can russia invade usa? is there a country that can challenge

why would anyone want to?

the only time the U.S ever goes to war is on the offensive, and that's for good reason.

>most funded military in the world

>most technologically advanced military in the world

>you wouldn't gain anything from invading them even if there was a chance you could win.

>>31447577
>can russia invade usa?
Russia could barely invade fucking Georgia in 2008 and that was a tiny little country that shared a land border with the Russian Federation.

>is there a country that can challenge usa in a war?
A lot of countries might be able to come out on top in very limited engagements in their neck of the woods. I remember reading that the commander of the US Navy Pacific fleet said somewhere that China could invade Taiwan and spam Dong Feng 26 missile at any US carrier group that responds while cratering the airbase at Okinawa so the US Air Force can't help out.

The thing is, no country actually has a motive to go to war the US, since it's committing economic suicide.

>>31447577
Yes, they just need to hide in cargo ships and sail to Seattle.

>>31448072
I loved that game

Invade or glass? Very different. If anyone has the manpower to try I'd say china. But it would be a bloodbath

>>31447673
>>31447762
These

BEHIND EVERY BLADE OF GRASS

Mexico is certainly doing a good job, if we're talking culture war.

the US government already invaded the US

>>31447577
>can russia invade usa?

Nope. The US Navy and Air Force are FAR more numerous and of better quality then the Russians. Which would make a seaborne or airborne invasion neigh impossible.

>is there a country that can challenge usa in a war?

1v1? China. Unlike Russia, the Chinese Navy has the ability to contest the US Navy in open seas.

>>31449636
>>31448072
What game?

>>31451237
World in Conflict.

>>31450623
>Chinese Navy has the ability to contest the US Navy in open seas.
It doesn't, and won't for a decade or more.

>>31450623

>neigh impossible

they can just go on horseback then

Yes but stupid amerifats won't admit it.

China maybe if Russia backed them. It'd get a bit dicey politically if US invaded Canada but I think the leafs wouldn't mind and it's not like Europe is anything in real talks. [spoiler]please save me US I hate these retarded gun laws.[/spoiler]

Sure, the US doesn't have the willpower for an extended bloody conflict anymore. We got cucked by media filming the Vietnam war and don't have a stomach for blood.

As for point two, no country in the world has the force projection capability needed to invade the US. Period. full stop. end quotation.

As you were.

>>31451376
This. Half the country would be licking Bernybern's butthole and saying BETTER RED THAN DEAD or I'D RATHER LIVE ON MY KNEES THAN DIE ON MY FEET or THINK OF THUH CHILLUN, SURRENDURR

>>31451401
Liberals are absolute fucking hawks when something actually happens, anon.

>>31447762
>Russia could barely invade fucking Georgia in 2008 and that was a tiny little country that shared a land border with the Russian Federation.
What barely invade? they fucking had the Georgians overwhelmed within 48 hours of shelling Tskhinvali. Meanwhile the US and friends had to spend 6 months prepping in S.Arabia to liberate Kuwait.

>>31447577
>can russia invade usa?

Yes, the could. Would they? Unlikely. As interesting as the prospect would be, as stated above, they invaded Georgia and it went to shit fast, they've had units active in Ukraine and that's ground into something of a stalemate.

Additionally while some of their equipment is new and very nice, they have old shit that's barely usable. For example, out of every five MI-24s in their air fleet, at least one is less airworthy and more a, as one intel analyst once put it, a flying bomb.

>is there a country that can challenge usa in a war?

China, but only due to a sheer weight of numbers. However, even then there's no benefit to a direct confrontation for them with the U.S.

>>31451422
Christ, you're retarded.
>Meanwhile the US and friends had to spend 6 months prepping in S.Arabia to liberate Kuwait.
They spent six months trying to convince one of the largest armies in the world to back off, as casualty projections were fucking TERRIBLE.

Then they ran them over with almost no losses.

>they fucking had the Georgians overwhelmed within 48 hours of shelling Tskhinvali.
Anon, they couldn't establish complete air superiority, and had officer borrowing phones form reporters to call in commands. Georgia was a fucking fiasco, and had the Georgians not been totally incompetent, would have been a bloodbath.

>>31451414
>Liberals are absolute fucking hawks when something actually happens

Examples? I'm legitimately curious.

>>31451376
>As for point two, no country in the world has the force projection capability needed to invade any country the US is committed to prevent from being invaded. Period. full stop. end quotation.
FTFY. We could keep China out of South Korea if it came to that.

>>31451495
Have you met any? Angry liberals tend to be 100% ok with literally any violent action against whoever pisses them off.

>>31451495
have you never watched or read any kind of news?

>>31451495
Not him, but remember when they found out ISIS really was selling Yazidi women and girls as sex slaves? Their heads fucking exploded, they wanted all ISIS fighters dead.

>>31451451
>can russia invade usa?
>Yes, the could
How fucking stupid are you? They just walk across the pacific or atlantic yeah?

>>31451683
Anyone with open ocean capable ships feasibly could invade the U.S.


The question therefore turns into "How well would such an invasion go?"

Which the answer in this case would be "varying degrees of disastrous.".

>>31451736
Go in through Canada. We don't have shit and I fucking hate it. Why the fuck should we rely on the USA? Because they have a good military? They have a large state side reserve? So fucking what it should be our responsibility to defend this giant fucking coast line, maybe with a bit of help but fuck these fucking rust buckets of ships. USA can't and should not be expected to pull the weight of the world.

>>31451272
>Contest (verb)
>>To engage in competition to attain (a position of power).

