US vs. Russia

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by THeSquirrelKing, Feb 1, 2010.

  1. THeSquirrelKing

    THeSquirrelKing Tyrranical Rodent

    After playing through Modern Warfare 2 again today, I started to wonder just what would actually happen.

    So, act of Alien Space Bats, Russia and the US go to war next Thursday. Neither side will use nuclear weapons unless Captain Price turns out to be real, and no other nations will get involved, although American or Russian bases on foreign soil can still be used. Now what happens? Is there any way Russia could actually invade the US? Will America invade Russia? Or since the two nations don't really share a border, will there just be naval and air battles and some smaller fights in odd places?
  2. X on

    X on Nameless Rank and File

    You doubt Captain Price is real!?! Heretic! :p
  3. Das


    In today's world there is literaly no way Russia would stand a chance in hell. We have a much larger and productive population that is far more clingy to its way of life than the Russians. The only time in the last 100 yrs that Russia could have stood a chance against us was in WWII. That's it.

    If we did invade Russia, we would gain air superiority in a matter of weeks, 7 at the most. While they would inflict a hell of a lot more casualties than the Iraqis, whatever reasons brought us here are likely strong enough to keep us here. We have every advantage over them except home turf and even then we won't be making retarded mistakes of former invaders. Russias cold weather can and will be countered if not reduced to near irrelevance outright as a combatant. America could easily win this today but the further back you go the harder the victory is to achieve. But victory for America is acheivable.

    As far as being invaded succesfully, the British didn't have the capability as of the American Civil War. Think that over for a second.
  4. Pretty much was Das said.

    In a conventional and total war (no NBC weapons for anyone), the US would stand a fair chance of militarily defeating an subjugating every other nation on Earth at the same time. Against Russia alone it is a forgone conclusion, and the casualties numbers depend pretty much solely on how nasty and brutal the US feels like being (the more brutal the less US casualties).

    Do the same thread except the whole world vs the US and it will be an interesting discussion, anything less is a curbstomp in the US's favor.
  5. Leo1

    Leo1 Vicious Attack Dog Super Awesome Happy Fun Time

    That's ridiculous. I think 1945 - 1991 would like to have a word with you?

    Ridiculously optimistic. The Serbs kept all of NATO from flying low with their primitive SAMs alone for almost double that time in 1999, and they were a far inferior foe in every single way, never mind not even having an air force that contested the skies. Russia's mobile SAMs will prevent total air superiority until the technology is developed to effectively hunt and kill mobile SAMs (which simply doesn't exist nowadays) - launching HARMs at emitters simply doesn't cut it.

    Given the retarded mistakes American made in Iraq, I find this unlikely.

    Given America's inability to secure Afghanistan or Iraq - countries a fraction of the size of the Russian Federation, and the hatred of foreign occupation, the territory that America would occupy (assuming Europe lets them through, since an invasion through the East is logistically impossible) would consume so many resources in counter-insurgency against partisans that maintaining the already long logistical supply lines in an effort to achieve victory (which will of course be wrongly assumed to be the taking of Moscow) - you are severely overstating America's capabilities here.

    Russia can't hurt America in the same way (apart from using the Strategic Air Army to pepper the US with cruise missiles and harm international trade with its submarine arm) but it presents a uniquely difficult target for successful invasion. The huge cost in blood and treasure will see a truce declared well before any sort of 'victory' is possible.
  6. KiloJ

    KiloJ Unfathomable Omnipotent

    Well...... The Russians do have the BMP-3. That will help a bit. But US wins, no question.


    We all know Captain Price would solo the entire Russian army with nothing but a toothpick in his underwear. Just for your information. :p
  7. M3 Lee

    M3 Lee Cyborg Commando


    Yep. And even during WWII, I think the US would win, though it would be a lot harder.
  8. Das


    This has been done and in the first years America doesn't even need to go to war-time economic footing due to the sheer dominance of our Navy. It's really Europe, China, parts of South East Asia, Canada and everything south of the border, Israel and the middle East.

