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

ExpandMyMind
On 20/09/2016 at 7:57 PM, Thorvir Hrothgaard said:

US would lose War with Russia

I love that you're so arrogantly sure of this. Just a simple yes/no answer. That's it. You do realise you guys lost against the mighty Viet Cong with a far greater technological advantage than you'd have over Russia? You can give whatever excuses you want, but this remains a fact. Maybe you shouldn't be so arrogant about war. Arrogance is one of the reasons you went home from Vietnam with your tails between your legs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

I do consider myself "schooled".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I love that you're so arrogantly sure of this. Just a simple yes/no answer. That's it. You do realise you guys lost against the mighty Viet Cong with a far greater technological advantage than you'd have over Russia? You can give whatever excuses you want, but this remains a fact. Maybe you shouldn't be so arrogant about war. Arrogance is one of the reasons you went home from Vietnam with your tails between your legs.

The Vietnam war was a loss politically and nothing else.

Militarily the United States completely dominated the Viet Cong, different numbers I heard had it around 20 Viet Cong casualties for every one 1 American casualty.  After the Tet offensive the Viet Cong was shattered militarily and was unable to do any further major offensive actions.  

With the Viet Cong shattered they started to wage a guerrilla campaign and changed their strategy from trying to push the Americans out like they did with the French to trying to cause casualties on American forces to make an already unpopular war even more unpopular.  With the war unpopular the American president pushed for a ceasefire with the Viet Cong at the Paris peace accords and got it.  With the ceasefire in place, much like the ceasefire with Korea, American troops were being withdrawn from South Vietnam.  Years later when the Viet Cong were able to rebuild the shattered remains of their military they attacked South Vietnam and this time America decided to not get involved and after a few years of fighting just the South Vietnam forces were able to win.

So in summary the United States decimated the Viet Cong militarily, because of it becoming an unpopular war pushed for a ceasefire and got it, then years later when hostilities started again decided to not get involved.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

The Vietnam war was a loss politically and nothing else.

Militarily the United States completely dominated the Viet Cong, different numbers I heard had it around 20 Viet Cong casualties for every one 1 American casualty.  After the Tet offensive the Viet Cong was shattered militarily and was unable to do any further major offensive actions.  

With the Viet Cong shattered they started to wage a guerrilla campaign and changed their strategy from trying to push the Americans out like they did with the French to trying to cause casualties on American forces to make an already unpopular war even more unpopular.  With the war unpopular the American president pushed for a ceasefire with the Viet Cong at the Paris peace accords and got it.  With the ceasefire in place, much like the ceasefire with Korea, American troops were being withdrawn from South Vietnam.  Years later when the Viet Cong were able to rebuild the shattered remains of their military they attacked South Vietnam and this time America decided to not get involved and after a few years of fighting just the South Vietnam forces were able to win.

So in summary the United States decimated the Viet Cong militarily, because of it becoming an unpopular war pushed for a ceasefire and got it, then years later when hostilities started again decided to not get involved.  

This might all be true but the objective of the war was to end the Viet Cong. After over a decade the Viet Kong survived. Therefore, whichever way you wasn't to dress it up, the US lost the war.

Edit to add this from Wikipedia:

Allied military deaths 282,000
NVA/VC military deaths 444,000
Civilian deaths (North and South Vietnam) 627,000
Total deaths 1,353,000

 

 

 

 

