Who could effectively win in a nuclear war. US or Russia.

reply to post by Senor_Vicente


Are you some kind of fossil hunter or did you do a specific search that led here? I am really interested as this thing were buried quite deeply!

Stellar

Russia would effectively win.

The reason being is their environment for our military capabilities. I am a commissioned Engineer officer in the Army.

I have visited Russia extensively and studied all of their weaponry on site and in theory.

Russia's people are also hardier from the cold.

We could starve them out of supplies if conventional war--but cold weather would probably defeat us just as it did the Germans in WWII.

The status quo could change if we re-engineered our weaponry for their environment which would take time and when a war starts there is NO TIME to do this...Unfortunately...that is why we would effectively lose NOW.

Who would win??

Russia/China.... the USA start another war on Russian or Chinese borders or interrupt their energy flow and both pull the plug on propping up US debt in buying US bonds.... USA goes bankrupt and the military machine grinds to a halt, dollar goes Zimbabwean, no oil imports no raw resource... NOTHING

Fact is the only thing that saved Russia post it's own collapse was it's untapped Oil/Gas reserves, this has allowed a resurgent Russia... the US has none of that to fall back on.

Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
Who would win??

Russia/China.... the USA start another war on Russian or Chinese borders or interrupt their energy flow and both pull the plug on propping up US debt in buying US bonds....

At which point the US government ( maybe they can get one that works for the people for once ) can still unilaterally nationalize all vital industries and put the skilled labor force to work in the national interest; something which they have not done in decades.

As with all economies in the end for ultimate resources isn't in the ground but moving around on two legs; factories, mines are built very fast if the skill exists.

USA goes bankrupt and the military machine grinds to a halt, dollar goes Zimbabwean, no oil imports no raw resource... NOTHING

No nation can truly go 'bankrupt'. The only way such a thing becomes possible is if a government honor's it's debt and or agreements with others; certainly not something the very well armed American people and government has to do.

Fact is the only thing that saved Russia post it's own collapse was it's untapped Oil/Gas reserves, this has allowed a resurgent Russia... the US has none of that to fall back on.

In fact the largest portion of Russian GDP growth comes from the service sector ( well so says the CIA factbook but then we all know the CIA can't be trusted..... ) and in my opinion the thing that allowed the Russian civilian economy to recover is a highly skilled labor force available to exploit both the natural riches and the infrastructure already in place.

Basically there is no reason why Russia GDP can't look proportionally like the US one or why the US citizens can't live far better than they do today with or without honest to god war.

Stellar

How many steel mills are there left in the USA... the plant isn't there to tool up quickly enough
for full scale war and the skill sets aren't there anymore. Not to mention the silicon for all your high tech war toys... it all comes from Asia. Yes, the US military is the biggest tech wise right now but it's all angled at this unipolar world policing role they currently occupy.

As mentioned in other threads carrier groups are great at projecting power against undersized
low tech opponents and B-2 crews can only be deployed from is current base with nice
air-conned hangers.... come major global conflict do you think the refuelling tankers could
float about all over the global unacosted... what is the overhead of fighter escorts and viability of far flung outposts like Diego Garcia.

I'm not an expert on complete military doctrine but the US model is a comprimise.... total
spectrum dominance in peace time for resource accumulation wouldn't cut it in a global
war against a stronger set of foes. How do US Network-centric warfare system operate when the satellites have been knocked out by the Russians? There's a real danger of cascade failure on depending too much on tech and when that tech fails or can't be scaled quickly enough

A good example is Soviet Russia during WW2, they got caught on the hop and that's why Germany made up so much ground in the initial stages but the Russians churned out lots of cheap but plentiful tanks and guns and moved all there plant further east (using distance
to protect it from bombers)

In the scenario with no oil coming from the gulf and north Africa the US would grind to a halt. The supply chain model isn't designed for a long haul major conflict.

Imagine US troops fighting in a Siberian winter, Russian troops have experienced such conditions in Chechnya.... there's a lot of factors to consider that would side against the US
and the complex tech support to extend their reach effectively beyond the comfort zone of the conflicts they're fighting right now


www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/33858.pdf

[edit on 14-10-2008 by Unknown Perpetrator]

reply to post by FredT


better survivability then the russians? and this is coming from a guy with an american f-22 raptor i suppose in their avatar!

There is no "Win" in that scenario...

I'm prepared to become a Post Apocalyptic Road Warrior though

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I have visited Russia extensively and studied all of their weaponry on site and in theory.

