of their money trying to maintain their nukes and their outdated weapons. They even spend a large chunk of it trying to decomission their old crap that they always keep.

Ahem... You read too much Tom Clancy. It is fiction you know.
Try reading something from the real world such as fas.org (http://www.fas.org/). You might get a different view.

Edit: Where did you get the impression that Russian submarines lack passive sonar? According to FAS the Project 971 Shuka-B Akula class Attack Submarine lists a MGK-503-M Skat active/passive suite.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/row/rus/971.htm

I gotta agree with Velka Morava, Russia has an insanely large military. The AKs may not be accurate but their dirt cheap and do the job. The MiGs are some of the best fighters in history, Tom Clancy is fiction, the Russian Army is one of the best in the world, they're well trained, patriotic and supplied.

The United States army has the M4 carbine that overheats a LOT. The tanks are okay (m2's I think, but i forget the name) and so are the Russian T90's.

The Russian navy is actually quite good, although I'll admit the new subs are a little awkward especially since the whole gassing incident.

Also, the Russian nuclear arsenal? Don't ever diss it, its as good as the United States by a mile.

Neither country would win the war, they would cripple each other BUT the US' allies probably would not get involved... whereas the Russian allies... well... we'll see

I gotta agree with Velka Morava, Russia has an insanely large military. The AKs may not be accurate but their dirt cheap and do the job. The MiGs are some of the best fighters in history, Tom Clancy is fiction, the Russian Army is one of the best in the world, they're well trained, patriotic and supplied.

The United States army has the M4 carbine that overheats a LOT. The tanks are okay (m2's I think, but i forget the name) and so are the Russian T90's.

The Russian navy is actually quite good, although I'll admit the new subs are a little awkward especially since the whole gassing incident.

Also, the Russian nuclear arsenal? Don't ever diss it, its as good as the United States by a mile.

Neither country would win the war, they would cripple each other BUT the US' allies probably would not get involved... whereas the Russian allies... well... we'll see

No nuclear arsenal in this scenario.

Looks to me that most are missing the point that in this scenario Russia has acces to enormous natural resources (so vast to make the rest of the world's resources seem puny according to the OP) that could be easyly poured in a war economy.
So Russia is defending on it's own territory, resisting an invasion (attacks on entrenched positions tend to be pretty costly), and practically unlimited resources to build the stuff it is researching of late...

Methinks the aggressor (US only or US + NATO) is in deeep trouble.

well considering that through the entire Russian Federation, that all good citizens in that nation have served their compulsory army training, if it came to Russia going to war, it could call 80% of its population into the frontlines.

Russians have more efficient technology, and can mobilize anything to anywhere within a day if they had to - could USA really handle russian tanks and paratroopers dropping down all across the USA at the same time.
Especially since USA has a high count of all the different types of personality that will not fight in a war, like religious, hippies, emotional unstable, etc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK4EzFUVJJU

well considering that through the entire Russian Federation, that all good citizens in that nation have served their compulsory army training, if it came to Russia going to war, it could call 80% of its population into the frontlines.

Russians have more efficient technology, and can mobilize anything to anywhere within a day if they had to - could USA really handle russian tanks and paratroopers dropping down all across the USA at the same time.
Especially since USA has a high count of all the different types of personality that will not fight in a war, like religious, hippies, emotional unstable, etc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK4EzFUVJJU

For the Russians to actually get to the US would require them to have some sort of effective blue-water navy and sealift capability. They don't. A full blown Russian attack on the US isn't going to happen. At a stretch they could threaten Alaska for a bit.

well considering that through the entire Russian Federation, that all good citizens in that nation have served their compulsory army training, if it came to Russia going to war, it could call 80% of its population into the frontlines.

Russians have more efficient technology, and can mobilize anything to anywhere within a day if they had to - could USA really handle russian tanks and paratroopers dropping down all across the USA at the same time.
Especially since USA has a high count of all the different types of personality that will not fight in a war, like religious, hippies, emotional unstable, etc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK4EzFUVJJU

1. They oppose OFFENSIVE wars. I don't think they'd quite tolerate a foreign military invasion on US soil as much as you think they would.

2. To get into the US, you have to get close to the US. The US has one of the, if not the, best navies and air forces in the world. Plus, I don't think Canada would exactly let the Russains pass through Commie-moose country, so there's another obstacle. All in all, they would have to either pass through frozen Commie-moose country or pass the navy.

3. The US military is designed to defeat countries, not occupy them. That would explain Iraq. If the goal was to crush the Russain military and destroy the Russian government, the US could. It would only get very problematic if the US were to actually try to occupy the country as opposed to just ruining it.