  low estimate of deaths middle estimate of deaths high estimate of deaths Notes and comments
North Vietnam/Viet Cong military and civilian war dead 533,000 1,062,000 1,489,000 includes an estimated 50,000/65,000/70,000 civilians killed by U.S/SVN bombing/shelling[7]
South Vietnam/U.S./South Korea war military and civilian war dead 429,000 741,000 1,119,000 includes 360,000/391,000/720,000 civilians[8]
Democide by North Vietnam/Viet Cong 131,000 214,000 302,000 25,000/50,000/75,000 killed in North Vietnam, 106,000/164,000/227,000 killed in South Vietnam
Democide by South Vietnam 57,000 89,000 284,000 Democide is the murder of persons by or at the behest of governments.
Democide by the United States 4,000 6,000 10,000 Democide is the murder of persons by or at the behest of governments.
Democide by South Korea 3,000 3,000 3,000 Rummel does not give a medium or high estimate.
Subtotal Vietnam 1,156,000 2,115,000 3,207,000  
Cambodians 273,000 273,000 273,000 Rummel estimates 212,000 killed by Khmer Rouge (1967–1975), 60,000 killed by U.S. and 1,000 killed by South Vietnam (1967–1973). No estimate given for deaths caused by Viet Cong/North Vietnam (1954–1975).[9]
Laotians 28,000 62,000 115,000 Source:[10] accessed 24 November 2014
Grand total of war deaths: Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos (1954-1975) 1,450,000 2,450,000 3,595,000  

I'm not sure where you get the 20-1 number from. Maybe if you count the hundreds of thousands (at least) of innocent civilians killed in the carpet-bombing campaigns of Laos and Cambodia? I mean the US did drop an average of 8 million bombs per year, so ...

Edited by ExpandMyMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
11 hours ago, Lord Fedorable said:

the only way America will stand a chance is to bomb the roads and train lines and dominate the water. 

Which, I think, would be the case. Maybe not over Russian territory, but over the contested ground, certainly the US would rule the coastline and the air. Given enough time to get resources in place.....

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I love that you're so arrogantly sure of this. Just a simple yes/no answer. That's it.

It's not arrogance, it's just accurate.

9 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

You do realise you guys lost against the mighty Viet Cong with a far greater technological advantage than you'd have over Russia?

You do realize that didn't happen, don't you?  You do realize that the US defeated the Viet Cong and the NV at every single turn, forced them to the negotiations table, and stopped the war?  All this while fighting with one hand tied behind our backs.  What happened afterward was a tragedy, when the North decided to renege on the treaty and the US did nothing to stop it.

9 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

You can give whatever excuses you want, but this remains a fact. Maybe you shouldn't be so arrogant about war. Arrogance is one of the reasons you went home from Vietnam with your tails between your legs.

You're right, fact remains fact.  Russia would not beat the US in a war.  Instead of your mumbling and bumbling about pretending that I'm arrogant in my assumption, start doing some research and quit re-envisioning history to fit your biased little agenda and giant fly-covering pile of lies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

This might all be true but the objective of the war was to end the Viet Cong. After over a decade the Viet Kong survived. Therefore, whichever way you wasn't to dress it up, the US lost the war.

Here is an example of "moving the goalposts" when an argument is exposed as fraudulent.  The US was not defeated.  The Viet Cong was gut-punched at every turn.  And that's with only a percentage of the US military complex involved in the fighting.  Sorry, ExpandMyMind, but perhaps you should actually expand your mind someday and post accurately for once.

The politicians, swayed by the uninformed protesters at home, and desiring re-election, decided to abandon the South when the North re-invaded.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir

Here's Russia's best chance to beat the US on any front in any land at any time: weak US leadership.  They can't do it with numbers.  They can't do it with technology.  They can't do it with experience.  They'll have to bank on the fact that the US might have a POTUS in place that is weak-willed when it comes to security or providing assistance to allies, or just pursuing an anti-US idealogy...kind of like what we have now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

With over 14,000 nukes figured in, I am betting it will be a tie.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
7 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

With over 14,000 nukes figured in, I am betting it will be a tie.

Yep, I'm sure they won't go unused if it comes to the crunch. We seem to have allowed ourselves to be lulled into thinking the unthinkable can't happen, it might be more a case of it is inevitable if left to chance, in perpetuity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supervike
16 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I love that you're so arrogantly sure of this. Just a simple yes/no answer. That's it. You do realise you guys lost against the mighty Viet Cong with a far greater technological advantage than you'd have over Russia? You can give whatever excuses you want, but this remains a fact. Maybe you shouldn't be so arrogant about war. Arrogance is one of the reasons you went home from Vietnam with your tails between your legs.

