Could US win a war vs Russia? (WWII, Russian, conquer)
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.
i knew this thread would fall into the trap of comparing old-school capabilities,
as if they have any meaning if a war were take place in 2014 or in the future.
the fact is that the secret projects of both countries, and a few others, are
not posted anywhere on the interwebs, although discussion and speculation
is available, as are some leaks that may or may not be valid.
Plasma, Weather, Scalar Wave, EMP, Tesla Shield, Bio, these weapons
have the ability to do things such as: Shut off electronics, disrupt communications,
disrupt computerized commands, shut off electrical commands, cause earthquakes,
cause tidal waves, cause hurricanes, disintegrate metal, disrupt thought, disrupt
motor skills, blowout eardrums, instill pathogens, make missiles fall from the sky, etc.
In a thread of wild speculation about a theoretical war, I suppose we can include wildly speculative theoretical weapons systems. Many of the things you are mentioning have been postulated or theorized, but none are actually deployed or working, that we know of. One could assume that any such weapon would only be used as a last resort effort.
One thing not mentioned which semi falls into your line of thinking here is cyber warfare. Both nations host a large capacity for conducting and engaging in cyber warfare. The Target breach was engineered by a Russian teenager. Russian hackers are notorious the world over. The US has entire departments dedicated to defending against and waging cyber warfare and is most likely responsible for developing and deploying the most advanced virus ever deployed, Stuxnet.
A "war" between the US and Russia may not involve anything more then legions of programmers sitting at computers trying to screw with each other.
Given a non nuclear war, it would depend on the goals of such a war and where it was fought. But the Russians are certainly not the juggernaut they were in WW II, a juggernaut made possible largely by American trucks, food and clothing. In 1943, before my father was drafted he worked at the Armour plant in Chicago shipping 50 pound cans of "Russian ration", a Spamish kind of stuff.
One wonders if in the future Russia could handle a non Nato alliance of Poland, Ukraine, The Baltic states, Slovakia and Hungary. Throw in Romania and Turkey maybe. Even Germany, Finland and Sweden. Current Russian actions might make such an alliance possible, maybe probable.
I know this has been addressed, but I want to reiterate that point that they do not in fact have "manpower in spades" compared to the US. The US has more than double the population of Russia and our military is not only qualitatively better, but quantitavely larger as well...
The only area the Russians hold an advantage is in quantity of tanks, artillery and AFV's, but the vast majority of these weapon systems trace their roots to the 1960's and 1970's. If you want to argue that our quality can't make up for that quantity on the ground, then we can certainly do it in the air where the US holds a massive advantage.
This is also not counting American allies. Rounding out the top 10 global military powers in order:
3. China
4. India
5. United Kingdom
6. France
7. Germany
8. Turkey
9. South Korea
10. Japan
In a hypothetical war China and India would most likely stay neutral, but both have far deeper ties to the US then to Russia. Number 5 through 8 are all NATO allies. South Korea and Japan are both staunch US allies. I believe the statistic is that if one added up all of the global military force factor, the US and its direct allies account for 85%+ of global military power. It's not even a contest. The only reason Russia is even a factor is because of their nuclear weapons.
while i agree with the overall arc of your post, there are some specifics that i would challenge.
in your military powers stratification, i would put Germany ahead of the other European powers when it comes to conventional military capability. i would also place Iran in the top 10 about equal with Turkey and place Japan above South Korea.
i would also challenge where India and China's loyalty would ly. i agree both would want to be neutral but if push came to shove (WWIII scenario) i think one or the other would tentatively side with Russia. both heavily depend on Russia for arms, military aviation, and space programs.
while i agree with the overall arc of your post, there aresome specifics that i would challenge.
in your military powers stratification, i would put Germanyahead of the other European powers when it comes to conventional militarycapability. i would also place Iran inthe top 10 about equal with Turkey and place Japan above South Korea.
i would also challenge where India and China's loyalty wouldly. i agree both would want to be neutralbut if push came to shove (WWIII scenario) i think one or the other would tentativelyside with Russia. both heavily depend onRussia for arms, military aviation, and space programs.
The military stratification is not my list, but the one published by Global Fire Power:
This is the organization most often cited by people writing articles about global military capabilities. I will trust that they have done their homework and come up with some sort of measure and weighting system. Jane's would probably be a better overall source, but you have to pay for much of their analysis data.
China has its own organic arms, aviation and space programs. China has been a traditional rival of Russias even during the Soviet period. China is far more tied to the US economically then they are to Russia. India simply has no stake in the fight and lacks the ability to project its military beyond its immediate borders. The US has also been moving to become a major arms and technology partner for India and has largely replaced Russia as their primary supplier. China and India would stay neutral while economically being in the US camp because Russia doesn't stand a chance of actually winning.
This is the organization most often cited by people writing articles about global military capabilities. I will trust that they have done their homework and come up with some sort of measure and weighting system. Jane's would probably be a better overall source, but you have to pay for much of their analysis data.