War is simpler than it's considered to be. Technology makes much less difference than on the shows when it's not used in the textbook scenario, and in an actual war it rarely is.
There hasn't been an actual war for a long time. If Russia wanted to attack the EU, it wouldn't do it with IEDs, it would do it in the only way possible: with a massive armoured and mechanised assault through Poland and into central Germany. That is precisely what NATO is designed to deal with. They had a decent chance of doing it had WWIII occured, against the shadow of the Red Army that Russia has today, there wouldn't be any doubt. That might change once V Corps has packed up and left though.

EF2000 imight be better than Su-27, but 200 EF's won't beat 2000 less advanced but still modern fighters, backed by extensive ground forces and AA network.
Russia has less than 500 Su-27s, and a Eurofighter would be perfectly capable of beating two of them. Especially since the Russian AWACS jets haven't had an update in a decade.

Anyways, I'm not talking about an EU attack on Russia. That would just be insane - I'm talking about a Russian attack on the EU.

Plus, the distances. Europe is small - you can't throw a rock without it crossing a couple countries. Russia isn't. Every single city or facility in Europe is an easy target that can be attacked directly and destroyed within the first hour of the war.
Hence anti-missile systems having been in place for decades, which in recent years have been developing much faster than new Russian missiles. But to return to my real point: all this stuff is planned and accounted for by NATO. Europe is smaller than Russia, but it still takes an armoured assault a few days to cross Poland, another few days to cross Germany and so on. There are mountains and forests in the way that require armoured formations to take certain routes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_gap), and those routes can be blocked.

In Russia, only Petersburg and a few other cities are as vulnerable. Moscow, Severodvinsk are reachable. But Norilsk, Vladivostok, Kamchatka? Europe doesn't even have any plane or cruise missile theoretically supposed to reach that distance, much less one capable of doing it through the distributed defenses.
That's because European militaries have put their money into submarine-based long-range missiles.

And EU doesn't have half the logistics the Reich had.
And Russia doesn't have those of the USSR. But that's all beside the point I was making. The one very unlikely but possible scenario of a war between Russia and Europe is covered, and for that scenario the EU must be said to be ahead.

Russian Technology + China's manpower vs. 2,000 Americans? Wow. Wait, didn't the US have to bomb Serbia into submission, because they couldn't defeat it on land? Or was that NATO? Wait, can we get those mighty 2,000 to catch bin Laden?


The US bombed Serbia because we didn't have to put troops on the ground to win.

There hasn't been an actual war for a long time. If Russia wanted to attack the EU, it wouldn't do it with IEDs, it would do it in the only way possible: with a massive armoured and mechanised assault through Poland and into central Germany. That is precisely what NATO is designed to deal with. They had a decent chance of doing it had WWIII occured, against the shadow of the Red Army that Russia has today, there wouldn't be any doubt. That might change once V Corps has packed up and left though.

V Corps doesn't have much combat power left these days anyways. The 1st ID is back stateside and the 1st Armored won't be there along. Once those drawdowns are completed all the US will have is one Stryker brigade in Germany and an airborne brigade in Italy. Everything depends on how fast the REFORGER units can be mustered and sent over. Givent he piss poot state of the Russian navy, it'd be even easier then it would have been in 70s-80s.

Russia has less than 500 Su-27s, and a Eurofighter would be perfectly capable of beating two of them. Especially since the Russian AWACS jets haven't had an update in a decade.

I don't know about the Eurofighter, but the a lone F-22 has downed as many as eight F-15Cs without being hit in USAF exercises. I assume the Eurofighter can manage at least two or three odds.

The US bombed Serbia because we didn't have to put troops on the ground to win.

False. The US/NATO held out ground troops for political concerns. Notice that once Serbia withdrew NATO ground forces were in Kosovo in short order.

You're only saying these things because you are either part of NATO or an American, when in fact there is truly no way to tell who would win. Don't anyone go off on a rant and point out why either country would be more likely to win, because it doesn't mean anything except bias. It also means that you're willing to go out of your way to prove a rather daft point in a truly redundant conversation.

What a complete load of unsupported rubbish. There is a lengthy and well thought out conversation discussing various relevant factors and how they would affect this hypothetical conflict and you just go and rubbish it for reasons unknown.

USA and NATO would pwn Russia.


The USA & NATO -vs- Russia would pwn us all. Even if no nukes were used, both economies would get wtfpwnd!

