Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
seeder

US would lose War with Russia

871 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

seeder

Ive heard many here, foolishly say Russia's military is a rusting pile of junk, and at those times, I have argued against it...

 

Quote

ON OUR OWN: US army 'would lose' war with Russia in Europe that could happen within a YEAR
RUSSIA could be set to invade Europe within a year and the US Army is now too weak to stop it, a senior military expert has said.

Army planners believe Vladimir Putin could look to take advantage of the election of a new US president to launch an attack on eastern European countries.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/712551/Vladimir-Putin-Russia-invade-Europe-US-army-navy-too-weak-John-McCain

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, seeder said:

Ive heard many here, foolishly say Russia's military is a rusting pile of junk, and at those times, I have argued against it...

 

 

The "invade within a year" comment hits home for me because this only makes logical sense considering the stated goals and timeline of the implementation of those goals laid out by the US and NATO as it pertains to the missile defense shield and troop movements to the region. Thats not a comment on the right or wrong of the situation, just the reality. 

Scary Scary stuff. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, and then said:

The force has been gutted over the last 8 years. If Putin decided to attack the Baltic nations it would be NATO's responsibility to defend and since NATO basically means the US, they'd be screwed.  The thing is, you don't just magically appear out of nowhere in a campaign like that.  There would be a very noticeable mobilization.  European nations would be screaming for help and my guess is that a LOT of really serious rhetoric would fly.  The US Army has today only a shell of what was there in the cold war.  It would still be formidable against a Russian force and it would only need to hold on until a few airborne divisions could be flown in.  The real danger would be that Putin would use tactical nukes to achieve his objectives.  Someone who threatens to use nukes isn't a man holding all the cards, far from it.  When I see articles like this I immediately think of a ploy for increased defense spending.  If the money is for personnel and training I'd be supportive.  The really high dollar, low return weapons platforms, not so much.  This situation that Obama's administration and the Dems have created guarantees that even Trump would still spend  a trillion a year more than we have.  If Putin decides to roll into Europe I can only say that elections have consequences.  Frankly, I have no desire to be nuked for the sake of any country in the EU.  They need to put on their big boy pants and man up.

I do firmly believe you are correct about Russia using tactical nukes and perhaps other non conventional technologies. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
8 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The "invade within a year" comment hits home for me because this only makes logical sense considering the stated goals and timeline of the implementation of those goals laid out by the US and NATO as it pertains to the missile defense shield and troop movements to the region. Thats not a comment on the right or wrong of the situation, just the reality. 

Scary Scary stuff. 

 

Damned straight it is.  I think the mix of personalities at the leadership level right now has the potential for global catastrophe.  When a US president allows any nation to see his weakness - repeatedly - then a power vacuum is formed.  Hell, even lil Kimmy might try to hurt the US in a situation where he felt his life was in jeopardy.  If trump is elected he would be well advised to tell everyone in the world that a new sheriff's in town.  The buzzing of ships and aircraft in international waters will be met with a shoot down.  PERIOD.  Bullys like to know where the boundaries are.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissJatti

Im sure America would be the only nation to take on Russia, in the invasion

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supervike

Of course a 'defense think tank' is going to say that.  We wouldn't want anything to hamper the military-industrial complex.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I think if Russia invades, we should let Europe defend itself. Probably they'd call the invading Russian soldiers "migrants".

We should send "aid" in case of war, but if the Euros want to save Europe, they should fight for their own.

EDIT: Reading the article, the implication of "win" means conquering Russia's military. Given the US would have to project all the way over to the east of Europe, and that the chance of Russia invading the US is close to zero, I'd say that the US wouldn't lose, but that we wouldn't be able to conquer Russia either.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
2 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

IProbably they'd call the invading Russian soldiers "migrants".

 

:D Brilliant. I wonder how many would be successful when claiming benefits.

 

10 minutes ago, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

US would lose War with Russia

No, it wouldn't.

I wouldn't be so sure if nukes were off the table mate. As WW2 showed, the Russians have a mentality built for grinding out successful war campaigns.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

maybe you should think of Finland war where soviets lost against forces fraction of their size.  because fighting a war when your nation is invaded, and fighting with help of allys and have countless number of equipment send to them via lend lease. is not nearly the same as invading other countries.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir
4 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I wouldn't be so sure if nukes were off the table mate. As WW2 showed, the Russians have a mentality built for grinding out successful war campaigns.