    Canada goes down hard. To clarify, in the war of 1812, half the country didn't even want to do it and some even actively sabotaged the effort.
    Nowadays, Britain simply doesn't have the power to do jackshit to intervene.
    Canada's current military gets wiped out along with any resistance in very short order. Firebombing is a great substitute for nukes and America is the best at it.

    Mexico to Argentina is an absolute slaughter if we decide to go that far. The North American continent is ours with laughable ease.

    Europe's naval capacity is a joke compared to us and might be able to take out a Carrier Battle Group. Might. None of that bullshit about how the British re so awesome that they have super secret mthods of detecting stealth that we don't know about or that will be relevant after the B-2s start killing radar with F-22 supporting them. The Eurofighter is a prime target and most are dead before they can get off the ground. The Industrial base of Europe has self-mutilated beyond anything America has done and will be cut drastically. The power grids and other utilities will be similarly be wiped-out with the exception of a few military bases. Western Europe is a prime target for mass intercontinental firebombing after the air defenses are destroyed. This and other surgical and mass strikes will cripple Europe's force projection for maybe hald a decade to a a full one, too late to catch up to in any case. Occupation is extremely unlikely except for a few SOCOM operatives who will most likely be caught and killed anyways but before fucking up as much as possible. European submarines are, for the most part, outclassed by their American counterparts, those that aren't are severly out numbered.

    China is the most likely to be firebombed and choked into submission due to there sheer population density and inability to withstand a single carrier battle group. Where nukes would be used, fire would be used.

    South East Asia will know what a merciless, no kid gloves America feels like.

    Isreal has the only military in the MidEast worth mentioning. They will be slaughtered in a bloodbath the would make Hitler shudder. Temporarily securing the mideast for a few years is far from impossible until we can get that Shale oil(Forget where it is) up and running along with coal and nuclear power.

    Africa is so screwed without American food that it will just die on its own with no extra attention needed. First the people that have been starving for years will finally just kill over with no sustenance, then disease will start to devstate even more and with western help drying up there will be no way to slow it down. Then wars of such ruthless bloodshed that haven't been seen since Roman times begins. Disease becomes even more prevalent. The only good new is that the survivors will have plenty to feed themselves and are likely to be either the smartest, most cunning, best organized and luckiest. Or the most bloodthirsty and brutal motherfuckers as to ever walk the earth. This is the cold unfortunate truth. Haiti is likely to follow a similar route.

    The precious 5-10 years that America will have gained by these cold and brutal measures will have allowed it to resume F-22 production and Sea Wolf Production. Everything else is up to butterflies.

    The main US intial casualties would come from over seas bases getting swamped
  9. Das


    You are assuming ROE. I thought this thread assumed no kiddy-gloves and a more Caesar-like approach.
  10. Primer

    Primer Valar Morghulis Super Awesome Happy Fun Time

  11. Das


    Yep, it would take the entire world to match the snoring giant. And even then, it is impossible for them to secure a victory in a decade or less.
  12. With NBC removed from the equation and with the US with no concern for defending western Europe, the USSR (which was significantly larger than current day Russia) doesn't really stand a chance post 1980ish.

    The naval balance of power followed by the air force balance of power is just too far in the US's favor. He who controls the oceans controls the world is as true today as it was three thousand years ago.

    The US has also played nice in every fight since WW2. A full on, active US Airforce on a total war footing and fighting under no ROE beyond "Make sure the IFF says enemy" would wipe out Russia's air defense system in short order. The biggest bottleneck would be in bomb and missile production.

    This would be nothing like Iraq. Iraq was a "war" fought with kid gloves and no real effort.

    You are fighting the war stupidly.

    The US doesn't just round up every individual in Iraq and Afghanistan and send them to work camps. It could be done but it is bad politics, remove the politics and forced relocation would occur.

