Non - nuclear war between Russia and US. Who would win?

boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,534
One for Sparky I think! I specify non- nuclear because in the alternative case we are all dead anyway. This is actually really difficult. How do they actually get at each other. Who invades who? Einstein called topics like these "exercise for the brain". Lets go dudes!
 


Northsideman

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 7, 2010
Messages
9,625
Whoever is losing pushes the button, no to use nukes makes no sense.
 

boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,534
Whoever is losing pushes the button, no to use nukes makes no sense.
Hmm. I know you are right but can we just have a little mind game? Though surely whoever pushes the button first ensures their own destruction? I was thinking a Russian invasion of Europe. Then what?
 

neiphin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
5,510
Then,
massive American bases in South Korea and Japan, Afghanistan and Iraq

as well is their navy bases in pacific
 

owedtojoy

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
47,569
China
 

Jim Car

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
2,695
Depends where it happens. If it were on a land boarder with Russia probably Russia, simple fact is they have more tanks (even if many are in storage and need to be reactivated as well as being many of those reserve tanks being quite old) then many EU/NATO countries have men. If it were at sea over an island then the US due to its much greater power projection capabilities.

If the war did not go nuclear and could be dragged out then the US and its allies in Europe as thats where a ground war will happen, would nearly certainly win. But thats no guarantee, during the cold war when US and NATO allies were prepared for this war they believed the the only way to deal with a soviet "tank invasion" according to a former British tank officer I have spoken to, was to funnel them into killing zones and just as they were about to be over run hit them with tactical nukes. I don't see how they could deal with the same problem any differently today.
 

boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,534
Define 'win'?
Gosh ,this is tough. I must admit I assumed China would stay neutral rather than get blown away by either side. This would negate US bases in SE Asia. I stress again , I visualised a Russian invasion of Europe. Starting in the Baltic states and then E . Europe. Then into the west. US reaction? National nuclear suicide? I really don't know. Napoleon and Hitler underestimated the fighting abilities of the Russians. Broaden my mind. Where is Sparky?
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
27,648
Twitter
No
One for Sparky I think! I specify non- nuclear because in the alternative case we are all dead anyway. This is actually really difficult. How do they actually get at each other. Who invades who? Einstein called topics like these "exercise for the brain". Lets go dudes!
Who would win a conventional war between Russia and US? Australia.
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
Gosh ,this is tough. I must admit I assumed China would stay neutral rather than get blown away by either side. This would negate US bases in SE Asia. I stress again , I visualised a Russian invasion of Europe. Starting in the Baltic states and then E . Europe. Then into the west. US reaction? National nuclear suicide? I really don't know. Napoleon and Hitler underestimated the fighting abilities of the Russians. Broaden my mind. Where is Sparky?
Forget the US, Russia would fail to occupy Europe. The EU has a standing military 4 times the strength of Russia. Russia wouldnt try it and would fail if it did.
 

ThatsReasonable

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
373
Assuming no nukes, the yanks would win because of their awesome air and sea power. If they achieved total air superiority they could just pound any enemy basically indefinitely.
That's why the question is moot. The Russians, in their own minds, would have to go ballistic.
 

boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,534
Depends where it happens. If it were on a land boarder with Russia probably Russia, simple fact is they have more tanks (even if many are in storage and need to be reactivated as well as being many of those reserve tanks being quite old) then many EU/NATO countries have men. If it were at sea over an island then the US due to its much greater power projection capabilities.

If the war did not go nuclear and could be dragged out then the US and its allies in Europe as thats where a ground war will happen, would nearly certainly win. But thats no guarantee, during the cold war when US and NATO allies were prepared for this war they believed the the only way to deal with a soviet "tank invasion" according to a former British tank officer I have spoken to, was to funnel them into killing zones and just as they were about to be over run hit them with tactical nukes. I don't see how they could deal with the same problem any differently today.
Yes I have heard something similar. That would be the end of us all . A friend of mine who served in RAF Intelligence during the cold war told me that the RAF pilots carrying nuclear bombs from bases in Germany all intended to fly to Iceland and claim asylum dumping their bombs en route. Is that true? No idea. But that is certainly what I was told .
 

gleeful

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2016
Messages
7,520
Assuming no nukes, the yanks would win because of their awesome air and sea power. If they achieved total air superiority they could just pound any enemy basically indefinitely.
That's why the question is moot. The Russians, in their own minds, would have to go ballistic.
Back in WW2 the Germans had total air superiority for a long time. Didnt help in the long run. By 1941 Russian stay behinds were launching 900 terrorist attacks per day on German supply lines. By 1942 Russia was producing 3 times more aircraft than Germany. Ultimate truth is Russia is very big.
 

boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,534
Forget the US, Russia would fail to occupy Europe. The EU has a standing military 4 times the strength of Russia. Russia wouldnt try it and would fail if it did.
Yes , but a lot of those are Scandi and Dutch weed heads. Of no use to anybody. So are a lot of yanks God bless them.
 

Surkov

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2016
Messages
4,600
What about biological weapons? Viruses causing horrendous plagues...
 

boldfenianman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 28, 2007
Messages
1,534
Back in WW2 the Germans had total air superiority for a long time. Didnt help in the long run. By 1941 Russian stay behinds were launching 900 terrorist attacks per day on German supply lines. By 1942 Russia was producing 3 times more aircraft than Germany. Ultimate truth is Russia is very big.
One astonishing thing I learnt recently on Discovery or similar was that Russian tank production in WW2 was more than US , Germany and UK combined. And better tanks. Lesson. Do not underestimate these people. They are seriously tough. The Americans would be looking for their Coke machines. The Russians would be waiting for this blizzard to stop then charge again.
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
22,619
But thats no guarantee, during the cold war when US and NATO allies were prepared for this war they believed the the only way to deal with a soviet "tank invasion" .
The Soviets also had the numbers of the entire Warsaw Pact behind them as well, though. Today they would have no allies or support in eastern Europe.
 

rainmaker

Administrator
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
22,619
Forget the US, Russia would fail to occupy Europe. The EU has a standing military 4 times the strength of Russia. Russia wouldnt try it and would fail if it did.
No it doesn't. The EU has no standing military. The best militaries in Europe are already members of NATO, and NATO is not under the control of the EU.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top