And if you're going to use nukes in this example, the US has shown they'll use a nuke to win a war.  See how that works?

If Russia wants to "grind out a successful war campaign", they won't have the capability to sustain it.  This isn't WWII anymore.  And, besides, the US won't be supplying Russia to "grind out a successful war campaign" this time around.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanato

In a ground war in Eastern Europe sure. In a ground war in North America no. IN a ground war in a third area the US would win. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ashotep

European countries should read the writing on the wall and build up their own military.  Don't trust your nations defense to others.  They may not get there in time. 

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

With the ease the Russian hackers have had breaking into US systems lately, I can see them winning by merely erasing American bank accounts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Varelse

If China decides Russia can do it with their help then where are we? I could see those two with the little fatty in NK and the loons in Iran jumping on board. Not in the immediate future but who knows in 5-10 years?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

I fear for the future of the children ...

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo

It's probably time for some sort of review into defence budgets, and so the high-ups in the military wheel out an "expert" to proselytise about how big and bad Russia is, thereby securing their budget for the next couple of years.

We tend to get these "Russia is eyeing us" stories whenever the big brass either need money or need to justify some action they want to take. But there's no real story here.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanato
13 hours ago, Varelse said:

If China decides Russia can do it with their help then where are we? I could see those two with the little fatty in NK and the loons in Iran jumping on board. Not in the immediate future but who knows in 5-10 years?

And if India joins the US Side because of China joining the Russian Side? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

and pakistan joins russia because india joined usa,  but the topic is about invasion of europe, neither india, nor china have anything to gain there, if anything china will be against russia, they need russian territories

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LV-426
22 hours ago, and then said:

Frankly, I have no desire to be nuked for the sake of any country in the EU.  They need to put on their big boy pants and man up.

Do you really think it's as straightforward as this?

If Europe became engaged in all out war, the chances of it being nuclear are extremely high. One of the first questions Theresa May was asked on becoming PM was whether she would push the proverbial button, and she answered with a clear "yes."

Theresa May: I Would Push The Nuclear Button

I don't think there would be any country in the world that could "sit this one out." I'm no expert, but I'd imagine that even without a direct nuclear strike, you'd be looking at environmental devastion on a scale never seen before. The way the world works these days too, it's likely that global infrastructure would just collapse.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Unicorn
22 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

I do firmly believe you are correct about Russia using tactical nukes and perhaps other non conventional technologies. 

One of Putnim's strategies of taking over another country south of Russian was to send in as his puppet a  Russian politician running for president. He was ousted after election and went back to Russia. US was much more powerful than Russia in the late 80s. They had boasted about more than they really had. They lacked founding to keep all the important things up to date and functional. I imagine Putnim focused all resources to the newer advanced technologies but I still don't think they have enough resources compared to the US to be ahead of us yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

i think we'll see major changes in Russia before that, Putin's popularity is not as it used to be, people starting to see what he really does, and very low voter turnout shows that. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
9 minutes ago, LV-426 said:

Do you really think it's as straightforward as this?

If Europe became engaged in all out war, the chances of it being nuclear are extremely high. One of the first questions Theresa May was asked on becoming PM was whether she would push the proverbial button, and she answered with a clear "yes."

Theresa May: I Would Push The Nuclear Button

I don't think there would be any country in the world that could "sit this one out." I'm no expert, but I'd imagine that even without a direct nuclear strike, you'd be looking at environmental devastion on a scale never seen before. The way the world works these days too, it's likely that global infrastructure would just collapse.

I think such an exchange is unlikely but I do agree that no country would be unscathed.  In fact I believe our economies are so interdependent that it would all collapse.  Putin has no desire to die or for his country to die.  The real issue as I see it is that he is thoroughly convinced that the US president is weak and there is little or no cost to pushing him.  The unintended consequences may leave us all in the dark. My comment about Europe standing up and taking responsibility for their own defense is only natural.  NATO was a successful buffer against Soviet aggression and when the Soviet threat appeared to be gone, resources were not put into self defense any longer - at least on a realistic scale.  The EU seems to finally grasp that America cannot be counted on to pull the load any longer and worse, may not come to the rescue in time if Putin were to get ideas.  The new EU superstate army may be a reality in a decade or less. 

The one thing I DO believe is straightforward is that at some point these weapons will be used on a large scale.  The fact that Putin began talking about tactical first use and the retrofitting of US B61's to variable yield weapons is an indication that our leaders really do seem to believe they can be used in some measured way. Insanity. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.