Who would win in a full scale war between the US and Russia,

>>31839739

Nuclear weapons are Russia's only real asset. Removing them from the game is completely unfair.

>>31839755
Okay, well then lets assume that nuclear weapons are used later on, not as the first resort.

>>31839762
>lets assume that nuclear weapons are used
Then nobody wins.

Russia is trash

>shitty conscripts
>out of date tech/vehicles
>literally only have nukes at their disposal

china would be more of a match

The US would almost certainly win if we assume that
>no nuclear weapons are used
but that's a fantasy, in reality it would go nuclear the moment things started going bad for one side.
>I've always thought they were decently matched
In the 80s, but the Russians have been on steady decline since then. Its only in the last decade that they've made any serious attempt to pull themselves into this century.

>>31839777
If a war between the US and Russia were to occur, would China step with along side Russia?

>>31839762

Why do you think that Russia spergs hardcore every time the topic of missile defense comes up? They know that there is going to be a day when their nuclear arsenal will no longer effective. They're doing everything in their power to push that day further into the future.

>>31839739
Everybody else wins

>>31839790
Yes.
>>31839796
Wrong. Look up Satan 2.

>>31839848

>They're doing everything in their power to push that day further into the future.

>>31839861
My point being, is when in the foreseeable future do you not see that missile being effective?

File: LbH8u4V[1].jpg (45KB, 1001x746px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 1001x746px

>>31839881

If the laser beams the Navy is experimenting with work out, that day could be in the very near future. Plus, there is also this:

>Pic-related

It's an ultra-heavy cruise built on the hull of an LPD, designed specifically for shooting down ballistic missiles. It has a radar that is many times more powerful than what you'd find on current destroyers, allowing it to engaging targets from further away than ever before.

>>31839739
In a non-nuclear scenario, Russia would get absolutely trashed.

I'm sure it would be no walk in the park, but the US would actually be able to invade the Russian homeland, whereas Russia almost completely lacks the ability to project, Kuznetsov, can just about chugg into the Mediterranean, imagine it trying to cross the Atlantic.

In terms of power on the ground, Russia isn't that good, lots of corruption/inefficiency, their economy stinks etc. They're really more on the level of France, UK, Germany.

>>31839790
>>31839848
Not a chance, the CCP isn't going to rock the boat to help out an ailing Russia in a war against the US, plus in the aftermath of Russia's inevitable defeat China can push territorial claims in the Russian Far East.

In a war Russia can maybe rely on Belarus to help, the US can rely on all of Europe, most of the ex-Warsaw Pact, plus maybe some of Central Asia (given enough financial encouragment).

It depends on who attack who.

If the US occupies Russia, it would surely lose.

But Russia doesn't have to occupy the US to win.

>>31840311
>In terms of power on the ground, Russia isn't that good, lots of corruption/inefficiency, their economy stinks etc. They're really more on the level of France, UK, Germany.
The US is the same thing actually.

In fact, they do much worse in occupation.

File: 1448129024311.jpg (66KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x600px

>>31839739
Depends who declares war first.

>If Russia declares war:
USA wins
>If USA declares war:
Russia wins

Unless the fires of vengeance are stoked in the collective American heart, Yanks'll run into the same shit they did in Vietnam and Iraq: an unwilling civilian base. Coupled with the fact that the Americans have shown time and time again they are unwilling to tolerate the same level of casualties that the Russians just brush off (ref. Gov't not giving a fuck about tallying casualties from Chechen wars), the Americans will need to be incredibly pissed off and committed to even come close to forcing a Russian surrender.

Doesn't really matter either way, though. For every dead Ivan and Joe there will be a thousand grinning Chinamen.

>>31840431
Yea I can see China being on top if both countries going to war and weakening. Truly in a sense both lose if no nukes are used. I want war to happen now. Threat to survival might cure this liberal PC disease we are having. People will stop pretending to be moral once their shitty lives are in danger.

>>31840410
The US's military power is in a league of its own.

Sure they would fuck up the occupation, but they're the only side with a chance of winning militarily.

>>31840470
There's no point to winning militarily if you cannot keep the victory.

If anything, it would bankrupt the US.

In conventional warfare usa would beat rusia 100/100 times

File: 1318078236964.png (244KB, 599x468px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 599x468px

>>31839739

>Russia GDP: 2.097 trillion USD
>California GDP: 2.448 trillion USD
>Texas GDP: 1.639 trillion USD

>>31840540
That depends if occupation is part of the war plan.