Russia's people are also hardier from the cold.

Oh, really? You do know that they suffered from the cold at Stalingrad as much as the Germans.

Also, if they are "hardier to the cold", why did they freeze during the Winter War with Finland?

Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
How many steel mills are there left in the USA... the plant isn't there to tool up quickly enough
for full scale war and the skill sets aren't there anymore.

The same people who disarm a country by not building civil defenses and the right type are prone to also robbing the people of good jobs and the means of control over resources....

Not to mention the silicon for all your high tech war toys... it all comes from Asia. Yes, the US military is the biggest tech wise right now but it's all angled at this unipolar world policing role they currently occupy.

Yes, I share the opinion that the US government have chosen to build conventional forces not well suited to fighting a nuclear war. Having said that policing the world and fighting a world war isn't the same thing...

As mentioned in other threads carrier groups are great at projecting power against undersized
low tech opponents and B-2 crews can only be deployed from is current base with nice
air-conned hangers.... come major global conflict do you think the refuelling tankers could
float about all over the global unacosted... what is the overhead of fighter escorts and viability of far flung outposts like Diego Garcia.

Well the tankers don't have to go within range of enemy fighters so that isn't the most worrisome aspect of the USAF power projection capability. What is of far more concern is the choice of investing ever more heavily in fewer and fewer 'better' 'stealthy' weapons platforms that aren't very stealthy and might not be all that much 'better' either. The B-2's might get a mission each but since i don't know if the ALCM's are still deployed with nuclear warheads or there are any remaining one's for the USAF in general the dumb bombs aren't going to help much. The B-1 fleet will be of far more use as long as one doesn't presume them to be very stealthy; in fact the B-52's are probably going to have the most impact on the Russian federation.

I'm not an expert on complete military doctrine but the US model is a comprimise.... total
spectrum dominance in peace time for resource accumulation wouldn't cut it in a global
war against a stronger set of foes.

Well it doesn't dominate totally in peace time ( Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Kosovo) and the resource accumulation is largely in the hands of the few who might not be very willing to share it with the American government should the next world war break out.

How do US Network-centric warfare system operate when the satellites have been knocked out by the Russians? There's a real danger of cascade failure on depending too much on tech and when that tech fails or can't be scaled quickly enough

Agreed. The technology to destroy satellites with direct energy and direct ascent weaponry have existed since the 70's and if you bargain on GPS weapons in a world war you better have the capability to launch them weekly and by the dozens; a capacity the Russian federation maintains , to some extent, while the US entirely lacks the means.

A good example is Soviet Russia during WW2, they got caught on the hop and that's why Germany made up so much ground in the initial stages but the Russians churned out lots of cheap but plentiful tanks and guns and moved all there plant further east (using distance
to protect it from bombers)

I am one of those that believe , not to disparage German efficiency and brilliant logistics/war fighting, that the Wehrmacht did catch the red army redeploying for offense thus far from strategic stockpiles and with insufficient means to fight either defensively or offensively. The amount of resources and materials captured intact by the Germans should give some indication as to just how much disarray the Russian forces were in.

In the scenario with no oil coming from the gulf and north Africa the US would grind to a halt. The supply chain model isn't designed for a long haul major conflict.

Not without massive stockpiles that could and should have been built up. There was a time when even the UK had 6 million tons of food stockpiled built up as it was DURING a war...

The RGHQ would also have access to the “strategic food stockpile” maintained by MAFF since the 1950s in a series of buffer depots throughout the country of which there were 136 in 1966. The idea of such reserve stocks dates back to the last war and in 1943 there were some 6.5 millions tons of food held in bulk stores. Food stocks were held throughout the Cold War and MAFF were very vocal in their defence although their views were rarely held by other government departments. The stocks held were however much lower than held during the last war and peaked in 1956 at some 750000 tons held in various depots including 43 massive government owned cold stores.

In 1960 the reserve stood at 582500 tons, made up of –

Corned beef (in 12oz and 6lb tins) 75000 tons

Flour (in 140 lb sacks) 196000 tons

Sugar (raw) 252500 tons

Raw materials for processing 36000 tons

(mainly oils and fats)
www.subbrit.org.uk...

That works out to around 100 Kg per person; a country with ballistic missile submarines and aircraft carriers SHOULD make provisions to feed it's citizens for many years running. I can't imagine why such would not or should not be a logical priority unless the government does not care much about the welfare of the people;i suppose it's notl that hard to explain after all.

