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 12-22-2017, 10:42 AM
 
35,309 posts, read 51,996,121 times
Reputation: 30998

Advertisements

Quote:
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.
I doubt a ground war would be possible after ten thousand nuclear bombs have done their damage. there would be no winner and the Earth itself would be the big loser.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2017, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Vienna, Austria
651 posts, read 410,937 times
Reputation: 651
A war is the worst decision of problems. All lose in a war. A war is a thing opposite to civilization.
Let's remember about Europe before the First World War. This was a charming world with emperors, ladies in hats (with feathers) and traditional values.

Further was the war with bombings, chemical attacks and artillery shooting. Europe was like a bedlam.

A modern war has no romantic. This is a technology only.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2017, 08:05 AM
 
35,309 posts, read 51,996,121 times
Reputation: 30998
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. We are both armed with multiple nuclear and biological weapons.
Is a war with then something we could ever envision in our lifetime?
If taking over Russia and occupying the country is the objective IMO at the cost of many lives and a 10 year time frame we might be successful however if you just want to eliminate Russia then the nuclear course of action would be the way to go, of course that course of action could well destroy the human race as tens of thousands of nuclear weapons are unleashed on each side,each one of these modern nukes being thousands of times more powerful than those that were dropped on Japan. War with Russia? think in terms of Armageddon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2017, 08:07 PM
 
Location: 912 feet above sea level
2,264 posts, read 1,467,730 times
Reputation: 12668
Quote:
Originally Posted by jambo101 View Post
If taking over Russia and occupying the country is the objective IMO at the cost of many lives and a 10 year time frame we might be successful however if you just want to eliminate Russia then the nuclear course of action would be the way to go, of course that course of action could well destroy the human race as tens of thousands of nuclear weapons are unleashed on each side,each one of these modern nukes being thousands of times more powerful than those that were dropped on Japan. War with Russia? think in terms of Armageddon.
*A full-scale unleashing of the global nuclear arsenal would not be an extinction event. It would obliterate global civilization and kill hundreds of millions immediately and hundreds of millions more indirectly. Cancer rates would massively spike, especially in the northern hemisphere, and crop failures would occur everywhere (again, particularly in the northern hemisphere). But human extinction? Not even close. This is not to say that it would not all be game-changing. The U.S. and Russia, as political entities, would cease to exist. So would the UK and France and China and the other nuclear powers, countries that house bases occupied by nuclear powers and support them, and so forth. But even in the U.S. people would go on living (albeit in radically different ways) in many places. Probably not much in the Northeast, but even there to some extent. Still, these consequences have been enough to keep the fingers off the buttons since 1945.

*I don't think there's ever been a production nuclear weapon a thousand times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb. There have been a few (very few) tests that large, but they were just one-off device for testing purposes. The largest current nuclear weapon has a variably yield which can be set up to 1.2 MT (~80x that of Little Boy). The mainstay of the 2017 U.S. nuclear arsenal is the W76 warhead, with a yield under 7x that of the Hiroshima device. The B61 gravity bomb is a so-called dial-a-yield device, with a maximum setting of 340 KT (~13x that of Little Boy) and a minimum setting of 0.3 KT (a mere 1/50th the yield of Little Boy). Setting is determined by mission requirement. By and large, weapons have gotten smaller because modern targeting is so precise - nukes no longer have to be so huge as to ensure that they destroy the target even if it misses it by five miles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-23-2017, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Cebu, Philippines
5,869 posts, read 4,162,979 times
Reputation: 10940
The questioner is, WOULD we. The purpose of wars is to feed the military industrial complex. Look at Nicaragua and El Salvador, for historical examples. The US provided just enough meddling in those wars to keep the sides evenly balanced for years, much to the delight of US arms corporations who were selling to both sides. We could have gone in and ended them in a week.