The US could conceivably militarily destroy Russia (with a very high degree of certainty), then appeal to the international community to help rebuild it. Certainly Europe would be keen on making sure Russia didn't collapse in on itself totally.

>>31839739
>Who would win in a full scale war between the US and Russia?

People's Republic of China

>>31840572
>california has a higher gdp than texas

how? because hollywood? nothing else comes out of there

>>31840615

>being this ignorant

Shitloads of food & high-technology for starters.

File: 690px-Gross_Domestic_Product_of_California_2008_(millions_of_current_dollars).svg.png (51KB, 690x490px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 690x490px

>>31840615
What is Silicon Valley? What is having the largest state population in the Union? What is international trade?

>>31840615
You are fucking retarded and need to read a fucking book

>>31840615
Other than a million barrels of oil a day apple google 1/3 of the aerospace industry of the world. Just little things, oh yeah and the most important agricultural region on earth. But hey fuck California because I have never been there and don't understand their politics. Did I mention they also have the lowest obesity rate in the western world and the women are easy. Yeah California sucks stay away you fat fuck.

>>31839848
Either you are ignorant or memeing

Satan 2 has been put to bed multiple times since it entered the news cycle.

China's not willing to enter openly against the US given how interconnected the economies are, and the fact the Russians literally can't offer them shit.

>>31840647
I love that my fellow California people will stand up and say fuck you. Btw Russia would lose to us let alone the USA united. PS former Seattle native been 562 for years. Southland forever.

>>31840615
I'm honestly more curious about what texas does.
what do they do senpaitachi?

Lets not conflate having a high gdp with being a high quality state. California is full of faggots and its people are garbage, barely above Bostonians.

>>31840410
>>31840540

>US does much worse at occupation
>Compared to Russia

Lmao chased out of Afghanistan and literally paying tribute to the Chechen Muslims living within Russian borders is hardly a successful record of occupation.

>>31840682
>Btw Russia would lose to us let alone the USA united
That might be true, if your 3rd largest export (behind dairy and fruit) wasn't liberal anti-gun sentiment that spreads from state to state and weakens the whole union.

>>31840710
Uh gayness is rather uniform trait of people about 5% being a fatass is under 15% in California. I will take having 22% of the population fuckable rather than 12% in middle America or 18% in the best of Europe. Enjoy hogging fatty.

>>31839755
Simple weapons & tools are another big advantage for Russia. The US reliance on computers, gps, radio, etc... would rapidly because a liability in a serious conflict.

As long as we're only fighting small asymmetric conflict, things things are a huge asset. But a country like Russia or China would knock out our satellite network, jam our radio, & emp our computers in the first 10 minutes.

>>31840659
>Satan 2 has been put to bed multiple times since it entered the news cycle.

Why is it that /k/ only affixes itself on shilling against non-american tech once its out and about on non-American propaganda media? The Sarmat's been developing and has been tested for the better part of 10 years now and is literally the sole reason the U.S has revamped its ICBM project dumping billions into new interceptors as well as developing a whole new fleet of nuclear missiles, all because the Sarmat ACTUALLY DOES live up to its rep so far.

/k/ literally hasn't debunked anything, and as per usual most people will and should trust the pentagon think tanks and engineering firms scrambling to come up with a solution to the Sarmat question rather than some armchair generals on a dying anime shitposting website on a board that's about to be closed within the next year.

>>31840772
Except... Russia and China are equally reliant on computers and satellites in their big ticket weapons meant to counter US military power.

>>31839739

Dat $200 plum bayo the guy on the left is using.

>>31839739
>newbie shitpost checklist
>the US or the EU - checked
>Russia or China - checked
>war - checked
>no nukes - checked
Congratulation with most unoriginal /k/ bait thread

>>31839739
Russia would be stomped to shit all day 'erry day.
That is assuming we're talking a '91 Iraq war type of war where the goal is to trash the opposing military with no occupation afterwards.

My dick gets hard at the tough of Abrams rolling over the red square though.

the question is not "could russia successfully invade the US?" the question is, "could the US successfully invade russia?"

and lets face it, even if the US made it to Moscow, they'd get there only to discover that the russians had spent the war thus far focusing on finding a way to set fire to concrete just so that the americans could arrive to find moscow in flames and a few distant russians laughing and jeering about them falling for the same trick as napoleon

>>31840861
Yeah, but Americans aren't going to starve or freeze to death in the snow, because of US logistics.

They'll be enjoying cheeseburgers and Mountain Dew among the ruins of the Freedom Palace (formerly the Kremlin).