Active ships in the Chinese Navy
485

Active ships in the US Navy
430

By that definition Chinese Navy has the ability to contest the US Navy in open seas. Of course with the better quality of US ships and the sheer amount of firepower the US carriers bring to the table, the balance is greatly tipped in the US Navy's favor.

>>31451335
Annexing Canada would be a terrible move.

We have about the best relationship two neighboring countries can have, and Americans wouldn't want the more left Canadians interfering in politics and vice versa.

The internal state of the 51 states of America would be very tense, to say the least.

>>31452057
>USA can't and should not be expected to pull the weight of the world.


In full agrrement with you on that, however we're too entangled with shit around the world to do a full withdrawal without shit going tits up in a spectacular fashion... I mean fuck. Look at what happened in the middle east when we took out the strongmen, left a power vacuum and then assisted in the overturning of a couple other strongmen..

>>31452057
Canada provides a decent amount of support through NORAD/NORTHCOM.

Honestly the best thing for Canada is to give money to the USAF and to defend their own coasts.

>>31452151
Not to mention what would happen in Asia if the US decided to leave Korea and Japan.

China would probably bust a nut.

They would not only be fighting the US military but there will be innumerable armed civilians ready and willing to defend their clay.

>>31452176
To be fair, the South Koreans and Japanese stepped up their defense funding when we started talking about spending a bit less in their region iirc.

Regardless that region's a tinderbox waiting for someone to start flicking matches into it with the U.S. basically keeping a decent supply of foscheck on top of it all.

>>31452236
Basically this.

China really doesn't have anything to gain by going to war with the US, so we have this stupid dance where they push us but don't really push too far.
I believe that if they saw they could expand without US confrontation, they would, which would spell bad news for our allies over there.

On an unrelated note, I kinda low-key hate china and think most mainlanders are animals.

>>31452118
Yeah it'd be a bad move but come on mate, I want a Galil.
>>31452151
I'm in no way saying you should pull out. I'm saying Canada should pull our fucking weight in the very least our navy since our coast line is retarded huge.
>>31452158
the coasts is the biggest thing for me, but we really need more arctic defenses, we mostly have drunk natives with SMLE up there but I guess they are replacing that with god knows what. Probably SVTs or sks knowing our dumb fuck leaders
>>31452176
As a weeb I won't stand for a government that left japan. Plus the US military has a better standing with Japan than Canada at this point, they go through so many fucking exercises and simulations.

>>31451422
>What barely invade? they fucking had the Georgians overwhelmed within 48 hours of shelling Tskhinvali.
With mercenary armies.

And even Georgian President said they could have resisted the Russians if they wanted, but didn't want to turn Georgia into another Iraq.

>>31452063
Lets talk about ship tonnage instead of 3rd world boat count.

Here the USA absolutely destroys any other Navy by a long shot.

>>31447577

>can Russia invade the U.S

kek, no

>is there a country that can challenge usa in a war?

yes and no, we'd paint the walls with anyone in a conventional war however we fair very poorly against guerrillas

>>31451495
>Examples? I'm legitimately curious.
Let's start with the passage of the Patriot Act post 9/11, then look at the thunderous support for the Afghanistan invasion and finally move on to consider how many liberals supported the second Iraq invasion initially (before lol no WMDs).

The very quickest way to see a ton of shit get done in Washington is attack US soil. That's almost the only thing that will get 95% of US pols all pointed in the same direction. And if they're pointed at you and unleashing the US military, god help you.

>>31451451
>Yes, the could.
How? I'm serious. They have neither the sealift or airlift capability to contest landings, even in Alaska, nor the Navy or Air Force to seriously contest their US counterparts. There is literally no conceivable way they could force a landing in the US with their available amphibious and air assault assets.

>>31450397
What do you mean by this?
I'm Mexican but as far as I can tell were just an ant compared to most countries.
And culture war?

>>31452063
The US Navy is over three times the total tonnage of the PLAN, and that tonnage is generally more capable on a platform by platform and total capability basis. If we're talking just naval assets on naval assets, the USN could drub the entire PLAN using less than a third of its total tonnage, or, conversely, only 2/3rds of the currently active SSN fleet. Probably wouldn't even need that many of the SSNs to do it, actually.

People forget just how many SSNs the USN has, and just how nasty they are.

only threat that still exists on this planet are over inflated egos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aAbOgdbTbM

but those ayy lmaos man

>>31452063
No, it isn't. It has a far smaller blue water force, and lacks the institutional experience to fight a major action, as its blue water naval tradition is non-existent, especially compared to the US.

Total vessels doesn't mean a fucking thing when you're floating ships that are incapable of anyting but coastal defense.

You'd know all this if you'd spent ten minutes on wiki instead of five.

>>31452321
>With mercenary armies.
[citation needed]

>And even Georgian President said they could have resisted the Russians if they wanted, but didn't want to turn Georgia into another Iraq.
tie-eater bullshit. If he didn't want to risk liberation he shouldn't have shelled Russian peacekeepers and invaded S.Ossetia.
>>31451469
>Christ, you're retarded.
But that's what tards say to normal people.

>They spent six months trying to convince one of the largest armies in the world to back off, as casualty projections were fucking TERRIBLE.
You mean in those six months they assembled a force and begged and bribed all around the world for people to join their little merry adventure. All without much interruption from the Iraqi Army just scratching its balls in Kuwait for that duration of time.

>Then they ran them over with almost no losses.
This is the same shitty army that lost against hajjis on foot with old men and children meatshields, and was saved by timely resupplies from both superpowers.