    And this assumes that the US even wants to occupy instead of just removes Russia's (or the rest of the worlds) ability to make war or operate as a modern nation. Just wipe out all of the infrastructure from the air and fire bomb all the cities. It will take them at least 20 years to rebuild. And you can just repeat the process again if needed.

    An invasion where you care about political correctness or civilian casualties, sure. An invasion where those are ignored, it's not any more difficult than most other nations in the world (and easier than some).
  13. Primer

    Primer Valar Morghulis Super Awesome Happy Fun Time

    So, where does the US get all the money for that eh? *eyes the US massive debt*
  14. Das


    That was caused by politician induced stupidity. If this war occurs, only resources will matter. Afterwards, we can force the rest of the world to cancel all standing debts and return everybody to 0. Which would help others as well.
  15. The US debt would be wiped if it went to war with the rest of the world. Do you really think the US is going to care that it nominally owes China a few trillion dollars while it is firebombing Chinese cities?

    That is also within US capabilities with currently existing units. Simply wiping out all debts paid to foreigners would allow the US to increase it's military budget by about $120 billion (or around 15%) above current levels without increasing expenditures.

    The US could easily, assuming a total war scenario, have a yearly military budget of around 1.5 Trillion and sustain it virtually indefinitely (even if you wipe out all Exports from the GDP).
  16. Mjolnir66

    Mjolnir66 Do You Even Gun Bro?


    So, in no particular order.
    1. Anytime between 1943 and 1991 at least, in a conventional war Russia would crush all of Europe and any US forces there that NATO basically planned to start throwing nukes at the start of an invasion because they couldn't stop the Russians.

    2. As to the no kid gloves approach, look how well that worked for hitler. He killed something like 20,000,000 civilians in Russai for no apparent reason, and he was still up to his eyeballs in Partizans.

    3. Russian winter. Good luck ignoring it when the oil in your rifles and tank tracks are frozen. When your vehicle engines wont start becuase the fuel is frozen. Good luck traversing thousands of square miles of terrain so waterlogged it may as well be one huge lake.

    4. Airpower. War is not like games, when every target is highlighted and you just fire bombs and missles at them. Yes, you could spam an area with HARMs, but the whole of Russias armed forces are put together and trained specifically to deal with massed air assault. They have battalions with more organic anti-air than most Western Divisions, and they are trained in such a way that HARMs are basically ineffective. Consider this. Desert Storm. A completely obsolete, badly controlled and massively undertrained AA network shot down 78 Coalition planes. Compared to attack any major instlation in Russia, they basically had nothing of any consequence. And they basically had no airforce.
  17. Add in the insanely large and diverse territory Russia has.

    The Naval battle is clear. The USAF can defeat its counterpart and keep the 48 untouched, with heavy losses, but it can be done. But a land war will see the army get slowly attrition to death.

    An invasion of Russia is out of the question the absolute best if everything goes ideal is holding a few key ports and going to the negotiating table.
  18. Europe? Sure. But the Russian navy wasn't capable of matching the US navy and that pretty much meant that Russia could never really hope to attack US infrastructure (if nukes aren't allowed).

    The tech level in WW2 was significantly different than that of 1980, much less today.

    You are making the classic mistake when discussing modern total war. You are assuming that the past tactical and strategic truisms are still relevant. If the US decides that some other nation is the enemy and that it is willing to fight a total war with permissive ROE and has no concern for either pacifying the enemy populace or occupying the enemy nation, then the US will not deploy large scale ground forces.

    Desert Storm was also 20 years ago. And the US has never really shown it's modern air combat doctrine for fighting a total war.

    At the end of the day, barring nukes and other super weapons, logistics are what decide wars. If you can remove the enemies ability to supple their forces and move their forces into a position from where they can attack your infrastructure then you will win.

    The US can do both virtually at will.