Yes, the US did lose that war, as the ultimate goals were not met. (since the goals kept changing)  But as the leader of the free world,  the US tried to fight that war politically.  It was a chess match, they wanted to fight it as to not draw in China, and ultimately the Soviets.  It was just another proxy war, in a long line of them.  

It could probably be argued that America hasn't really fought an all out war since WW 2.   Everything we've done since then has been tempered by the fact that are expected to maintain the leadership role of the free worlds.

 During Desert Storm for instance, we could have taken Baghdad.  Schwarzkepf said we were 150 miles away from it, with nothing to stop us.  We didn't because we still fight our wars according the laws of the international bodies. Here's the General himself saying this:

If you remember the build up to the War, the analysts were saying the US would be bogged down by the superior force of the fourth Largest Army in the World.  Once that war started it was ostensibly over within days.  In fact, it looked more like a turkey shoot than a war.

Since then, we continue to fight these proxy wars, with agendas very different from just a plain 'military victory'.  But, I don't think one should assume this equates to military weakness.

Not sure of todays numbers, but a few years back, the US spent more on defense than the next 10 countries combined.  The amount we spend on defense is staggering, and I cannot believe those numbers aren't still pretty close to current.

 

Now, it comes to Russia.  IF we just say 'who'd win in a matchup' the way people talk about Superman Vs. Batman, maybe there's an argument to be made.  Russia's ground forces are formidable, and they are much better trained than the Iraqi Republican Guard.  But, we do have air and sea superiority.  Modern battles are all about air superiority.   

Ultimately, if fought as open war, and not a political landscape battle, I don't see how the Russians could hold out.  This isn't arrogance at all, it's just a straight up numbers game.  Their country would go broke trying to keep up with our spending.  It did once before, when they had the might of the USSR backing them.  Technologically, monetarily, numerically, all those would have to favor the US.

And, a fight between these two powerhouses would never be fought in a bubble.  Many of our allies would join in, and heck maybe China joins the Russians..  Of course, we all lose if that happens.

Like I mentioned earlier in this post, this is the Military Industrial Complex ensuring their monies.  They may really believe what they say, but you have to admit, they'd be a bit skewed on their outlook.

We shouldn't relish our wars, and it probably is much better to fight them while keeping the International laws and communities in mind.  But, again, lets not mistake that with weakness.

There is a lot of arrogance the US has regarding it's military might.  But, when you get right down to it, a lot of that can be backed up.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir
14 minutes ago, supervike said:

Yes, the US did lose that war, as the ultimate goals were not met. (since the goals kept changing) 

No, the US did not lose that war.  After the treaty supposedly settled thing, the US pulled out, and the North re-invaded afterward (knowing damn well that the South could not be conquered if the US remained).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor

  See, that is the problem.  Everyone is judging each others strengths and chances of victories based off 1940's style warfare.  War today is completely different.  War is more than just having the biggest gun and killing the most people.  It's about destroying your opponent's will to fight to get him to surrender in an argument.  War is the ultimate form of debate.  You can fight it socially, politically, and financially in addition to the battlefield.

People thump their chests and brag about how we won every major engagement in Vietnam, but are completely blind to the social and political fronts we lost it on. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
On 9/22/2016 at 10:10 PM, aztek said:

they wont, they will be buried in mass graves, on the spot. or thrown in caves and entrances blown up. they already do that in ukraine,

Its just a matter of time when relatives of deceased, or limbless "Russian world heroes" will start to speak up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
16 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

This might all be true but the objective of the war was to end the Viet Cong. After over a decade the Viet Kong survived. Therefore, whichever way you wasn't to dress it up, the US lost the war.

