Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-03-2015, 01:08 PM
 
14,989 posts, read 23,799,586 times
Reputation: 26493

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
If you believe this, you are terribly uninformed. Russia has the highest forms of technology
at all levels including weather weapons, plasma and scalar weapons. There is even a possibility
that US warheads can be rendered completely sterile and fall into the sea before they even
land on Russian soil.
HAHA...you have to stop reading the internet "sky if falling" sites. Yeah I am sure the Russians have Darth Putin in space operating a Death Star. We've been hearing these scare stories since the cold war, talk of advanced jets, until the US captured one of it's high tech MIGs and found out it was made with...high tech titanium? Nope, try steel. The US arms industry gave a collective laugh.

Russia has a military budget of $90 billion. The US has a military budget of $600 billion. I'm not that concerned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-03-2015, 01:29 PM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
2,851 posts, read 2,284,824 times
Reputation: 4545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
HAHA...you have to stop reading the internet "sky if falling" sites. Yeah I am sure the Russians have Darth Putin in space operating a Death Star. We've been hearing these scare stories since the cold war, until the US captured one of it's high tech MIGs and found out it was made with...high tech titanium? Nope, try steel. The high tech arms industry gave a collective laugh.
The Soviet Union has a military budget of $90 billion. The US has a military budget of $600 billion. I'm not that concerned.
The Soviet Union does not exist anymore.

If the Russian contractor charges $10 per toilet seat and the US military pays $650 (true number), does it mean the US has a toilet seat that is 65 times more deadly ? Or are the taxpayers simply getting hosed ? Must be careful when comparing the numbers.

Can Russia win the conventional war with US ? No.

Can it make the US bleed ? Sure.

The Soviet Union had made some tremendous advances in military technology. They may have lacked the sheer amount of resources that the US had, but they most certainly had the capability to come up with some revolutionary, cutting edge designs that helped them to somewhat level the field. Their anti-aircraft and anti-ship systems are to this day nothing to sneer at. They were the first to get a helmet-mounted target acquisition system that allowed the pilot to target any plane in his line of sight by simply looking at it - something we didn't match until some 20 years later.

I still think the US has an advantage in sheer size, overall technology, and the preparedness. But don't underestimate the ability of a well armed modern army to inflict a great amount of pain on any opponent. Just look at what the Argentinian Air Force managed to do in the Falkland War with just a few Exocet rockets they received from France before the embargo. If they had all of the rockets they ordered, the British would likely lose the conflict as the public back home would not have the stomach for the huge losses - they were shaken up as it was when one destroyer went down. As long as Russia is playing the defense, it would have an advantage. But it's all really moot point anyway, given the number of nuclear warheads each country has.

And comparing Russia to Pakistan just because both have nukes is idiotic. Pakistan has a few warheads and no means of delivery. At best they could try and launch a terror attack. Russia can shower the US with warheads, enough to kill the entire world a few times over. So can we, which is why there was no nuclear war since 1945. Which is why, as I said, the war between US and Russia is not going to happen anytime soon, at least until both countries have somewhat sane / pragmatic leadership.

Last edited by Ummagumma; 05-03-2015 at 01:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2015, 01:31 PM
 
9,981 posts, read 8,552,790 times
Reputation: 5664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Russia has a military budget of $90 billion. The US has a military budget of $600 billion. I'm not that concerned.
This is faulty reasoning. It is common knowledge that the U.S. overpays grossly for
all its military operations and equipment, by design.
The Russians still function as a semi-Soviet military-industrial complex.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2015, 01:51 PM
 
14,989 posts, read 23,799,586 times
Reputation: 26493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
The Soviet Union does not exist anymore.

If the Russian contractor charges $10 per toilet seat and the US military pays $650 (true number), does it mean the US has a toilet seat that is 65 times more deadly ? Or are the taxpayers simply getting hosed ? Must be careful when comparing the numbers.

Can Russia win the conventional war with US ? No.

Can it make the US bleed ? Sure.

The Soviet Union had made some tremendous advances in military technology. They may have lacked the sheer amount of resources that the US had, but they most certainly had the capability to come up with some revolutionary, cutting edge designs that helped them to somewhat level the field. Their anti-aircraft and anti-ship systems are to this day nothing to sneer at. They were the first to get a helmet-mounted target acquisition system that allowed the pilot to target any plane in his line of sight by simply looking at it - something we didn't match until some 20 years later.

I still think the US has an advantage in sheer size, overall technology, and the preparedness. But don't underestimate the ability of a well armed modern army to inflict a great amount of pain on any opponent. Just look at what the Argentinian Air Force managed to do in the Falkland War with just a few Exocet rockets they received from France before the embargo. If they had all of the rockets they ordered, the British would likely lose the conflict as the public back home would not have the stomach for the huge losses - they were shaken up as it was when one destroyer went down. As long as Russia is playing the defense, it would have an advantage. But it's all really moot point anyway, given the number of nuclear warheads each country has.