    Would a US vs. Russia conventional war be cheap (in either blood or treasure)? No.
    Is the outcome even remotely in doubt? No.
    Would the war weaken the US to the point where other nations become a real threat (again purely conventional forces)? No.

    That is what almost 20 years of lead time gets you in terms of military power. And it was 20 years in which the US was funding it's military (especially R&D) at a level sufficient to match the entire rest of the world combined.

    Russia simply doesn't have the money, manpower, or tech to stand against the US in a conventional war.
  19. Das



    1. Immediately after WWII the USSR was in no condition to fight a foe on the scale of the US. Afterwards, we didn't even have that much over there considering what we could have had. And as far as armor goes, look at any conflict where Western Tanks have taken on Soviet Tanks with both using the respective tactics. IE the Mideast and Israel. The Soviets love to use the We Have Reserves "Strategy" but NATO actually out numbered the Warsaw pact in potential reserves. Our Industry was and is superior and more productive than the Soviet counterpart. They barely managed to keep up with our tech base and airpower. The only things they had that were utterly superior to ours were the BMP(Which had a little problem with the doors that closed the backend bing the fuel tanks as well) the AK-47, and the RPG-7. That's it. Helicopter power and such were firmly in the West's favor. They might have gained initial victories but they would have been thrown back.

    2. We had and have FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR More resources than he ever had access to and DRASTICALLY superior industrial capacity. Our logistics were and are also hips, heads and shoulders above the Nazis and a damn better sight than the Soviets. Hell, if Hitler had modernized his logistics corp and logistics strategy and had a more producable and reliable tanks he might have beaten the USSR. We have that and more.

    3. Unlike Hitler, we actually have a competent leadership tht had literally decades to prepare and build for such a thing. See, America has this habit of improving and overhauling existing strategies to such an extent that they are notably superior to pre-existing ones. This and there shit-tons of materials improvement. Seriuosly, do you really think the American Military is subject to the same stupidity or completely retarded strategies of insane dictators and saturday morning cartoon villains?

    4. Admittedly, at a certain point in time you were right but US Commanders recognized the problem as early as the early 70's. Hence Stealth.

    5. You might want to bring up subs? Ours were and are simply superior and it is documented(I have no idea where to look on the net, I'll leave that to somebody else) that we had trails and were following a damn good chunk of there subs for a lot of the cold war. Which is why they started focusing on ones that operate solely in the Arctic. They knew they couldn't get away from us. We also used them to gather a shitton of intel and knew and stil know the location of every military base they have.

    6.Let's not even bring helicopters into this.
  20. Leo1

    Leo1 Vicious Attack Dog Super Awesome Happy Fun Time

    Utter nonsense. I like it how you assume the USSR's massive mechanized armies would be defeated as easily as the Israelis dealt with Arabs, because you know, Europe is the Golan Heights, NATO is Israel, and the Arabs are the Soviets, right?

    Never mind your complete piffle about "the only things they had that were utterly superior to ours". Let's look at tanks for example - Soviet tanks were technically superior and more sophisticated than NATO tanks, and introduced a number of innovations that Western myopics like to think they invented - like composite armor (T-64).

    I find it hilarious you think war production will actually matter. But go ahead, do back up your claims about the West's DRASTICALLY superior industrial capacity? Do you have any inkling of the number of armored vehicles the Soviet Union churned out during the Cold War?

    And of course, the Soviets don't, right? Because of the Arabs. Or something.

    And I don't get this fascination with helicopters, either, even if it was remotely true.
  21. Leo1

    Leo1 Vicious Attack Dog Super Awesome Happy Fun Time

    Technology level has absolutely nothing to do with resistance to foreign occupiers, as every single guerrilla force in the past 50 years has proven.

    Short of the impossibly expensive widespread proliferation of stealth aircraft, the vast majority of the USAF is quite mortal. No doctrine is going to change that fact.