>Anon, they couldn't establish complete air superiority
Then why were they bombing all throughout the war?

>had officer borrowing phones form reporters to call in commands
Well the unit that participated was your run-of-the-mill backwater force that didn't have much equipment newer than 1970s.

>Georgia was a fucking fiasco, and had the Georgians not been totally incompetent, would have been a bloodbath.
Could say the same about Iraq. Only total incompetence on all scales by the Iraqis saved the coalition. Seriously they could have just pulled out from Kuwait a day before the deadline then what? Operations level that massive right flank just begging to be plowed through. And of course the tactical ineptitude displayed that put even retarted lemmings to shame.

>>31451548
+1

File: 888 war badass yakut.jpg (933KB, 3308x2069px) Image search: [Google]

933KB, 3308x2069px

>>31447762
>Russia could barely invade fucking Georgia in 2008
Is this what you keep telling yourself, Gogi?

>>31452321
>even Georgian President said they could have resisted the Russians if they wanted
>even Georgian President said
>W-well, we surrendered in a couple of days... and o-our army basically fled... but we could totally hold them! T-totally!
Gogi, please.

>>31447577
Nope.

In an economic war maybe the Eu, China or Opec.

If you want to go nuclear, any nuclear armed state with over 500 missiles could do it, but there won't be an America left to "invade".

>>31452293
>I'm in no way saying you should pull out. I'm saying Canada should pull our fucking weight in the very least our navy since our coast line is retarded huge.
We're building new ships so we can keep doing that. We should probably build more, but as it is because the Tories lied their asses off about the price they would have cost 100 billion if the grits hadn't gone with an off the shelf design.

Russia can't
USSR can
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjW3kMNaW2o

>>31453695
Neither Soviet, nor modern day Russian military doctrines have ever considered invading USA. It's a fairy tale made up by rancid McCarthyist propaganda.

>>31451499
Keeping Russians out of Crimea worked out well :^)

>>31450623
Jesus fucking Christ no they cant even fucking attempt to contest the ocean. They have one shifty carrier they can't even get into blue water, and the rest of their navy is laughable compared to its US counterpart.

That's why they're so dependant on surface based antiship missiles.

>>31451237
World in conflict

WiC is still my favorite rts game. I cried when Sierra entertainment died

>>31452063
Literally half those ships are missile boats and sub chasers. They physically do not have the range to operate in the open ocean.

>>31452345
>>31452943
>>31453024
I think y'all are misreading me.

I fully understand that the US Navy BTFO's the Chinese Navy in every single aspect except numbers.

What I'm saying is that Chinese have the option to engage the US on a Fleet action scale. Even though the end result is a crushing defeat for the Chinese fleet. They can at least sail in a Fleet size formation and (attempt to) challenge the US Fleet on a scale that hasn't been seen since WWII.

>>31454928
China can do so within their own waters.

Your assertion that they can do so in the open waters of the Pacific (or god forbid any other ocean) is incorrect however. Most of their fleet is defensive in nature and very limited in range and endurance. The vast majority of their subs are diesels and most of their surface force is comprised of very short-range vessels, which are not meant to operate away from the coast (both in terms of range and in terms of operational sea state).

It would be the US that outnumbers China anywhere that isn't their coast.

>>31452934
Don't listen to the stormfriend my young taconigger, You'll catch its stupid.

>>31454974
Well I interpreted open waters to be anything greater than 12nm from the coast, which is considered territorial waters.

Am I wrong with this interpretation?

>>31455585
O-ok...

>>31451376
>Sure, the US doesn't have the willpower for an extended bloody conflict anymore.
That was literally what the Japs thought when they tried to grind us into crying uncle in the Pacific

>>31454035
Keeping Russia out of a backwater vacation town isn't the same as keeping China out of a military ally and economic partner.

>>31451495
>Examples?

FDR.

>>31451414
It's worth noting that libs see our current military endeavors as stupid corporate globalist ventures backed by the U.S. military and causing the death of innocent third world peasants that we really don't need to care about. They just want us to be more isolationist. Being the world police is a bi-partisan problem.

But I can't think of anyone who would disagree with raping China to death if they started dropping into our cities.

>>31455835
Well, and the japs weren't proved wrong. U.S. didn't have an extended bloody conflict in WW2.

>>31455600
>Am I wrong with this interpretation?
Not from an international law perspective. From a naval operations perspective, that's still within the Brown Water Navy (littoral, range-limited, operating from nearby bases on short patrols) remit, shading into Green Water Navy (larger ships, better open water capability but still without UNREP or independent operations capability, i.e. not designed to operate outside the cover of land based AEW&C/AWACS, naval patrol craft, fighters and bombers) capability.

Blue Water Navies are designed to have the native logistics capability to operate anywhere in the world for a full patrol length, and include all the organic capabilities necessary to operate away from land based assets, which means they carry their own theater AWACS, other ISR assets, CAP/fleet defense aircraft, more than sufficient ASW capability and other more minor features. Worldwide naval basing is usually set up to support this type of fleet, in addition to a very large merchant/auxiliary marine (like the USN's MSC), and features integral ground attack capabilities with large expeditionary Marine detachments.