You have to consider that the Russian Federation may gain the support of all the countries who hate the United States and attempt to unify them. The resulting conflict would be World War III. The People's Republic of China would also be involved in the conflict, but on which side?

The People's Republic of China would also be involved in the conflict, but on which side?
On their own. They'd wait it out, and maybe pick some of the left-overs in Siberia.

On their own. They'd wait it out, and maybe pick some of the left-overs in Siberia.

Or Alaska. Or both.

Suppose a magical fairy came to earth and observed mankind, upon finishing it's assessing mankind it concludes that mankind is a threat to themselves and others and that leaving WMDs in their hands would be unwise so with a flick of it's wand WMDs dissappear off the face of the earth. A few days later some Russian guy finds a magical lamp, said Russian is a fierce patriot and wants to see Russia become wealthy and thrive. He wishes that multitudes of precious metals, oil and other resources become abundant in Russia and that the whole world knows about it so as to make the world jealous. As a result the US and it's allies invade in order to secure those resources and prevent Russia from becoming a threat.

(the story was just so that the only form of warfare that could be used is conventional warfare)

So it all boils down to this, in a conventional war between NATO, US and Russia wo would win?

Why should Germany and Italy and France attack Russia, given the HUGE amount of trade between them? So the US would be on their own.


My guess is that WMDs are the only thing acting as a deterrent and that Russia's military overall is in a piss poor state which would allow the armies of NATO and the US to do a better job conquering Russia than "securing" the Middle east.

Bad guess. It is about the same guess of let's say Napoleon and Hitler. Do you remember the result?
Napoleon invades Russia with the greatest army ever assembled till then. Result, Russians kick the Corsican's ass, and without WMD.
Hitler invades Russia with the greatest army ever assembled. Result, Russians kick the Austrian's ass, and without WMD.

...and you guess that a coalition that isn't even able to subdue IRAQ (oh, the powerful armies of the Iraqi insurgence...) is going to be able to conquer RUSSIA? Lesson #1 of Military History: NEVER underestimate Russia, and NEVER attack Russia.

Btw, I wouldn't say that a country that fields:
1.the largest and fastest long-range bombers (Tu-160)
2.the most accurate theatre missiles ever (Iskander-M, and without WMDs)
3.the best AT guns (the 125mm, firing tandem-charge HEAT and guided APFSDS)
4.the largest number of tanks (ranging from the upgraded T-72 to the T-90)
5.the most powerful artillery systems (ranging from the TOS-1 Buratino to the Uragan)
6.the best heli-gunship (the latest variant of the Mi-24)
7.the best tactical and long-range AAs (Tungus'ka and Pancyr, and S-300/400)
8.the fastest cruise missiles (take the AS-15, for one)
is exactly in a bad shape. Maybe Russia hasn't got the BEST armed forces overall, but for sheer size and peaks of excellence, it's one of the toughest around, and its conventional forces are enough to deter ANY attack.

NATO held ground troops out of Kosovo for political reasons, not military ones. If you really think the Serbian Army could hold of the any decent sized NATO force then you're a fool.


The "political" reasons were that NATO thought that it would need an army of AT LEAST one million to invade and hold Yugoslavia. That would have meant unacceptable LOSSES and unacceptable costs, and also a lot of harsh dissent in most European countries.
I would call that "military" reasons, also.

The "political" reasons were that NATO thought that it would need an army of AT LEAST one million to invade and hold Yugoslavia. That would have meant unacceptable LOSSES and unacceptable costs, and also a lot of harsh dissent in most European countries.
I would call that "military" reasons, also.

IRC the MI5 made a projection of 50'000 losses in case of a land attack on Serbia.

Suppose a magical fairy came to earth and observed mankind, upon finishing it's assessing mankind it concludes that mankind is a threat to themselves and others and that leaving WMDs in their hands would be unwise so with a flick of it's wand WMDs dissappear off the face of the earth. A few days later some Russian guy finds a magical lamp, said Russian is a fierce patriot and wants to see Russia become wealthy and thrive. He wishes that multitudes of precious metals, oil and other resources become abundant in Russia and that the whole world knows about it so as to make the world jealous. As a result the US and it's allies invade in order to secure those resources and prevent Russia from becoming a threat.

(the story was just so that the only form of warfare that could be used is conventional warfare)

So it all boils down to this, in a conventional war between NATO, US and Russia who would win?

My guess is that WMDs are the only thing acting as a deterrent and that Russia's military overall is in a piss poor state which would allow the armies of NATO and the US to do a better job conquering Russia than "securing" the Middle east. Wow First Iraq (Did I spell that right?) Now Russia. Crap, when is the magical unicorn coming to help us???????
:eek:

IRC the MI5 made a projection of 50'000 losses in case of a land attack on Serbia.