    No, it can't. The US simply doesn't have the capability to cut off Russia's supplies at home base in the face of the size of Russian territory, its air defences, and their meager force of bombers capable of reliably doing that job (B-2s).

    Its the US that faces massive logistical hurdles here, not the Russians.
  22. And this line here tells us you have no idea where F-22s are deployed and how they are used.

    To the op:
    The scenario is generally disinteresting as after the fall of the soviet union russia has pretty much retired all of it's relevant capabilities. With the soviet threat gone, the same fate has happened to pretty much all european militaries.

    If you want the scenario to be a bit interesting, you might consider an alternative history scenario where a 1999 soviet union followed through with it's plans of a real blue water navy and where possibly UK retained supercarrier capability with the Queen Elisabeth class of 1966.
  23. It does if you can make occupation unnecessary. The fact of the matter is that the US, using only conventional Naval and Air power, can destroy virtually all infrastructure of any nation in the world (including Russia). That capability means that no occupation force is necessary, you simply destroy the nations ability to maintain it's war machine or function as a state and wait for it to die.

    This also fails to account for the fact that the US (nor anyone else) has operated an occupation force under permissive ROE since WW2. Iraq and Afghanistan never faced the kind of ruthless oppression and occupation that any nation would face if the US decided to fight a war that it deemed necessary for survival.

    I never said it wasn't mortal. But the simple truth is that the US has never shown what it's Air Force and Navy are actually capable of when they are fighting a real war and without political restrictions on ROE. Nor has is shown what the newest generation spy sats are capable of.

    Russia can not move troops to attack the lower 48 without first dealing with the US Navy. Russia's Navy will be sunk inside of 2 weeks at minimal cost, they are simply massively weaker in every possible measure of ability (crew skill, technology, numbers, all massively favor the US).

    Once the US has removed Russia's navy the results of the war are a foregone conclusion. Especially when combined with the US using it's Air Force to start the systematic destruction of every Russian factory and city.

    At the end of the day, a B-2 can blow up a factory much, much quicker than the factory can be built.
  24. Das


    They used the same tactics and mostly the same tech but then again you are dragging this on and forcing it to spelled out to you as if you didn't know what the hell I said.
    Yeah, but their focus on performance and mobility fucked them everytime they went up against western tank forces of the same generation. Even with what few inventions the Soviets had, they never made much use of them and the tanks where incredibly cramped and uncomfortable compared to Western ones. What next, going to intentionaly ignore the relevance of this to drag on your idiocy more?
    Unless you think the Soviets will just roll all over Western Europe with stupid ease then you are blantantly trolling/acting like a ignorant jackass.
    Yep, the T-54/55 was crushed in almost every engagement in took part in. The T-62 was a slightly more advanced but still horrendously uncomfortable and cramped. Again known Soviet tactics would have seen these tanks slaughtered like you wouldn't believe. The T-72 is marginally better but again, the tactics and general life expectancy were abhorrently short. Even worse, the Soviet Union barely grasped the concept that a tank is replaceable but a crew isn't. The T-80 and accompaning crews would get there asses handed to them for so many reasons it ain't funny. Not one of which is the Fact that the Cobra and Apache were both fully operational by the time it was in full service. Western tank crews were and are better trained, longer lasting due to comfort, and had a massively higher survival rate est. You can't be serious. You just can't be.
    I was comparing them us to the Nazis and you pointing out the cold weather as a factor. but no, my talking about logistics has gone completely ignored. Explain why for credibilty:rolleyes:
    That's it. Anymore blatant ignorance and ridiculously stupid sentences and I'll just report you. If you are posting in the War Room and don't understand the importance of Helicopters since Vietnam, then what the fuck:confused:
  25. Das


    Thank you for posing a legitimate query and a legitimate counter-point.

    No, I DON'T (I'll admit ignorance when it is pointed out in an honest fashion, it helps me learn) know there exact procedures but I didn't think it would too far fetched for this to occur.