Blue Water Navies:
>UK, 1780s (ish) to 1945ish, to a lesser extent thereafter but still possessing worldwide expeditionary capability
>French Navy, intermittent from 1760s to (arguably) 1805, and to a lesser extent post-1945
>USN, 1900ish to present
>USSR, early 1950's to somewhere in the mid-90's, arguably still blue water by a fingernail. Possesses the ships, lacks the logistical and expeditionary capability, but this is mitigated by designed goal
>Dutch Navy, 1600s-1700s
>Spanish Navy, intermittent up to Trafalgar

Green Water Navies:
>Japanese JMSDF
>ROK Navy
>German Navy
>Australian Navy
>Brazilian Navy
>Spanish Navy
>Italian Navy, shading more toward Blue
>Canadian Navy, shading more toward Brown
etc.

Brown Water Navies:
>Most of the SEA navies
>Swedish Navy, shading a little toward Green

CONT

>>31455600
>>31456104
As far as the Chinese PLAN, they are on the cusp. Many argue they are already blue water. Others argue they are still a green water navy. They are certainly beyond a brown water navy currently, which is a first since, well, a long time. Someone with better knowledge on their pre-1900 naval history will have to expand.

The entire system of naming conventions has a lot of wiggle room to it, and is all more than a little comparative and subjective. It gets really squirrelly trying to pin things down with modern navies because of the current crop of standoff guided munitions employed by modern ships, where you can take a Brown water vessel and put a Blue water ranged AShM on it. That's why today it mostly comes down to operational patterns, logistics capacity and native fleet strategic assets like theater AWACS. Think of it like this, for a rude analogue:

>Brown Water Navies are tactical rotary wing assets: shorter ranged, designed for forward deployment and dependent on basing proximity for effectiveness
>Green Water Navies are tactical fixed wing fighter/bombers, capable of all the basic air power missions but limited in range and scope to regional operations and possessing limited range supplementation via in-flight refueling
>Blue Water Navies are USAF modern strategic bombers like the B-2, based permanently (mostly) in the US and designed to strike anywhere in the world from that "home port" with unit-exclusive air-refueling assets

>>31451495
>Examples? I'm legitimately curious.
No examples needed, just see how they react when a republican says that government should secede power over any issue to the citizen... they freak out.

Liberals care about little more than power, an outside military threat strikes them at their core.

The USA is literally impossible to invade militarily. Hundreds of millions of civilian owned weapons is one he'll of a deterrent.
Also I imagine seeing a nuclear exchange if someone attempted to invade us anyway. I mean how could Russia or China just sneak a few million people across an ocean?

>>31456278
The civvie owned weapons aren't any sort of deterrent, it's the massive navy and moat between the US and anyone that's worth anything.

>>31456278
Russians are closer than they appear.

>>31456202
It's because liberals are part of the neocon jewry. It's all about power.

>>31448072
Parker and company still need to take their fight to China. Man, I am hoping for World in Conflict 2 but that's just a dream.

>>31452293
>We mostly have drunk natives with SMLE up there

False, they're not drunk as they're members of the CAF and they have SAKO rifles. Stop talking out of your ass you fucking Ontarioan.

>>31456353
>Russians are closer than they appear.
Russians are very, very far away. If you speak about Russia logistics wise you forget about absolutely anything east of Urals.

>>31456353
I feel like if Russia started amassing troops and loading them on transports heading our way wed know about it within hours. The amount of eyes on we have nowadays is insane. The air force can literally monitor anywhere on the planet within hours if not less.

>>31456104
Your classification is wrong.

Blue water is a new term. Different from blue green brown.

China is a rank4 blue water navy.

Russia, India rank3.

UK, France, U.S. being 2 to 1.

>>31447577
Russia has no force projection whatsoever. Any sort of invasion attempted would be a complete slaughter via US Naval Aviation and I doubt any Russians would even hit the ground.

>>31447577
Their landing ships would get utterly shredded.

>>31452063
Haha yea bro, just like the Iraqi Army (4th largest army in the world at that time) could contest us! Oh wait, they got their shit pushed in, in a matter of weeks.

>>31456463
>Blue water is a new term
The Todd & Lindberg classification system is new, as of 1996. The term "Blue Water Navy" was used in naval works, papers and publications by the British as early as 1720 when discussing Dutch naval dominance. "Brown Water Navy" is a term originating in the US Civil War to describe Union vessels operating on the Mississippi and other waterways. Etc.

The terms are not new. The more specific codification and classification system is new. I chose to simplify it for an anon clearly just easing into the finer points of naval history and classification.

Traditionally, ranks 3 to 4 have been where Blue water starts shading into Green water. Ranks 5 to 6 are where Green shades into Brown.

>>31456463
>Your classification is wrong.
>Blue water is a new term. Different from blue green brown.
>China is a rank4 blue water navy.
>Russia, India rank3.
>UK, France, U.S. being 2 to 1.
Autism, ladies and gentlemen.

If you're going to be a pedantic ass, at least be a correct pedantic ass.

Anon was not wrong. He was just using the traditional, more simple classification system, not the US DoD one.

>>31447577

>can russia invade usa?

No.

>is there a country that can challenge usa in a war?

Russia has nuclear parity, conservatively, and likely nuclear superiority over the US. Russia has much better delivery systems.

>>31447762

>Russia could barely invade fucking Georgia in 2008 and that was a tiny little country that shared a land border with the Russian Federation.

Russia took over what it wanted in Georgia in 5 days, with a tiny fraction of its military. That's the end of your bullshit discussion.

>>31449674

China doesn't have the capability to glass US or Russia, both US and Russia can glass China. China cannot invade the US.

>>31456660
>Russia has much better delivery systems.
You have got to be shitting me.

The Ohio class alone laughs at you completely silently.

