Could the US successfully invade Russia?

[Jaketh]

Downgrading?

its like the cardboard cutouts they used to deceive the Germans in the Normandy invasion

[intel]

Downgrading?

Yes it is. Maybe you didn't know, but recent so-called "military reforms" in Russia are ultimate attempt to stop that downfall. Until 2008, Russian military budget was pathetic and would hardly cover anything than maintaining already existing army. Overgrown cadres and beaurocracy, conscript-based army, old equipment, absolutely no new designs (designs of tank and new fighter were (and are) constantly delayed because of lack of funds), and the few new designs inferior (!) to it's western or post-warsaw-pact counterparts. Maybe you aren't aware, but to have a modern military in 2025, you'll have to work on it in 2005. And Russia seemed to wake up from her dream only recently-last year, to be accurate. Even this will not radically improve condition of Russian army. Mind you, that in 2008, ONLY 31 new tanks (if we consider T-90 as new...) were introduced (sic!). I'm not aware of the current reforms (I lost interest in military- too much RL issues), but it couldn't be much better than it was. And it was friggin bad.

And infaltable hardware? Geez. Allies used this in 1944, Ukraine has the same technology and other states already have or are going to have such . Besides, other powerful states have real equipment, not inflatable one

[Thorn777]

Sarcasm...

[intel]

Sarcasm...

D'oh!

[sparks2000]

Define successful? Even if the US successfully landed a few million troops onto Russian soil,do not think for a moment that the Russian gov't would not nuke the USA before giving up their power and their land.And certainly,I have no doubt the US would do the same if the roles were reversed.It's a lose,lose situation, I'm afraid.

[Lord Mov]

US is struggling to get a hold of Afghanistan let alone invade Russia

[intel]

Invading is easier than occupying, I don't see a point.

[Jaketh]

US is struggling to get a hold of Afghanistan let alone invade Russia

Probably just glass the country, spent half a century planning for it. There wouldn't be an invasion

[Comrade_Rory]

In all seriousness... this shouldn't even really be a quiestion

There is no way at all that the US on their own could invade Russia.
I was about to get into why but i ended up writing too much and as far as i can tell, posts keep getting deleted from here so there's no point posting it all haha.

[Imperial]

US is struggling to get a hold of Afghanistan let alone invade Russia

Held onto it longer than Russia did.

[Town Watch]

I wonder if that air force general, Curtis LeMay's calculation still would hold true, that America would outlast Russia in a nuclear exchange. Probably not I guess, the weaponry has evolved in technology and destructive power quite a bit over that time, although Russia is also weaker than the Soviet Union in its hay day. Weaker in conventional war potential, where as USconventional war potential is quite strong and probably is going to keep increasing.

US has a great deal of war potential, the amount of material and number of soldiers in a pinch situation, like a real war against a major power, would be quite a bit more than Russia. Maybe US would also gain an advantage if they wipe out the Russian military satellites and manage to preserve some kind of networks of their own.

That is on the assumption that US is under a popular war president like a new Roosevelt type. Even though it sounds pretty corny, Americans were pretty united and determined to grind the Axis to dust, with full occupation and unconditional surrender. And even in WW2, USA was never even near its breaking point when it came to the ability to replace casualties in theory or in practice. Probably the times when actual war attrition was a significant factor in American wars, were when the wars were being fought on American soil (revolutionary, 1812, civil war).

Vietnam is sort of a mixed bag, and with Korea, the result wasn't half bad. China was a pretty serious enemy at the time, they did have good war potential at least. Some clearl problems with the Korean war was the fact that Truman administration had quite badly neglected their own military funding, in favour of nuclear policies, policies which they ultimately didn't have the balls to enforce when it came down to the honest actual war. It was also quite bad for the Americans to completely neglect the South Korean army and leaving them to their own devices, allowing them to be blitzkrieged by the North Koreans in the most humiliating fashion at the beginning of the war, instead of beefing them up like West Germany or something. This latter point however was important I think, in the proxy war context that the Korean war really was, a fundamentally limited engagement in Asia.