Edit to add this from Wikipedia:

Allied military deaths 282,000
NVA/VC military deaths 444,000
Civilian deaths (North and South Vietnam) 627,000
Total deaths 1,353,000

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure where you get the 20-1 number from. Maybe if you count the hundreds of thousands (at least) of innocent civilians killed in the carpet-bombing campaigns of Laos and Cambodia? I mean the US did drop an average of 8 million bombs per year, so ...

It probably would of helped your refutation of my 20 to 1 statement if you would of done more then just copy and paste numbers from Wikipedia without reading what you were actually copying from Wikipedia.  

First off the two graphs you posted don't have individual death counts from the nations but a combined total that adds in all of the nations involved with the second graph throwing civilian deaths in also.  During the Vietnam war the United States had 58,315 killed, which is a far cry from any of the figures posted but that isn't surprising since the total also includes South Vietnamese soldiers killed during the war which was between about 220,000 to 300,000 with about 200,000 to 400,000 civilians killed.

Second that first table is a drastic low ball estimate for the amount of North Vietnamese killed during the Vietnam war.  If you would of bothered to read the articles instead of just posting tables with numbers that initially looked good for your argument you would of read that Vietnam government released figures in 1995 that estimated the amount of their soldiers killed at around 1.1 million through the time period of 1955 to 1975.  American involvement didn't truly start till 1961 but before then it was only a low level insurgency and mostly infiltration and construction of the Ho Chi Minh trail with major conflict starting around mid 60's.  

 

Edited by DarkHunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
2 hours ago, supervike said:

Now, it comes to Russia.  IF we just say 'who'd win in a matchup' the way people talk about Superman Vs. Batman, maybe there's an argument to be made.  Russia's ground forces are formidable, and they are much better trained than the Iraqi Republican Guard.  But, we do have air and sea superiority.  Modern battles are all about air superiority.   

Ultimately, if fought as open war, and not a political landscape battle, I don't see how the Russians could hold out.  This isn't arrogance at all, it's just a straight up numbers game.  Their country would go broke trying to keep up with our spending.  It did once before, when they had the might of the USSR backing them.  Technologically, monetarily, numerically, all those would have to favor the US.

And, a fight between these two powerhouses would never be fought in a bubble.  Many of our allies would join in, and heck maybe China joins the Russians..  Of course, we all lose if that happens.

Like I mentioned earlier in this post, this is the Military Industrial Complex ensuring their monies.  They may really believe what they say, but you have to admit, they'd be a bit skewed on their outlook.

We shouldn't relish our wars, and it probably is much better to fight them while keeping the International laws and communities in mind.  But, again, lets not mistake that with weakness.

There is a lot of arrogance the US has regarding it's military might.  But, when you get right down to it, a lot of that can be backed up.

It is debatable if Russia's military is significantly better trained then the Iraqi Republican Guard.  

Russia does have a large army, that much can not be debated and its contract soldiers are definitely well trained probably more so then the Iraqi Republican Guard but the problem is that a large part of the Russian military are not contract soldiers but instead conscripts.  In 2005 only 30% of the Russian military were contract soldiers with 70% being conscripts that only served for two years, till 2007 when it got dropped to 18 months then only one year post 2008.  As of April 2015 the Russian defense minister has said that for the first time in Russian history contract soldiers outnumber conscripts but I couldn't find any numbers backing up his statement to give an idea of just how many are contract and how many are conscript.  Assuming the defense minister was being honest and not doing traditional Russian bluster there is still a significant part of the Russian military that are a low moral, barely trained, and barely equipped conscription force.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder
16 hours ago, DieChecker said:

certainly the US would rule the coastline and the air. Given enough time to get resources in place.....

 

what coast line? Northern Russia is ice and snow, southern Russia heads into China, and they are allies....

see this map for its coastline...