>>31454134
>Jesus fucking Christ no they cant even fucking attempt to contest the ocean.
That's the USN's job, not theirs. Its the US that has to secure the oceans to preserve its link with the Eurasia, not Russia. IN this sense the Russians can and do get away with a navy that is doctrinally oriented towards sea denial.

>>31455846
>Keeping Russia out of a backwater vacation town isn't the same as keeping China out of a military ally and economic partner.
That the Crimea is a resort town is just cherry on top really. The main reason for taking Crimea has always been the to secure the bases of the BSF. That and it just further cements the Black Sea's status of a Russian lake, like seriously, look at it, its at the center of everything there.

>>31456728
I'm pretty sure he was talking about China not Russia.

Also it is relevant if you're talking about the point of topic here, which is attacking the US on it's home turf.

File: 5062691+_4417b807cd1464f0101140f086570c92.jpg (7KB, 300x153px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 300x153px

>>31456104
>>31456114
Thank you for your in depth explanation anon. I see how I misused the term in a naval warfare sense. And on top of that, I even learned new information that was unbeknownst to me.

This is why I love /k/

>>31456690
>The Ohio class alone laughs at you completely silently.
Alone is the key word here.

>>31456690

>The Ohio class alone laughs at you completely silently.

Talking about ICBMs.

>That the Crimea is a resort town is just cherry on top really. The main reason for taking Crimea has always been the to secure the bases of the BSF. That and it just further cements the Black Sea's status of a Russian lake, like seriously, look at it, its at the center of everything there.

Actually, Crimea is an insanely profitable tourist spot. To the point where Crimea wanted to break away from Ukraine (NOT join Russia) and be independent so they don't get taxed by Kiev, because they could ball on tourism alone.

>>31447577
Tbh it wouldn't be all that difficult to take over the United States given that the U.S. road system is so developed. Interstate high ways provide a extremely rapid way to progress.

>>31456377
>If you speak about Russia logistics wise you forget about absolutely anything east of Urals.
Except some of the largest exercises they did involved just those places.

>>31456389
>The air force can literally monitor anywhere on the planet within hours if not less.
If you are talking about air breathing assets, nope. And satellites have predictable search times that you can take advantage of or even in a hot war shoot.

>>31456799
Technically true, though the whole reason it's so developed is to give the US itself the ability to rapidly transit anywhere in the states.

>>31456690
>The Ohio class alone laughs at you completely silently.
It doesn't even have pumpjets like the Borei and Virginia aka actual 4th generation nuclear submarines does. Sad.

>>31451278
Get off the Internet, dad.

>>31451376
>cucked by media filming
No, people just stopped obediently going along with the directions if those at the top regardless. People wondered why their sons were being dragged and killed in a war that had absolutely no effect on them.
Perfectly reasonable feeling, unless you think the government should just be able to go around spending the lives of its citizens with absolutely no outcry or questioning.

>>31456800
X-37 with an optics package could really pass over whatever it wants.

>>31456775
>Talking about ICBMs.
That's one of three classes of delivery systems. If you're suggesting the US is behind in contested air delivery or SLBM delivery, the other two of three, well, you know where to stick that.

File: main-qimg-573cbcf636fe3db3fdcf0e9c336f9592.png (106KB, 572x423px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 572x423px

>>31456775
>To the point where Crimea wanted to break away from Ukraine (NOT join Russia)
They always wanted to be a part of Russia ffs. Even Western polls reflect this.

>ecause they could ball on tourism alone.
Not without water and electricity they can't. Both of which have been taken care of by Russia making a deal with Ukraine to continue supplying the Crimeans in exchange for gas and Rubles, and in some cases doing it themselves, in the interim.

>>31456800
>Except some of the largest exercises they did involved just those places.
>exercises is the same as war

>>31456836
>the Borei
It doesn't even have natural circulation propulsion level reactor output like the USN has had since the Narwhal in 1969. Sad.

>>31456894
No it can't:
>Its not stealthy
>Its not moving at incredibly hihg speed
>It doesn't even fly that high
It would get wrecked by one of their Anti-sat missiles and later the S-500.

>>31456901

>That's one of three classes of delivery systems. If you're suggesting the US is behind in contested air delivery or SLBM delivery, the other two of three, well, you know where to stick that.

I made it very clear as to which one I am talking about. Get your second-strike bullshit out of here.

>They always wanted to be a part of Russia ffs. Even Western polls reflect this.
>PERCEIVED_Legitimacy.jpg

The image you posted is absolutely useless.

>Not without water and electricity they can't. Both of which have been taken care of by Russia making a deal with Ukraine to continue supplying the Crimeans in exchange for gas and Rubles, and in some cases doing it themselves, in the interim.

They would be wealthier on their own. They can make deals with Ukraine or Russia themselves if they have money.

File: Imperialist Flag.jpg (49KB, 400x288px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 400x288px

The Glorious Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Mexico. the only country that has challenged the US and the only country that will go to war with the US on it's soil later this century. Stay alert, our grandgrand children will have to fight beaners sympathetic to Mexico and invading mexican troops

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qznkPU27q_g

>>31456930
>It doesn't even have natural circulation propulsion level reactor output like the USN has had since the Narwhal in 1969. Sad.
And you have the proof for this, other than your ass?

>>31456929
An exercise is as much of a test on your logistics as an actual shooting war is if you think about it.

>>31456980
>>31456920

Meant to link you obviously.

>>31456980
>The image you posted is absolutely useless.
>Reality doesn't reflect my opinions so fuck reality amiright?

