Russia defeats the invaders, and forces terms upon the US
US defeats Russia and creates the overseas State of New-Russia
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
Last edited by intel; November 20, 2009 at 01:10 AM.
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.
US is struggling to get a hold of Afghanistan let alone invade Russia
Under the Patronage of Jom
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.
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.
"What do I feel when I kill my enemy?"
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.
"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
WOT name is tsk92
"will help build battle station for food" - or rep
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.
My 2000th post!
Heart of silver, Mind of gold
Fist of iron and Tongue to scold
Proud to be a Viking!
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.
Last edited by Stildawn; April 26, 2012 at 08:18 PM.
Just needed a new signature lol. Any suggestions?
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.
Under the patronage of Emperor Maximinus Thrax
Support the freedom fighters of Iran, Palestine, Syria and Bangladesh! Resist the illuminati! Don't let them fool you!
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.
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.
Under the Patronage of Jom!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)