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Russia/@56.3120028,45.7057425,3z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x453c569a896724fb:0x1409fdf86611f613!8m2!3d61.52401!4d105.318756

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range

Don't let yourself be fooled by these fake wars between Al Qaeda and Isis.  Those ARE NOT conventional wars.  The US would decimate Russia.  What will they do, nuke us?  We can shoot missiles out of the air with an above 99% accuracy.  Will they bomb us?  They have FAR fewer and FAR less advanced fighter jets and bombers than we do.  In a conventional war, with no regard for civilian casualties, we would cripple Russia in a very short time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bmk1245
37 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

It is debatable if Russia's military is significantly better trained then the Iraqi Republican Guard.  

Russia does have a large army, that much can not be debated and its contract soldiers are definitely well trained probably more so then the Iraqi Republican Guard but the problem is that a large part of the Russian military are not contract soldiers but instead conscripts.  In 2005 only 30% of the Russian military were contract soldiers with 70% being conscripts that only served for two years, till 2007 when it got dropped to 18 months then only one year post 2008.  As of April 2015 the Russian defense minister has said that for the first time in Russian history contract soldiers outnumber conscripts but I couldn't find any numbers backing up his statement to give an idea of just how many are contract and how many are conscript.  Assuming the defense minister was being honest and not doing traditional Russian bluster there is still a significant part of the Russian military that are a low moral, barely trained, and barely equipped conscription force.  

You always can use those as cannon fodder. Put NKVD style firing squads behind their backs, and that will leave low morals little of choice.

Anyway, with Russia (way less powerful than USSR) seeking another bottom for their economy (there is still knocking can be heard from the down below), how long it will take for contracts to undo contracts en masse...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder
2 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Don't let yourself be fooled by these fake wars between Al Qaeda and Isis.  Those ARE NOT conventional wars.  The US would decimate Russia.  What will they do, nuke us?  We can shoot missiles out of the air with an above 99% accuracy.  Will they bomb us?  They have FAR fewer and FAR less advanced fighter jets and bombers than we do.  In a conventional war, with no regard for civilian casualties, we would cripple Russia in a very short time.  

 

Yes theyd bomb in return. You dont need planes to do that. Subs launch bombs too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder


How many of these does the US have? OK even Russia hasnt got one yet....but this shows they are NOT a backward country with ageing technology doesnt it?

Quote

 

Putin reveals hypersonic stealth bomber that can launch nuclear attacks from SPACE and travel anywhere in the world in two hours

    Test model of craft known as PAK-DA could fly in 2020
    Hypersonic engine for the craft believed to have been already tested
    Would be able to travel anywhere in the world in two hours


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3689325/Russia-reveals-hypersonic-stealth-bomber-launch-nuclear-attacks-space-Radical-plane-begin-testing-2020.html#ixzz4L8KhKFYd

 

 

 

 

Edited by seeder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Perhaps a little update on Warfare as it stands at the turn of this Century being not the conventional Warfare of the edge of the previous ...

~

 

Quote

 

Understanding Warfare in the 21st Century

By James Turitto
Volume XVIII, No. 3: Winter 2010

The 21st century has witnessed faster communication times and closer international networks, increasing the number of people engaged in warfare and complicating the dynamics of it. In turn, the battlefield has expanded. Technological developments over the past two decades have driven this change, and have done so in several ways.

 

~

... information and misinformation will be the telling edge of where it cuts and slices ...

~

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

And on the subject of space....why does the mighty US  need Russian rockets just to get into space?
 

Quote

 

U.S. needs up to 18 more Russian rocket engines: Pentagon

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-space-russia-idUSKCN0X600H

 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
30 minutes ago, seeder said:

 

Yes theyd bomb in return. You dont need planes to do that. Subs launch bombs too

And, like I said, we are the only nation that can shoot missiles out of the air with a near 100% accuracy.  And no, subs don't launch bombs.  Bombs drop, missiles fly.  If you are going to try to engage in this type of conversation, hide your ignorance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range
21 minutes ago, seeder said:

And on the subject of space....why does the mighty US  need Russian rockets just to get into space?
 

 

The same reason we buy oil from Saudi Arabia.  Cheaper to buy it than produce it.  It's not (or it is) rocket science.

Edited by Agent0range
  • 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.