>>31840882
but how do you stop the russians fighing? can US logistics (and money) actually cope with fighting a war on every inch of the largest country in the world (twice the size of the second largest) simultaneously, in -40 degrees

>>31840927
>every inch
Most of it's empty, about 80% of the population and infrastructure is concentrated in 25% of the landmass.

And I would wager that the US, given all of its resources, and put on a war footing, could defeat Russian forces in the field.

But has been said previously, the peace would me more difficult to win than the war.

>>31839739
>Who would win in a full scale war between the US and Russia
China.

>>31839739
>assuming no nuclear weapons are used?
"No nukes" posts should be instabanned

>>31840998
that 25% is surprisingly well distributed, and their army does do a lot of training for fighting and working from their remaining 75% - probably because the soviets knew that maximising how well they used that 75% was the key to minimising the damage done by nuclear attack

put better, I think the issue is making that final transition from war to difficult-to-maintain-peace happen, they'd just keep you right on the threshold where you're not really sure which you're up to

>>31840801
>/k/ literally hasn't debunked anything,
>The Sarmat's been developing and has been tested for the better part of 10 years now and is literally the sole reason the U.S has revamped its ICBM project dumping billions into new interceptors as well as developing a whole new fleet of nuclear missiles, all because the Sarmat ACTUALLY DOES live up to its rep so far.

I'll use the double edged sword and say

PROOFS?

>>31839739
whoever invades first will lose, the frogs and the new germans aka mahmouds learnt the hard way that you'll never be able to occupy russia

>>31839739
No nukes? The US.

>>31842158
>thinking NATO wouldn't be able to occupy Russia when most of their population will be dead.

>>31842180
>imblying decadent nato and the euro union won't be put in the trash where it belongs in <5 years

>>31839739
>>31839739
I'd imagine it'd just be a stalemate in Eastern Europe

>>31842220
>decadent nato
As opposed to destitute Russia?

>>31840601
Wouldn't they want Russia to completely collapse though?

All the US has to do to win is to keep them out of the rest of Europe until they run out of bodies to throw.

Sure we'll lose a few countries in the initial surge, but it would be child's play to take them back, especially as how the populations of those countries hate Russia more than we ever could.

>>31839739
Most of the US military's assets are on their navy. In a ground war, Russian would eventually win and it would be WW2 all over again.

>>31842314
All carrier assets would be very useful in a war against russia and even if 50% of US military spending was navy, the rest of US military spending is still like five times of russian military spending.
The US would roll russia hard but take losses not seen since the Korean war.

>>31842314
You realize the US has a shitload more active duty troops than Russia right?

>>31840772

>the US reliance on computers, gps, radio, etc... would rapidly because a liability in a serious conflict.

Yeah, cause we all know how Russian planes, ships, tanks, etc just magically work with no computers.

>>31842314
US has twice the population, and many times the industrial and financial capacity.

In every metric the US has the advantage.

>>31842314

>Most of the US military's assets are on their navy

The US navy has its own army and its own air force. The Navy has no shortage of capabilities that it can use to influence the results of a ground war.

No nukes? The US today. 5 years from now?

Russia wants to be a super power again. And they seem willing to spend the money.

Even if it's on weird shit like this.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-building-nuclear-armed-drone-submarine/

>>31842391
This is a US weakness though. The Russians seem to be pretty invested in elint. They know if the take out our tech advantage they can level the playing field.

>>31843853
>And they seem willing to spend the money.
Russia's military budget is dropping.

http://www.janes.com/article/64911/russian-defence-budget-set-to-drop-by-12

>Russian defence expenditure is set to fall by RUB371 billion (USD6 billion) by 2018 under new spending plans announced by the government. Total spending will fall from RUB3.1 trillion in 2016 to RUB2.728 trillion in 2018, a reduction of 12.0% in nominal terms.

>The new spending plans were outlined in "The basic directions of budgetary policy for 2017 and the planning period of 2018 and 2019", published by the Russian Ministry of Finance (MoF) in October 2016. Based on current projections the expenditure on 'National Defence' will fall by 8.5% in 2017 to RUB2.836 trillion, and a further 3.8% to RUB2.728 trillion in 2017.

>>31840682
I think most Americans can agree that Texas are a bunch of loudmouth faggots.

>Muh Texas

Fuck off, no one cares.

>>31843877

>This is a US weakness though

No, it's not. "Using computers" is not a fucking weakness for a 21st century military. It's essential.

>>31840410

>In fact, they do much worse in occupation.