And comparing Russia to Pakistan just because both have nukes is idiotic. Pakistan has a few warheads and no means of delivery. At best they could try and launch a terror attack. Russia can shower the US with warheads, enough to kill the entire world a few times over. So can we, which is why there was no nuclear war since 1945. Which is why, as I said, the war between US and Russia is not going to happen anytime soon, at least until both countries have somewhat sane / pragmatic leadership.
First paragraph - Yes the Soviet Union does not exist obviously, I caught my typo, you caught me in mid edit. You could have assumed it was a typo and ignored.
Second paragraph - Russia has a high level of corruption so they have the same difficulty, probably more, with the military budget getting wasted.
The rest - I agree. Heck any country can make the US bleed by simply using assymetrical warfare tactics. History has taught us that much again and again.
Your last sentence is most important - this is all hypothetical nonsense really since a war between US and Russia is not going to happen under any current scenario. It just won't, it's bad for business. It's like the threads about China vs the US war. It's nonsense. The reality of globalization in the 21st century, where my coworkers are now Russian and Chinese, literally, and I travel to China about as often as I go downtown, now make it almost impossible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2015, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Southeast Michigan
2,851 posts, read 2,284,824 times
Reputation: 4545
Well, while the Russian military budget is likely getting wasted to a point, they are not going to spend more than what Putin thinks they should spend - with "waste" already baked in. Same with China, or any other country where a corrupt government exercises near total control over defense contractors. "We'll steal but within reason, and it's your life on the line in case you overstep the boundary". Both Putin and the Chinese Communist Party demonstrated that no single person in their countries is safe from them, no matter how rich or seemingly powerful. Putin exiled one tycoon and jailed another, while the Chinese keep executing them.

In the West, the control often seems to go the other way around, the corporate lobbying often seems to steer the government decisions. Hence enormous cost overruns on nearly every defense program, and practically no accountability on contractor's part. When was it the last time that someone from General Dynamics was brought to trial for the embezzlement of taxpayer's money ? Until Russia or China become a true Western style democracy (some could say corporate state ) with limited government powers (and correspondingly increased corporate powers) any comparison based purely on the dollar amount of defense spending is flawed.

Last edited by Ummagumma; 05-03-2015 at 02:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2015, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Type 0.73 Kardashev
11,110 posts, read 9,753,619 times
Reputation: 40161
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowball7 View Post
If you believe this, you are terribly uninformed. Russia has the highest forms of technology
at all levels including weather weapons, plasma and scalar weapons. There is even a possibility
that US warheads can be rendered completely sterile and fall into the sea before they even
land on Russian soil.
No, there is not.

Frankly, anyone using the term 'sterile' in regards to nuclear weapons hasn't the foggiest idea of the nature of nuclear decay, and thus how such devices actually work. Nor do you appear to comprehend even such an elementary thing as the difference between warheads and delivery vehicles, since you inexplicably state that rendering a nuclear warhead 'sterile' (whatever you think that nonsensical-in-this-context term even means) would cause the vehicle on which it is delivered to fail.

Your post is a weird amalgamation of confusion and made-up wishful-thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-03-2015, 05:08 PM
 
Location: London
4,709 posts, read 5,034,855 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
Just look at what the Argentinian Air Force managed to do in the Falkland War with just a few Exocet rockets they received from France before the embargo. If they had all of the rockets they ordered, the British would likely lose the conflict as the public back home would not have the stomach for the huge losses - they were shaken up as it was when one destroyer went down.
The British were not shaken at all, they are used to conflicts. It was a case of get on with it, send more down there if they need them. The Exocets? They hit the Sheffield after being deflected from Plymouth. Sheffield turned off its radar because it was talking to London, one conflicted with the other. If the radar was on it would have been deflected. Sheffield was not sunk. The RN scuttled it. They sunk an unarmed container ship with one - Atlantic Conveyor. One was fired from land and hit the rear of HMS Gloucester, the helicopter hangar, which carried on in the conflict. So much for the Exocet.

The Argentines were lucky the British did not turn the Vulcan bombers on their air bases. British subs could have fired ICBMs with conventional warheads on the Argentine bases. AS soon as the British fleet was around the Falklands there was only one outcome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2015, 03:04 AM
 
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
10,931 posts, read 11,680,281 times
Reputation: 13170
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT View Post

However, the US can force project at will,
Gulp!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-21-2017, 08:14 AM
 
1,175 posts, read 1,781,484 times
Reputation: 1182
Could the US win a war with Russia?

I'm going to say no, but that war would have nothing BUT losers.

That said, I'll tell a story.

I was living in Saint Petersburg (Russia) and got asked that question on the Metro one day, something along the lines of..

"What do you think if Russia and Amerika went to whar?"

My response, in English, since I was asked by a "Babushka" in English, was something like......

"Holy sheeeet.....I sure as heeel hope not!" "I think that there'd be a whole lot of dead people, with nothing to show for it!!!"