We're still bolstering the Dow with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, we couldn't (or wouldn't) even mop those up in 15 years. Once you've got a nice war going on, what's the benefit of ending it for something useless like victory? When nobody even knew why we were in it in the first place and victory was amorphous and undefinable..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-24-2017, 12:06 AM
 
Location: Earth
7,646 posts, read 6,415,429 times
Reputation: 5828
leave the russians alone and let them drink themselves to death. their population is decreasing and it is half of the united states. They will soon worry about the jihad in their underbelly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2017, 02:55 AM
 
505 posts, read 387,531 times
Reputation: 249
Yes, but...what for?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2017, 11:04 PM
 
11,046 posts, read 5,222,612 times
Reputation: 5252
define "winning"?


if you mean invade their country and fight them on their turf especially in winter, then the answer is NO.

If winning is contained them and force them to a cease-fire under our terms or close to it then yes, we could win.

We have never beat a nuclear superpower head to head into a full-blown war and I hope we never do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-26-2017, 01:20 AM
 
Location: Somewhere below Mason/Dixon
9,436 posts, read 10,705,996 times
Reputation: 15901
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellion1999 View Post
define "winning"?


if you mean invade their country and fight them on their turf especially in winter, then the answer is NO.

If winning is contained them and force them to a cease-fire under our terms or close to it then yes, we could win.

We have never beat a nuclear superpower head to head into a full-blown war and I hope we never do.
Good point, we must define what it means to win. No doubt we have a better more developed military and a more productive economy. We hold that major advantage. However I agree with you and history when you say that a US invasion of Russia would fail. Like the Germans and Napoleonic France would would be repelled by winter and attrition. We have no where near the resources, men or political will to take such a large and powerful nation. Also Russians are proud patriotic people, they proved that during ww2. The Germans paid dearly for thier sins in Russia. No matter what we think of Putin or how we view the Cold War age we must acknowledge the fact that Russians are tough people, anyone should think twice before launching a war against them. Fighting them in Russia is pretty close to military suicide.

Could we repell them from NATO Europe, Japan or South Korea? Most likely. We hold the advantage of technology, training and the support of powerful allies backing us up to do such a thing. Not much chance for Russia to win here. I have no doubt they are aware of this reality.

Could Russia beat us on our own turf? Not a chance. Even if Russia beat NATO Europe (very unlikely) they still would have to deliver an army of tens of millions over here to invade the USA. Also we are talking about Russia having to take Canada and Mexico as North America would have to be taken whole to govern it. They have no where near the resources to take North America, and there is very little chance the first Russian would ever advance further than a few feet into the USA, Canada or Mexico before the landing parties are destroyed. That being said we need to remember that the US and Canadian militaries train together, run NORAD together so if it ever came to an invasion the two nations would act as one, and they have the plans and training in place to do such a thing. Cooperation with the Mexican military may be less organized but rest assured it would happen. The three nations would fight tooth and nail to repell the invaders. The whole adventure would likely end with an undersized invasion fleet being destroyed off the Atlantic seaboard and another being picked apart at the Bering straights.

Go nuclear? Uh no... both Russians and Americans know that is suicide.

War between Russia and the US or NATO is just not likely. No one has anything to gain from it, but all will lose. Ther is however a guarantee of lots of posturing and antics. War? We all know better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-27-2017, 02:18 AM
 
11,046 posts, read 5,222,612 times
Reputation: 5252
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielj72 View Post

Could Russia beat us on our own turf? Not a chance.


LOL....not with all the guns we have. We have more guns than people in the U.S..I will feel sorry for the country that tries to invade us and occupy us. They not only have to deal with our armed forces but our armed civilian population. They wouldn't know where the bullets are coming from, it could be from anybody at any time.

plus, we have 50 states with 330 million people and the Russian Army is about 1 million active and 2.5 million reserved, that's 3.5 million est. Even if Russia sends them all which they can't, they need at least 40% to 50% to defend their motherland, that's not enough to occupy our big country.
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.

© 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