China has its own organic arms, aviation and space programs. China has been a traditional rival of Russias even during the Soviet period. China is far more tied to the US economically then they are to Russia. India simply has no stake in the fight and lacks the ability to project its military beyond its immediate borders. The US has also been moving to become a major arms and technology partner for India and has largely replaced Russia as their primary supplier. China and India would stay neutral while economically being in the US camp because Russia doesn't stand a chance of actually winning.
that list seems very suspect. they put Ukraine ahead of Iran in terms of military capability
current events would certainly challenge that!
either way, i still agree ultimately with your conclusion. also, China may be moving towards their own arms and space programs, but their roots are based on Russian/Soviet designs. its true that China and the Soviet Union were certainly not allies before the Union broke up, but since the 90's the Sino-Russia relations have greatly improved. in many ways to combat American influence in the far east.
it would make sense for India to move towards the U.S for arms and military aviation partnerships IMO, in part to thwart their biggest adversary (China); but i believe currently they still rely on Russia a great deal...
that list seems very suspect. they put Ukraine ahead of Iran in terms of military capability
current events would certainly challenge that!
either way, i still agree ultimately with your conclusion. also, China may be moving towards their own arms and space programs, but their roots are based on Russian/Soviet designs. its true that China and the Soviet Union were certainly not allies before the Union broke up, but since the 90's the Sino-Russia relations have greatly improved. in many ways to combat American influence in the far east.
it would make sense for India to move towards the U.S for arms and military aviation partnerships IMO, in part to thwart their biggest adversary (China); but i believe currently they still rely on Russia a great deal...
Can't say that I have as much faith in Iranian military capabilities as you seem to have. It's a list with a stated methodology and metrics. I'm not claiming it's a "bible" just a readily available list that is quoted by other sources.
Not without massive and crippling losses, but the US does win.
This would never end up being a conventional war, though. Because Russia knows everything I've written here + a hundred other reasons I don't care to detail, all that point to why they're no match.
I think this pretty much nails it. Or alternatively you could say the U.S. would lose less. Could we win if we had to fight? Sure, depending on how you define win. We could certainly put a major dent in their traditional military capability (ships/tanks/troops).
But even before you factor in nukes or other WMDs, the costs would be immense, both in dollars, damage, and lives lost. It's just not a fight worth having in the modern world.
People regularly get the Crimea issue wrong, imo. Putin knows he's willing to back out of a treaty, so has to assume a post-Yanukovich Ukraine is going to be willing to back out of the lease extension on the naval base that was reasonably favorable to Russia as is, or at least renegotiate for much more money - that base has immense strategic implications for Russia's southward face, not just the Black Sea itself.
If the Kremlin assumes Ukraine is lost to the west forever, even if they honor the current lease, they're potentially hosed when 2042 rolls around, assuming we haven't traded navies for drones and spaceships by then. The Kremlin more or less had to act; they had much more to lose in this scenario than the U.S. did and would have at least had to try to call any bluff we made. Drawing a line in the sand would have been tremendously risky.
Arguably the one thing the U.S. could have done is to more quickly support resolutions that would protect Russia's interest in the base in perpetuity. Perhaps a deal to sell the base to Russia outright for $5-10B? At the least that could have sussed out whether Russia was just taking a hardline on Crimea for the sake of the base (likely) or as a foothold for invading Ukraine (less likely but certainly possible).
Now Russia holds the entire Krim and we'll just have to guess what the next step is. It may just be that Russia bought themselves a base at a significant discount (vs. the $100M or so they were paying per year on the lease) with a single incursion.
No US wouldn't "win" the war. Some may survive it, but there would certainly be no winners. It would be one big mess and if escalated enough, that would be really bad. Win? Hardly.
You made my point though, the Germans had better equipment, arguably better troops and technologies but in the end, they ran out of all of it. Why? Because the Russians were fighting for their homes, something the USA has never had to do since the revolution for practical purposes.
As for Russia's performance at the start of wars:
WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
It goes on and on. Starting is one thing, winning quite another.
It isn't like the USA and Russia would meet on the high seas or some desert in the middle east and duke it out.
Are you forgetting leadership? It is the politicians that lose wars and you can't simply discount that because you think the military runs things, it does not. Name a war we've won in the last 60 years. The Iraqis ran away aside from some battles and we won battles only, not the war. The President is Commander in Chief so it is valid to include them.
If the reality was as you claim, that the Russians are no match, then Russia would not now be in Crimea.
You are wrong for several reasons.
1. Today's Russia is nothing compared to the Soviet Union circa 1945. Today's Russia has a much smaller population, less than 1/2 of the U.S. The Soviets were able to draw lots of manpower from Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltic States, and other territories, which were formerly part of the Soviet Union. Russia no longer has access to those types of reserves.