Literally because of SJW/leftist politicians. Iraq and Afghan would have been done years ahead of time if it weren't for meddling from democrat politicians. I'm not even trying to be /pol/ about it, it's just an undeniable fact. Had they not got involved with shit that they knew nothing about. Iraq and Afghan could have been finished in under 3 years each.

>>31839739

How does even Russia reach the US? The Iowas, which are glorified museum pieces and deemed completely inadequate for modern deployment are still more powerful than anything the RuN has ever fielded, with the Zumwalts being stronger still. Without nukes, Russia's subs are non-entites.

>>31839739
CPET3HA3

end of discussion

US. With or without nukes. Price of winning will be too high either way to even consider war a viable option as of now.

>>31840401
>Russia doesn't need to occupy the US to win
How so?

>>31846052
One word Libtards

>>31846129
Reminder that democrats oversaw victories in both World Wars.

>>31842397
A population of blacks, Mexicans, nu-males and homosexuals who all have a questionable loyalty to the federal government.

How do you think black, gay and mexican millenials will react to being drafted?

>>31840615
Its entire coastline is a giant port

>>31842314
I guess the US Airforce doesn't exist in this scenario

US has been amping up its conventional warafre technology while Russia didn't

US wins conventional.

Russia and nukes, however, have the upper hand. Because of the relative unlikeliness of another conventional war, nuke technology is essentially all that matters.

I think it's interesting how a Russia vs. US war is always discussed with the US invading Russia.

No one ever talks about the Russians crossing either ocean to get to the continental US because it's known to be practically impossible. This always leaves me to think that a war without nukes will always go in the US's favor because their homeland and industries won't really be affected. The worst that can happen is a drop in public support after a few years. The Russians have to worry about losing all of their infrastructure, industry, and the collapse of their economy and society.

>>31840859
>What is Vietnam
>What is Iraq
>What is Afghanistan

B-but with Russia will be different, lol.

File: U.S. Army M1A1 Abrams tanks and their crews pose for a photo in front of the Hands of Victory monument at Baghdad's Ceremony Square - November 2003.jpg (1MB, 3008x1960px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3008x1960px

>>31846630
>>What is Iraq
I don't get it when people use this point. The Iraqi army got absolutely trashed and Abrams started rolling into Baghdad two weeks into the war.

>>31846197
>Implying I said all democrats are libtards
Not all democrats are libtards

>>31840651
>lowest obesity rate
You forgot Colorado my dude

>>31846630
>Vietnam
Look up the Paris Peace Accords and educate yourself.

>Iraq
Stomped the one of the largest armies in the world with minimal difficulties

>Afghanistan
Did and does magnitudes better than the pathetic and incompetent showing of the russians

You are right, russia will be no different, they will be raped and exposed as the puffed up weaklings they are.

>>31846276
>How do you think black, gay and mexican millenials will react to being drafted?
About as well as the malnourished, beaten and raped half-humans that makes up the majority of the russian conscripts.

>>31846197
Not understanding the "Democratic" party in the USA in now full on Marxist socialist. How can Americans be so blind to what is happening right in front of their own eyes.
I guess my great great grandparents were blind to the coming bolshevik revolution themselves.
Bernie Sanders running as a proud socialist in America, my grand father would have cried if he were alive to see that.

File: 1477280018878.jpg (104KB, 872x685px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 872x685px

Assuming that there was no nukes involved (so retarded from the start) and assuming it's a US invasion of Russia (because Russia wouldn't make it to the continental US), then it would be a pyrric victory for the US. It would be an absolute meat grinder for both sides. The American public simply wouldn't have the stomach for the atrocities that would have be committed on both sides in the name of "victory".

>>31846630
It honestly pains me that American born and educated people think we lost in Vietnam. We achieved the only thing we wanted there. We completely bankrupted China and scared them off the global geo-political stage for three decades. They are just now joining modern warfare. Granted they are doing a fantastic job of it.
We never wanted to take over the country and give them democracy like in South Korea.

The American military complex has only one problem. The fucking rules of engagement the leftists completely castrated our fighters with during Vietnam. You take a division of well armed well fed American fighters and turn them completely loose and tell me who is capable of stopping them. Fuck this marxist socialist propaganda on /k/ and fuck you anon.

>>31846443

yeah, we can destroy their infrastructure, and they cant touch ours. theres only one result that can happen

europe would likely need a severe rebuilding though

basically ww2 all over again

>>31840701
Energy, primarily. Texas oil and gas is a pretty big deal, and the tech sector here, while not as potent as California's, is fairly significant.

At what point in time would the Russians/Soviets had been most evenly matched with NATO/US?

If you can give reasons that'd be tight.