Imagine US troops fighting in a Siberian winter, Russian troops have experienced such conditions in Chechnya.... there's a lot of factors to consider that would side against the US
and the complex tech support to extend their reach effectively beyond the comfort zone of the conflicts they're fighting right now
www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/crs/33858.pdf

Experience is fine but without equipment it's not of much use; i just don't believe in this notion that Russians like the Russian winter any better than people elsewhere! Plenty of Russian troops died die to exposure and illness as there wasn't exactly much time to prepare Russian citizens from all regions for winter environments.

Thanks for the link. I share the view that some rather old fashioned military maxims continue, and will continue, to hold true today and that gaining information as to his positions and dispositions wont mean that you wont have to engage them by one means or another. As the Germans learnt ( and the Americans had to relearn) you can not depend on keeping the enemy at a distance where you can always defeat him with well directed fires form 'superior' platforms.

Stellar

Just to reinforce what the above poster said -- It's not as though Russians are genetically superior in the cold..
Are they used to it? Sure.
Does that _really_ matter in a war? No.
Traditionally, the cold impacts supply lines and health, both of which have made incredible advancements since the time of Napoleon, and even World War II.
Would the Russians have an advantage, as their infrastructure takes this into account? Yes.
Is it insurmountable? Does it give them an invincible edge?
Good God, no.

Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
How many steel mills are there left in the USA... the plant isn't there to tool up quickly enough
for full scale war and the skill sets aren't there anymore. Not to mention the silicon for all your high tech war toys... it all comes from Asia. Yes, the US military is the biggest tech wise right now but it's all angled at this unipolar world policing role they currently occupy.

What are you trying to imply? That military technology in other countries is all domestic? That they are able to supply all their own resources?
No.
That the 'assembly line manufacture' of the World Wars is still a viable strategy?
In a real war, countries are going to burn through their limited strategic supply, and rely on allies and diplomacy for resources. There is no alternative to this, it will happen to every country, to varying degrees.
And really, I don't see Japan _not_ continuing, for instance, to create parts for the F-22 in a World War. If anything, production will increase by an order of magnitude.

As mentioned in other threads carrier groups are great at projecting power against undersized
low tech opponents and B-2 crews can only be deployed from is current base with nice
air-conned hangers.... come major global conflict do you think the refuelling tankers could
float about all over the global unacosted... what is the overhead of fighter escorts and viability of far flung outposts like Diego Garcia.

Carrier groups also work well against more advanced opponents. Can you prove otherwise? Unless you're assuming there are "silver bullets"; Sunburn, Brahmos, etc. [Which they are not.] Then this is un-true. Are they invulnerable to low-tech countries? Relatively, yes. Do they lose purpose because they suddenly become vulnerable? No. Following that logic, the entire armed forces is suddenly useless because it has the ability to be destroyed.
Furthermore, a B-2 is intercontinental. If you think the hangars, within the U.S. Borders, are suddenly going to be in jeopardy -- You're wrong. Will they be high priority? Yes. Can B-2's suddenly not be used because they require special services? ..No.

I'm not an expert on complete military doctrine but the US model is a comprimise.... total
spectrum dominance in peace time for resource accumulation wouldn't cut it in a global
war against a stronger set of foes. How do US Network-centric warfare system operate when the satellites have been knocked out by the Russians? There's a real danger of cascade failure on depending too much on tech and when that tech fails or can't be scaled quickly enough

I admit I don't entirely understand the point you're making in the first sentence, so I'll address the latter.
At this point in time, no sane nation would attack space.
Does the U.S. have a _definite_ advantage in its space-borne assets? No doubt. Superiority? Of course.
Take into account though what happens when a satellite is destroyed. Do you remember the Chinese missile test?
If you blew up every military U.S. Satellite, which is necessary given that they are hardened against Electromagnetic attacks, then every other satellite in orbit would become useless within days, weeks, or perhaps, if lucky, months. That means even simple things like satellite-communication and GPS would be dead for all nations. Imagine the impact on war-fighting.

In the scenario with no oil coming from the gulf and north Africa the US would grind to a halt. The supply chain model isn't designed for a long haul major conflict.

Grind to a halt is something neither of us can debate. Unless you can factor in strategic reserve, emergency quotas, etc. Then we can't contemplate the result, particularly when the majority of our oil comes from .. North America.