It was still Yugoslavia back then. You couldn't discount eventual reinforcements coming from Monte-Negro (or from the serbian part of BiH).

It was still Yugoslavia back then. You couldn't discount eventual reinforcements coming from Monte-Negro (or from the serbian part of BiH).

It most certainly was not. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was disbanded in 1992, It was replaced by the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, whihc lasted until 2006 when it formally spilt. Montenegro made up less than 10% of the total population of Serbia and Montenegro.

Besides why invade Serbia proper when the objective is to force them out of Kosovo.

Personally, I don't think the US has any business in the Balkans at all, since the nations there have been fighting almost as long as the ones in the Middle East.

It most certainly was not. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was disbanded in 1992, It was replaced by the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, whihc lasted until 2006 when it formally spilt. Montenegro made up less than 10% of the total population of Serbia and Montenegro.

Besides why invade Serbia proper when the objective is to force them out of Kosovo.

Personally, I don't think the US has any business in the Balkans at all, since the nations there have been fighting almost as long as the ones in the Middle East.

I understand that you too are of the opinion that the US shouldn't meddle in middle eastern affairs either.

Btw, I wouldn't say that a country that fields:
1.the largest and fastest long-range bombers (Tu-160)
2.the most accurate theatre missiles ever (Iskander-M, and without WMDs)
3.the best AT guns (the 125mm, firing tandem-charge HEAT and guided APFSDS)
4.the largest number of tanks (ranging from the upgraded T-72 to the T-90)
5.the most powerful artillery systems (ranging from the TOS-1 Buratino to the Uragan)
6.the best heli-gunship (the latest variant of the Mi-24)
7.the best tactical and long-range AAs (Tungus'ka and Pancyr, and S-300/400)
8.the fastest cruise missiles (take the AS-15, for one)
is exactly in a bad shape. Maybe Russia hasn't got the BEST armed forces overall, but for sheer size and peaks of excellence, it's one of the toughest around, and its conventional forces are enough to deter ANY attack.

That one is arguable, having seen demonstarations of what the AH-64 Apache (specifically the Longbow variant) can do I find it difficult to imagine the Hind being better, although I admit that I have no familiarity with the Mi-35. The problem with the Hind as an attack chopper is that it is also a troop transport. Now if you had said the Ka-50, that might be another story

I understand that you too are of the opinion that the US shouldn't meddle in middle eastern affairs either.

I intially supported the Iraq War but after the gross incompetence of Donald Rumsfeld screwed that up I've changed my sance. I'm also opposed to an attack on Iran unless it's shown convincingly that they are producing nuclear weapons for use against the US and/or its allies.

The Balkans is an EU problem, let them deal with it.

Or Alaska. Or both.
Maybe, but Siberia is right next door, and getting to Alaska would require transport capacity the Chinese don't really have.

Maybe Russia hasn't got the BEST armed forces overall, but for sheer size and peaks of excellence, it's one of the toughest around, and its conventional forces are enough to deter ANY attack.
Did you see any of this fancy technology actually used in Georgia? Fact of the matter is that this stuff exists primarily on paper. The majority of Russian units is equipped with old technology, sometimes upgraded, sometimes not. That's not because of bad engineering, but because of a lack of money.

The reason the big upgrade of the nuclear forces was announced recently was because it provides more bang for the buck than trying to get the conventional forces to a level where they can compete with NATO again.

That one is arguable, having seen demonstarations of what the AH-64 Apache (specifically the Longbow variant) can do I find it difficult to imagine the Hind being better, although I admit that I have no familiarity with the Mi-35. The problem with the Hind as an attack chopper is that it is also a troop transport. Now if you had said the Ka-50, that might be another story
Don't forget the Tiger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_Tiger) either. The shortcomings of the Apache (fighting multiple targets at the same time, vulnerability against RPGs from the ground, etc) were taken into account when they designed it.

Don't forget the Tiger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocopter_Tiger) either. The shortcomings of the Apache (fighting multiple targets at the same time, vulnerability against RPGs from the ground, etc) were taken into account when they designed it.

Not familiar enough with the Tiger to make any statement about, and as far as the issues of the Apache, the Longbow upgrade is meant to fix them, whether or not it does I have no idea.

My favourite: Agusta A129 Mangusta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agusta_A129_Mangusta)

The Mi-24 is a class of its own and shouldn't be compared to the Apache.

Yeah Risottia, you forgot about Ka-50.