>They would be wealthier on their own. They can make deals with Ukraine or Russia themselves if they have money.
No they fucking can't. What part of no utilities like electricity, heating, and water, and access to comms. which are all vital aspects of modern civilized life do you not understand?

>>31451736
>feasibly could
And then get promptly missile raped

>>31447577
Fuck off space niggers, you can gentrify Africa if you're looking for a foothold

>>31456930
>It doesn't even have natural circulation propulsion level reactor output like the USN has had since the Narwhal in 1969. Sad.

http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/nfl2-1.htm
>2.3.3 Third generation reactors
>First of all, this system permitted a natural circulation of coolant within the primary circuit, even at high power. This was important for the flow of coolant into the reactor core at complete or partial power failure. With the block system, pipes to the primary circuit were replaced with short, wide diameter pipes which connected the main components (reactor, steam generators, and pumps).[146] The reactors were equipped with a cooling system which operated independently of the batteries and that started up automatically in the event of a power failure.

File: fox and grapes.jpg (192KB, 688x1434px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 688x1434px

>>31456980
>I made it very clear as to which one I am talking about. Get your second-strike bullshit out of here.
So we're pretending low-deflection SLBM profiles don't exist? Hilarious. Pretending that ICBMs are the only nukes that matter just because your sub force is currently shit is pic-related tier thinking.

>>31457035

>The image you posted is absolutely useless.
>Reality doesn't reflect my opinions so fuck reality amiright?

Can you read it, especially after I pointed out the problem with the poll? Obviously not, let me break it down for you. You made some ridiculous claim about Western polls showing that Crimea wants to join Russia. Then you posted a post-invasion public-opinion poll. The average US citizen doesn't know what the fuck Crimea is - and that's whom Gallup interviews - a randomly selected slice of the general US pop, generally over the phone.

>No they fucking can't. What part of no utilities like electricity, heating, and water, and access to comms. which are all vital aspects of modern civilized life do you not understand?

Read my post:

>They can make deals with Ukraine or Russia themselves if they have money.

If they have tourism money, they can buy utilities.

If you reply again ranting random shit that's already been covered, this conversation is pointless.

>>31457006
>And you have the proof for this, other than your ass?
How about the simple fact that they've never, ever demonstrated the capability on an operational submarine? Not even the two Lead-bismuth FAST reactors used on Alfas could produce propulsion off natural circulation.

Feel free to provide a source proving otherwise.

>>31457069
>The average US citizen doesn't know what the fuck Crimea is - and that's whom Gallup interviews - a randomly selected slice of the general US pop, generally over the phone.
What the fuck man. Were you dropped on your head son? Its a poll conducted in Ukraine and Crimea! Jesus Christ Almighty.

>If they have tourism money, they can buy utilities.
You can't host tourists when there is no electricity, no water, no heating, no phones, no and no internet ffs.

>this conversation is pointless.
Totally agree. You are just that dumb that I don't even know why I bother.

>>31457054
The important part of that sentence is
>This was important for the flow of coolant into the reactor core at complete or partial power failure.
Just like all USN naval reactors after the early 1960's, they had the capability of bringing a reactor down from high output on natural circulation during a catastrophic coolant pump failure, and running it long term in natural circulation at low power levels.

None of them were designed to run long term at significant output levels on natural circulation.

File: US_Nuke_Deployment.png (29KB, 722x282px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 722x282px

>>31457066

ICBMs deployments number over twice the size of the other aspects of the triad. Keep ignoring this fact.

>>31457121

>What the fuck man. Were you dropped on your head son? Its a poll conducted in Ukraine and Crimea! Jesus Christ Almighty.

Yea, ok, I didn't know Gallup did polls outside of the US. Link me.

>You can't host tourists when there is no electricity, no water, no heating, no phones, no and no internet ffs.

Nor can you read.

>Totally agree. You are just that dumb that I don't even know why I bother.

The feeling is mutual.

>>31457096
>How about the simple fact that they've never, ever demonstrated the capability on an operational submarine?

Same source:
>Development on the third generation nuclear reactors began in the early 1970s, and it is these reactors that power submarines in the Project 941 - Typhoon class, 949 - Oscar class, 945 Sierra class and 971 Akula class.
Good lord this board has been infested with retards who can't read for shit.

>Not even the two Lead-bismuth FAST reactors used on Alfas could produce propulsion off natural circulation.
That's because you are dumb as fuck. A soup of heavy metals does not lend itself to being cooled with just convection currents. There's a lot more heat developed in a much smaller package that you need pumps all the time.

>>31457006
>>31457054
The best Russians ever did with propulsion-output natural circulation was 20-25% output on the KLT-40 in the Sevmorput and Taymyr-class, both surface classes with a very tall (high-head) naval reactor. There is no possible way it ever fit in a sub. All other natural circulation features were pump-failure redundancy measures, not propulsion-output features, just like in USN naval reactors.

The KLT-40:
https://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/Downloadable/aris/2013/25.KLT-40S.pdf
http://www.nks.org/download/pdf/NKS-Pub/NKS-57.pdf
Minimum installed system height including primary loop heat exchangers was on the order of 49 feet.

No country on Earth could successfully invade the US.
And all but one country wouldn't even make it to mainland US, with the exception being Canada. Even that is only we leafs took them by surprise, but after a few hours we'd end up being North Minnesota.
The US Navy has ten Nimitz-class supercarriers, each operating in a carrier battlegroup. Any invading country would have to go through that first, which I really don't see happening.