>>31848157
Maybe never, but at least having a chance of beating the U.S. in a conventional battle (no nukes), even with all of America's Superiority (in IFVs, aircraft, training whatever), makes them 'formidable'.

Just going by memes I imagine China is just a shittier, more extreme version of Russia. ie quantity vs quality with a few neat toys for elite troops

>>31847782
Don't forget about our fuckhuge aviation industry

>>31846299
It doesnt need to. I mean, it does and it will destroy, but the US Navy has the second largest Air Force on the planet. It's second to only, the US Air Force.

>>31842391
>>31844485
>>31840806

Historically, Russia never invested heavily in transistors and integrated circuits because they were more aware of the military weaknesses of these technologies.

Even now, as their importance far exceeds the expectations of 1950s era military planners, that suspicion remains in the Russian military.

In practical terms, this means Russian mil-spec standards for rad hardness, grounding, & ESD are much stronger and much more strongly enforced. Many Russian military computers still use tube technology where possible due to its comparative resistance to EMP.

Russia has also invested much more heavily in electromagnetic offensive technologies

Shit like this:.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_pumped_flux_compression_generator

File: you'rearetard.jpg (30KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x360px

>>31840615

>>31848157

Breakdown by decades

- 50's, huge Soviet advantage on the ground, moderate NATO advantage in the air. The Soviets had several years of production on NATO, since they did not drastically slow arms production after WW2 while the NATO countries turned their swords into plowshares. NATO would not be able to hold ground against the Soviets, and would rely on Nuclear weapons in the event of WW3.

- 60's : big-moderate Soviet advantage on the ground, big NATO advantage in the air. NATO was a more serious fighting force in the 60's with better mechanization than the Soviets, but still badly outnumbered and their equipment was only moderately better at best. NATO would still need to use nukes to stop a Soviet attack, but they held a commanding lead in the air, which would allow them to deliver tactical nukes on Soviet formations.

- 70's. Massive Soviet advantage on the ground, moderate>big NATO advantage in the air. The Vietnam war drained the US of funds to keep it's European forces modernized. MBT-70 also fell through and deprived NATO of a modern tank to face down the T-64 and T-72. The air war in Vietnam chewed through a lot of American aircraft and operations budget, leaving less to go towards European procurement. However, by the late 70's, NATO was bringing very high tech weapons online, helped by Vietnam experience.

80's. moderate Soviet advantage on the ground that disappeared towards the mid 80's, then turned into a NATO advantage in the late 80's. In the air NATO ballooned their advantage. The collapse of oil prices left the Soviets in bad economic shape, while NATO was flush with money and expanding their military budget. The 3rd gen NATO MBT's were decisively better than their Soviet counterparts, and NATO pushed their electronics advantage to deploy "smart" weapons en masse. The NATO air inventory swelled with modern fighters like F-16 and F-15, while the Soviets would only get a handful of Su-27 and Mig-29 squadrons operational.

>>31839739
whoever happens to have better generals at the time. /thread

>>31840710
Fuck Boston.

>>31839739
Why would either of these countries wage a conventional war with each other unless it was a proxy war OP?

File: QL06Zcg.jpg (131KB, 500x683px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 500x683px

>>31839739
Is this bait? The US of course.

>>31839739
Who ever has the better doctrine, strategy and tactics for the type of war that is occuring.

>>31839924
>another us meme weapon
fix the F-35 first

>>31842383
Conscription would be enforced, and the fatties couldn't really fight, which the US has a ton of. If Hillary wins, it's safe to assume that military spending will be distributed in part to welfare for blacks or something, which is a problem of it's own.

>>31849108
Hillary's a hawk m8, the only way the blacks are getting their hands on that military money is if they sign up.

Lets discuss something more interesting since US will obviously win.

How will the war play out? Which places will be key points? Nukes where? Carriers where? Land troops where?

>>31849147
OP here, this is more what I had in mind.

>>31846197
You're implying a lot with that. America was working in huge cooperation with other countries during those wars and you could even admit we had a small amount of soldiers when compared to the other countries.

Also, look at the Vietnam War and Korean War. Our worst "wars" and we threw the white flag under Democrats.

>>31846630
>B-but with Russia will be different, lol.
It probably will. I bet you the goal of a war with Russia would be neutralization and forced submission. Not occupation.

>>31839739
> War with Russia even without Nukes?
> Just the US and Russia?
> Simple!

EVERYONE DIES
THE END...

Or at the very least, a pyrrhic victory to either party...

Memes aside there is literally no good that would come out of this... The cons would just vastly outweigh the pros...

>Implying nukes are real