2. The countries you mentioned (France and Germany) had much smaller populations relative to Russia at the times they invaded. Napolean's and Hitler's initial forces were 10X stronger man for man, but were unable to win because A) they ran out of manpower, and B) they were unprepared for harsh weather conditions. The Russians were inferior militarily, but were able to wear down their opponents. The U.S. would not have the issues the French and Germans had. We would have no issue clothing a 50 million man army for winter weather, and would outnumber the Russians.
3. The Russians have fought horribly in virtually every war the last 200 years. Whether it was the Nazi's, Napolean, the Fins, the Japanese, Afghanistan, or whoever, the Russians got their butts kicked at full strength in virtually every war. In WW1 and WW2, they took extremely heavy casualties relative to their opponent despite "winning".
4. The U.S. is the most advanced military in the world. We have the best navy in the world and the ability to deploy millions of troops anywhere in the world. We wouldn't have to follow in Hitler's or Napoleon's footsteps by invading Russian from Europe. We could invade the continent from almost anywhere, or from multiple directions.
I'm not saying Russia is a pushover. They would fight hard and be extremely difficult to beat. But the U.S. holds virtually every advantage on paper. There is also no guarantee that the war is certain to be fought on Russian soil. A potential conflict would most likely begin with Putin invading Europe or elsewhere.
As far as your assertions that the U.S. doesn't have the willpower to fight a bloody war, the same was said about every war we ever fought. The French wanted to use U.S. troops as garrison troops in WW1 because they didn't think we'd be of much help in combat. Pershing was smart by avoiding letting the French have command of U.S. forces.
My answer is this reference in Wikipedia: Able Archer 83.
It's a pretty good article, but it doesn't tell you how scary it really was.
I was in Headquarters, Strategic Air Command at Offutt AFB, NE, at the time, actually on the Strategic Air Combat Operations Staff (SACOS). Every fall, SAC held its annual two-week nuclear war exercise. I'd "played" in three of them by then.
The first week of the exercise was the "build up" phase of the scenario--basically, the Soviets rattling sabers in Europe, then invading West Germany. At the mid-point, the "war" goes tactically nuke on the NATO side, then threatens to go strategically nuke on the Soviet side...at which time the National Command Authority (i.e., the president) orders execution of the Major Attack Option (the big one).
At that point, the CINCSAC (the 4-star commander) stands up and says to the other generals, "Gentlemen, time to go airborne" and they get up and scurry out of the underground command post through a special tunnel to the runway where the Airborne Command Post was parked.
Being among the SACOS staff that was left behind in the underground command post, my role in the exercise always ended 30 minutes after the MAO was executed because we estimated the Soviets had 25-30 warheads targeted for the spot I was sitting. So at that point, I cleaned up my area and went home while other people continued the exercise.
But in 1983, some whiz kid in the Pentagon had the bright idea of combining the annual nuclear war exercises of the Air Force, the Navy, and the Army in Europe...for the first time ever. In fact, they even included the NCA (with Warren Christopher playing the role of the president). The idea was to exercise all the communication that would go on between all the nuclear forces and the NCA in the buildup toward a nuclear war...for the first time ever.
That was scary enough. But what we didn't know then--and would not know until the mid-90s--was that Yuri Andropov had already come to the conclusion that the US had won the Cold War (what the Soviets called the "correlation of forces") and had the ability to launch a nuclear strike that would destroy the Soviet Union while suffering only "acceptable" casualties.
That's "acceptable" from the viewpoint of a Soviet hardliner who had been through WWII and had engineered a couple of invasions himself. Moreover, he firmly believed Reagan was the US president who would do it.
We had no idea at the time the Soviets were as edgy as they were....but looking back on Andropov's reactions to every provocation during the early 80s in hindsight is illuminating.
Anyway, that year we got to the point where the NCA (Warren Christopher) ordered the execution of the MAO, around noon that day. Thirty minutes later, I left the underground command post to do a little work at my regular desk before going home. But then I got a sudden call: Report back to the underground command post immediately.
The message when I got back: "The Soviets have 'reacted' to the exercise." They were opening silo doors and had flushed their SSBN fleets from their naval ports.
Oh, sh&t.
Of course, the Soviets could not break the encrypted US communications, but they did know which channels carried what kinds of messages, and turning an purported exercise into a surprise attack was a trick out of the book Yuri Andropov himself wrote.
I suppose someone somewhere was trying to convince Yuri that the US wasn't really planning to attack them.
But at SACOS, we had to operate under the possibility that the Yuri would not be persuaded. We were planning to attack, and working as furiously at it as we could. Everything that we'd done the previous week as an exercise we were suddenly doing for real. We were locating dispersing Soviet forces and SSBNs and retargeting, every hour retargeting and retargeting.
I myself didn't leave the underground for four solid days. I'd never seen the generals so grim faced--they were the color of concrete. It was a scary freaking four days.
The closest to humor anyone came was in the first hour when a colonel remarked, "Damn, I just bought a house." After that, there wasn't even gallows humor.
I was praying, "Jesus please stop us." Eventually he did.
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.