>>31457177
>ICBMs deployments number over twice the size of the other aspects of the triad. Keep ignoring this fact.
Look at warheads, not vehicles, genius. Over twice as many warheads deployed as SLBMs in the US, over half the total US nuclear force level.

>>31457179
>A soup of heavy metals does not lend itself to being cooled with just convection currents.
Are you retarded? The FAST reactors are, like liquid sodium cooling, actually require slightly less head than pressurized water reactors, not more, for natural circulation. It's all the other drawbacks which make them less than idea for naval reactors.

>>31457179
>Good lord this board has been infested with retards who can't read for shit.
You didn't bother to read your own source, Vatnik. It clearly states:
>This was important for the flow of coolant into the reactor core at complete or partial power failure.
Not for propulsion. Safety feature. Just like in all USN reactors after the 1960's.

>>31457131
>None of them were designed to run long term at significant output levels on natural circulation.
Good lord the mental gymnastics. They only mentioned a power failure to illustrate the capability to operate with complete lack of pumps. They even mentioned specifically that the natural circulation phenomena could keep up with cooling the reactor at even high output levels and it only stands to reason it can operate at a longer timeframe on low power- or how else the sub is going back to port then?

>>31457217

>Look at warheads, not vehicles, genius. Over twice as many warheads deployed as SLBMs in the US, over half the total US nuclear force level.

Warhead stockpiles are useless without deployment means.

File: where's my fucking gravel eddy.jpg (56KB, 1151x647px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1151x647px

>>31447577
An invasion of the US would interesting

The country is so diverse that there are likely multiple fifth columns in waiting

>>31457292
Different anon, but nuclear IEDs, my dude.

>>31452063
What a fucking idiot.

>>31457277
>Good lord the mental gymnastics
If you understood basic reactor design, you wouldn't be so confused. There is a vast difference between a failsafe and a design feature meant for long-term operational use.

>They only mentioned a power failure to illustrate the capability to operate with complete lack of pumps.
Nope. Go look up an S8G. It is specifically mentioned in just about every spec paper that it is designed to operate at propulsion levels with natural circulation. Not a jot about that in your source or anywhere else on that generation of Soviet reactors. Feel free to produce a source on these that actually mentions sustained propulsion as a design feature.

>They even mentioned specifically that the natural circulation phenomena could keep up with cooling the reactor at even high output levels
Are you incapable of understanding the difference between thermal load emergency/failsafe margin and designed thermal load at normal operating levels? The entire point of the system is to have enough of a calorie reservoir built into the passive system to bring the reactor down from maximum output levels to minimum levels in the event of an abrupt major failure. Exactly the same as, for instance, the S6G in a 688, which most certainly does NOT produce sustained natural circulation for propulsion power.

>it only stands to reason it can operate at a longer timeframe on low power- or how else the sub is going back to port then?
That's what generators, batteries and tugs are for, anon. How do you think they manage limited propulsion during a full SCRAM for another serious nuclear systems casualty? Once you've had a major primary loop pump casualty, you're not going to keep running that reactor at significant output levels if you can help it.

CONT

>>31457277
>>31457379
I get that you're new to reactor design in general and naval reactors in particular, but I would suggest you brush up a little on the operational basics before we really dig into specifics. Some general dissemination reading for you:
http://navalreactorshistorydb.info:8080/xtf/data/pdf/111/111.pdf
http://navalreactorshistorydb.info:8080/xtf/data/pdf/112/112.pdf

>>31457292
>Warhead stockpiles are useless without deployment means.
Those are all deployed. Tridents are MIRV systems, the current US ICBMs (MMIII) are single-warhead systems. The US could actually deploy many more nuclear warheads on current Ohio class boats, but are limited by treaty to only loading 8 out of possible 12 warheads per missile.

>>31457200
I've read both. Nothing says the Russians only had those two which are civilian reactors btw that have natural circulation features for propulsion. Stop lying.

>>31457229
>Are you retarded? The FAST reactors are, like liquid sodium cooling, actually require slightly less head than pressurized water reactors, not more, for natural circulation. It's all the other drawbacks which make them less than idea for naval reactors.
Goddamn you are dumb. You need pumps to pressurize the water needed to cool the heavy metal soup in turn otherwise they boil.

>>31457292
>Warhead stockpiles are useless without deployment means.
Those are all currently deployed, my Vatnik friend. The UGM-133 Trident II can employ up to 12 MIRVs. Limited right now to 8, that means there are a maximum 192 warheads deployed per Ohio class boat, for a current class maximum of 2,688. In reality, over half the MIRV slots are taken up with PENAIDs to help ensure target defense saturation.

>>31457408
>I've read both. Nothing says the Russians only had those two which are civilian reactors btw that have natural circulation features for propulsion. Stop lying.
Then produce a single source which connects Russian submarine naval reactor technology to propulsion power. If you can find it, the international reactor design community will be mighty surprised.

>>31457313
I think if China tried to invade the US, gooks of all stripes will become guerillas and enlist. I'm Vietnamese and if there's anyone I genuinely hate and anyone my other Vietnamese brethren hate, it's mainland China and Communism. With their recent incursions into the Pacific, Filipinos are starting to feel the same way.

>>31450301
Is a morbidly obese sjw faggot

>>31457436
>to propulsion power
Damn. Getting tired. Should be:
>to natural circulation propulsion power

>>31450301
Is a morbidly obese sjw shit spewing his shit

They will probably nsg the enemy until they feel guilty and leave lol

File: image.jpg (15KB, 300x122px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x122px

>>31447577

What is;

Vietnam
North Korea
Afghanistan

America can't win a war or fight one effectively. They only try and fight ideologies that's why they lose consistently.