She goes....

"But you wan't our gold and oil and diamonds!!!"

Then I said.....

"Much, MUCH less expensive to buy all that on the open market" "No war for "Profit" has EVER made a dime!"

By this time everyone on the Metro was watching and listening.....

Funny.

She.....

"You Amerikkans want to RULE Russsia!!!!"

Then I said....

"We'd be no better at managing all you people than you are at managing yourselves!!!" "We can barely manage OUR own country, why on EARTH would we want to take on the completely crazy burden of trying to manage 180 million wild-eyed' Russians!!!!!"

(Open Laughter on the Metro car....)

Then I said, "No!" "Your country, your problems....YOU deal with it!"

(More laughter)

Then some dim background talking, but mostly silence, save the crazy noise of that Metro car. Babushka, she sat silent and scowled, I got off two stops later and that was that.

Much later on, during a dinner on a Russian Warship, same sort of question.

Went' something like....

"War against us (The U.S.) would be fraught with difficulties"
"First, the logistics would be insanely difficult and subject to complete interdiction at nearly ever point"
"Two the US is a HUGE country and is a virtual FOREST of weapons"
"American citizens own quantity and quality of weapons unlike any other, you'd be facing an insurgency of totally unparalleled proportions" "Never mind the US Military".
"Private American citizens own entire arsenals of weapons, to include machine guns, tanks and military grade aircraft."
"Regardless of the opinions of the "left" in the US, there are many MILLIONS of Americans that are armed to the teeth, well versed in the use of weapons, have the means, the will, and the ability to use them"

Sort of stunned silence by this time..... But I go on.....

"Sure, they'd probably be pushed back by a professional army if one-on-one, but they'd be just smart enough not to do that, you'd have to chase them into the woods, the mountains, the swamps and THAT would be your undoing, is Afghanistan starting to sound familiar???"
"If you nuked us there'd be no point, we'd do the same to you, any possible "benefit" would go up in smoke or be radioactive forever and we both lose. Stupid"

So.....no. A war against Russia would be stupid. A war against the U.S. would be equally as stupid.
Our logistics would be stretched, (just like theirs) few if any countries neighboring Russia (U.S.) would let someone stage and launch attacks from their territory, the Russians (Americans) would most certainly retaliate and what little country is going to believe that the US (or Russia) will guarantee forever their territorial integrity? We dumped Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq when the political winds in the US shifted, the Russians Dumped Afghanistan and other places. Mexico or Poland won't like to take that risk.

How hard would the Russians fight?
Don't have to look too far to find examples of that.
The German army of 1941 was one of the biggest, most efficient well trained, motivated and equipped armies ever seen.
They nearly crushed the Russians. They tried, underestimated and failed miserably.
There are many, MANY accounts of totally combat hardened German troops being completely astonished at the way the Russians fought.
Men continuing to fight with their faces burned off by flamethrowers, with their limbs blown off, with their intestines hanging out, dragging. Men, wild with anger and rage, totally resigned to death and desperately intent on killing the invader.
There are accounts of Russians climbing over mountains of the frozen bodies of their own dead to continue the fight against the Germans on the very same spot.
The Russians absorbed completely insane losses, perfectly willing to sacrifice MANY MILLIONS of their own people, and yet, recovered, rebounded and exacted a revenge on the Germans that was as bloody and sadistic as it was brutally efficient. There simply is no doubting how angry the Russians would be if attacked on THEIR own turf. Not a wise gambit at all.

Our supplies would have to transit thousands of miles by sea, or over polar ice by air totally at risk the entire way. We'd have to deal with some of the most inhospitable climate in the world. Record cold and heat and a difficult to grasp vastness that defies description.
We didn't take convoy protection seriously at first during World War Two, and in those days we actually HAD a vibrant Merchant Marine.
Not so now. One wonders how we'd supply it all.
No, it would all be, truly be a very unwise idea.

American aircraft might have to fly for many hours to deliver an attack. Russian aircraft will be up at combat altitude in seconds, ready....and pissed off. Their pilots will roll and look down on their own houses, churches, factories and farms.
They'll fight like maniacs, believe me. Some of them absolutely THIRST for the chance to fight us, the U.S. They positively dream of it, salivate at the very thought.

Would the extremely politically flexible US public be ready and willing to make the sacrifices (in lives and money) necessary to take down the Russians? Would it really be worth it?

Like I said, some of them thirst at the chance to fight us, directly....not by proxy.

So.....WHY on earth even give them an excuse? We gotta be much smarter than all that.

Economic measures are far more.....well.... economical.



Just a few little stories.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2017, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,422,751 times
Reputation: 24780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novadhd5150 View Post
So apparently they have like a 100 million man army or something and we are at a all time low as far as Active and Reserves.
Russia has less than half of the US population, so relax.

Quote:
We are both armed with multiple nuclear and biological weapons.
Is a war with then something we could ever envision in our lifetime?
Nope

Next easy question, please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:32 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top