[Sanguinary Guardian]

The lack of knowledge concerning the military capabilities of these countries as well as the lack of common sense in this thread is disturbing. Well, it's the TD effect I suppose. Also, epic Threadomancy.

[gaunty14]

"Rule No1 in the book of war Do not march on Moscow "

I love that quote, I voted for stalemate, but I'm leaning towards Russian victory

[Silverheart]

I took stalemate, mainly because I think such a conflict could easily go either way.

Defensively, Russia would have the upper hand, what with terrain/weather advantage and all, unless the US decides to nuke them - in which case Russia would just nuke back... The US is all-in-all a country that is good on the offensive, but poor at defending. Only superior technology or making the war focus on urban combat would give them an edge against a russian invasion force.
Offensively, USA is very good and experienced but could easily be overcome by their complete dependency on supplies from home (and imagine fighting across the entirety of Siberia like that - it would be very expensive) Only with increasingly powerful weaponry would they be able to make any real progress. Meanwhile, Russia should have some capable forces for aggressive warfare - but could easily lose if the war becomes centered on urban areas instead of rough terrain and the like.


But thatīs just my amateur opinion. Since I canīt claim to have any real knowledge of exactly what these countires have to throw at each other, I canīt really pretend that itīs a valid analysis either...
I must, however, also point out that there are plenty of factors that are uncertain enough to make it very difficult to predict the outcome of such a war.
So my conclusion would be something like: Yes, itīs certainly possible the US could successfully conquer Russia, but it could just as easily go practically any other way.

PS.
My 2000th post!
wohoo!!!
DS.

[Stildawn]

I dislike these questions cause they are to open ended, so Ill split it up into two:

Open conflict against regular forces - US would win against Russia, in my opinion they could at the end of it drive through Russia. In my opinion they could achieve complete destruction of organised Russian Military forces. But that would just open up to the next point below:

Occupation - No, no way, not even close, nigh impossible. After the "War" there would be next to zero chance of the US maintaining any territory they gained. Maybe a small part, but nothing overly significant.

At this is supported by basically every war America has been in. At winning the actual conventional war, the US is very very skilled and very very dominate. Its the dirty war where they have a tougher time. This can be seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, hell even Vietnam. Hell both Iraq's only took days for complete victory lol.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

No. Russia has nukes. Both countries wouldn't exist by the time the USA would supposedly set foot on Russia.

And I'm really sorry for posting in a 4 years old thread.

[Gone 2 the Celts]

'MURICA YEAH!

But I would prefer Dixie.

[L-Burna]

I dislike these questions cause they are to open ended, so Ill split it up into two:

Open conflict against regular forces - US would win against Russia, in my opinion they could at the end of it drive through Russia. In my opinion they could achieve complete destruction of organised Russian Military forces. But that would just open up to the next point below:

Occupation - No, no way, not even close, nigh impossible. After the "War" there would be next to zero chance of the US maintaining any territory they gained. Maybe a small part, but nothing overly significant.

At this is supported by basically every war America has been in. At winning the actual conventional war, the US is very very skilled and very very dominate. Its the dirty war where they have a tougher time. This can be seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, hell even Vietnam. Hell both Iraq's only took days for complete victory lol.

Actually USA could hold Caucasus quite easily if they treat it's native population good and promise them freedom. They are all hostile to Russia.

[cupoftea]

I doubt any nukes would be shot over this conflict, if there ever was any. The use of nukes would instantly draw away any support that nation still had.

[Azog 150]

For those saying the USA would steam roll conventional Russian forces- the USA has absolutely no experience invading a country as insanely large as Russia. Most US invasions of recent years have focused on rapid 'Shock and Awe' type operations. But the biggest country in which the USA has launched this type of operation is in Iraq. Russia is a much bigger kettle of fish and the USA simply lacks the resources to flood an area as big as Russia with as much speed and intensity as it invaded Iraq, which is where the USA's main advantage in conventional warfare lies. It would be a much slower process, with USA resources much more widely spread. I just can't see it being possible.