File: 1458435767317.gif (428KB, 500x322px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 500x322px

>>31457489
>America can't win a war or fight one effectively.
I love this meme. So much asshurt every time someone posts this and then someone else comes along and reams dat ass out with facts.

>>31457379
>generators, batteries
The pumps failed. No amount of electricity will cool your reactor without those, unless its a what?
> tugs
Its not the Kuzya that always has a tug in arms reach.

>>31457363
>>31457400
>>31457423

Fair enough burger-bros.

>>31457648
>The pumps failed. No amount of electricity will cool your reactor without those, unless its a what?
Once more for the short bus:
Just about every naval reactor design after the early 60's was designed to operate indefinitely on natural circulation at minimum power levels, as well as having a capability to back down from full operational criticality on natural circulation in case of significant engineering casualty. This was considered an essential design failsafe, and is a primary design feature in all naval reactor thermal exchange systems.

In the situation of a boat suffering a nuclear casualty at sea, the reactor would be reduced to minimum output levels, and if pumps are unavailable in the primary loop it would be allowed to run on natural circulation with possible emergency seawater injection depending on design.

Propulsion and basic boat power would be provided to the surfaced boat by the diesel generators charging the battery bank, which in turn could provide steerageway propulsion and basic systems power (in addition to nuclear systems support, like running coolant pumps at minimum output reactor levels). This is how the boat survives until ocean-going tugs and other ships arrive to provide assistance.

Once again, I would earnestly suggest that you educate yourself on the basics of nuclear submarine ops. It would clear up most of this confusion for you.

>>31457379
>The Sierra's OK-650a reactor plant would generate 50,000 horsepower, considerably more than that of the Charlie. As part of the quieting effort, the reactor employed natural convection for slow speeds (up to five or six knots) to alleviate the use of pumps.
> Polmar "Cold War Submarines Design" pp.282

>>31457834
>The OK-650 reactor is the nuclear fission reactor used for the singular purpose of powering the Soviet Navy's Project 685 Плaвник/Plavnik (Mike), Project 971 Щyкa-Б/Shchuka-B (Akula),[1] and Project 945 Бappaкyдa/Barrakuda, Кoндop/Kondor, and Mapc/Mars (Sierra) submarines, and in pairs to power the Project 941 Aкyлa/Akula (Typhoon) and Project 949 Гpaнит/Granit and Aнтeй/Antei (Oscar) third generation submarines.
>[...] The reactor is now also used to power the new Project 955 Borei submarines.

>>31457834
I completely missed that claim by Polmar in 2005. Just looked it up. I'll be damned. However, it is not repeated in his description of the Sierras in 2016's Hunters and Killers Vol 2, nor his notes on the prospective Sierra I in 1986 in Guide to the Soviet Navy, or 1998's Chronology of the Cold War at Sea, 1991's Submarines of the Soviet and Russian Navy, or even the definitive Naval Institute Guide to the Soviet Fleet.

Very curious. Further searching online reveals a lot of forum posts about the OK-650A having this capability, usually quoted nearly verbatim from the Polmar passage, but I cannot find it in any academic descriptions of the system.

I would be very interested to find his source on this. I wonder at the moment if it is not a proposed design but undeployed feature like the 688 S5G style plant or if this is something that flew under the radar in academic circles. Needs more digging, I guess.

Also, I would point out that the OK-650 is a

>>31457890
You really shouldn't use wikipedia as a source, anon. You miss a ton of relevant detail, like the following:

The Sierras had the OK-650A. The Typhoons had the OK-650, the Oscars and Akulas had the OK-650B/M and the Mike had the OK-650B-3. They were by no means even close in operational coolant system design. There's about as much similarity between the OK-650A and the OK-650B as there is between the S5G and S8G. The -650 designation refers to the core itself and was used for all 3rd gen Soviet boats, the variant numbers refer to the surrounding systems, including the thermal exchange systems.

The Borei class is fitted with the OK-650B design, from the Akulas. I would very much like to first confirm Polmar's assertion on the OK-650A before we go extending that blanket capability to every single fielded 3rd gen Russian boat, which seems more than a stretch considering the extreme dearth of confirmation in other literature on this topic.

>>31448072
God damn I love that game... I desperately want a patch to make that run on a PC again.

>>31447577
No one can invade the United States of America. Except Mexico.

>>31458279
Maybe Polmar got infected with the Janes "we actually don't have contacts with RuMoD but pass off forum posts from google translated Balancers as acquired intel" Defense Intelligence.

>>31451469
Maybe if they went in through cuckfornia. But even then I doubt they can project their force all the way there. They would be capable of getting to Alaska, but that would end of being a second winter war with the compass reversed.

>>31457489
Maybe winning wasn't the plan it was just to fuck uo the country just enough they end up asking for help

I don't know about that Russia/georgia conflict whatsoever, so can some on tell me in detail everything being objective as possible?

>>31456812
I wonder if it's actually safe to take a vacation in Russia. All I hear are horror stories, kinda like the savages in New York

>>31447577
>can Russia invade the US

Nope.

>can Russia even keep former Soviet states within their shitty sphere of influence

Nope. See Ukraine, Moldova and the Central Asian republics (and the growing influence of the China Chinks there)

The Kremlin is an embarrassment, so stop buying into their propaganda machine that talks about Russia like its a global power, please..

>>31456994
well Mexico (albeit unnoficially) is the only country that invaded the US thanks to Pancho Villa having to collect some debts in Texas