[allenwrench]

I believe that war with Russia is inevitable, and that George Bush and Dick Cheney is secretly preparing for war with Russia by securing Asian energy sources and rally up allies in Eastern Europe. Although, Russia has obviously provoked the West and refuse to establish a more solid relationship with the United States, a relationship that the US has been seeking since the end of the Cold War. The truth is, Russia is no prepared for conventional war with US and won't be prepared for a while. US is the dominate force when it comes to war. US greatly dominate in Air & Sea. Also, lets face that fact that US has much more manpower then Russia, and even more active troops.

I'm sorry, but US could walk all over Russia if given a good strategic position such as launching points within Georgia & Ukraine. US naval would completely destory Russia fleets in the Black Sea within a few weeks. And, with the help of Ukraine, US could easily invade Western Russia, although I doubt US would make the attempt to invade Russia because of two reason. The first being that Russia is a nuclear power, and secondly, US does not wish for a Russian version of Iraq. However, US could bomb Western Russia back to the stone age. Also, I believe that Japan and NATO could easily be influenced to get involved, Japan has great interest within Eastern Russia, specially Russian islands.
from: link
No doubt if the cards were all dealt in our favor the US may come out on top. But in the real world, could US walk all over Russia?

[mos6507]

It's still a nuclear stalemate if it came to that.

[jbrovont]

In a conventional fight, maybe - although there's some debate about how the F-22 would match up against the new SU-3x class fighters. Russian tank technology is pretty impressive as well.

The biggest problem for the US would be the nuclear danger. Most countries with nuclear weapons have a published policy governing their willingness and intent to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. The Russian policy outlines a "first strike against imminent threat" position, meaning they don't believe they have to wait for the conflict to go nuclear before considering the nuclear option. If they believe they're outmatched conventionally, their policy is to escalate first to gain the initiative. This is also stressed by their assertions that the use of smart-bombs by the US or allies would be considered as a threat worthy of nuclear response.

In the event the US bombed Russian installations, it would no doubt be with very accurate smart munitions. According to their public statements and defense policy, Russia would immediately exercise the nuclear option as a response.

Would they actually do this? Who knows - but we do know they don't have the same smart bomb technology we do, and so they don't have a "in-between" option betwixt accuracy by volume and accuracy by completely leveling a 5-10 mile radius. They feel they'd be looking at two options: get routed, or go nuclear. Putin's a smart guy - he plays the odds. I just wonder what he'd think his odds were.

[Southpaw]

I sure hope they won't invade Russia during the winter. Napoleon and Hitler did the same mistake and look what happenend to their empire. Doesn't have Russia submarines with nukes that are targetting the U.S.A. ?

[Cashmere]

You're talking about mass murder, General, not war!

Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

[Heineken]

It's amazing that someone would think this, considering the record of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hitler thought he could walk all over Russia too.

I agree with jbrovant that a US invasion of Russia--or any nuclear-armed country, for that matter--would be responded to with nukes. The idea is insane.

[emersonbiggins]

Who wrote this? William Kristol?

[Tyler_JC]

I sure hope they won't invade Russia during the winter. Napoleon and Hitler did the same mistake and look what happenend to their empire. Doesn't have Russia submarines with nukes that are targetting the U.S.A. ?

Russia has at least a dozen nuclear submarines capable of launching multiple-warheads each at targets within the United States given a few minutes notice.

Meaning, there is little chance of a successful first strike by the USA that completely neutralizes the possibility of a counter act.

How many Americans are we willing to let die in order to win? 10 million? 100 million? Losing one or two cities is probably an acceptable loss in the big scheme of things but if we're looking at a dozen submarines with at least 4 missiles each...forget it.

Strategic Air Command, Washing DC, New York, LA, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, Philly, etc, etc, etc. If you lose enough of them, the entire country falls into anarchy and the elite lose everything.

[skiwi]

If you're going to post the ramblings of some third party could you at least pick a post that has a single sentence with some coherency to it. OR DIDN"T YOU NOTICE!!

[RdSnt]

Invade with what? Where is the manpower going to come from for this US walkover? How is this going to be staged and where? How long do you think it takes to pre-place 1/2 million men? Oh, plus their gear. Do you think maybe Russia may notice?

Considering how over-reliant the US military is on high tech gear; in a heads on confrontation with Russia, the US military would be brought to its knees within a couple of months due to attrition. The only option for the US is a direct, immediate nuclear strike. It's all they have to work with.

[allenwrench]

It's amazing that someone would think this, considering the record of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hitler thought he could walk all over Russia too. I agree with jbrovant that a US invasion of Russia---or any nuclear-armed country, for that matter---would be responded to with nukes. The idea is insane.

'...record of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan'
I don't think people in charge think of such things. They hope things will be different this time round. After all the Afghani are still beating up on the US as well as they did with Russia. We didn't care they drove Russia out, we wanted a taste of it for ourselves.

[Jack_Curmudgeon]

I'm sorry, but US could walk all over Russia if given a good strategic position such as launching points within Georgia & Ukraine. US naval would completely destory Russia fleets in the Black Sea within a few weeks. And, with the help of Ukraine, US could easily invade Western Russia However, US could bomb Western Russia back to the stone age.

Gee, I sure hope you ain't advising the neo-cons! Thou at least it would mean we wouldn't have to worry about peak oil. Even if the US "won" the bombing war, sooner or later you'd have to go in on the ground and then you are into an Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam scenerio. Nasty.

[Heineken]

Wrench didn't write that. He was quoting someone else. Look at his response to my post. People should READ before they POST.

[Roy]

[Nickel]

In the event the US bombed Russian installations, it would no doubt be with very accurate smart munitions.

You mean the ones that routinely blow up civilian neighbourhoods in Iraq instead of their intended military targets, those "very accurate smart munitions"? The Russian stuff wouldn't have to be very good to match the proven record of Western "smart" bombs.

They feel they'd be looking at two options: get routed, or go nuclear. Putin's a smart guy - he plays the odds. I just wonder what he'd think his odds were.

You're ill-informed. The Russians changed tactics back in the Soviet days. Rather than go expensively toe-to-toe with the US, they simply looked for blades for the Achilles's heels. For instance, they devised an entire class of ship-to-ship/shore-to-ship missiles specifically capable of identifying and targeting US carriers. A few dozen of them cost far less than a single carrier, and would have the effect of limiting the projection of US force to forward bases on friendly soil. That's a single example.

Iraq was a "cakewalk" in 2003, remember? Well, Russia ain't Iraq. Not by a couple of orders of magnitude.

[Nickel]

Who wrote this? William Kristol?

Or Curtis Lemay on his way back from some Tokyo bombing run?

[EnergyUnlimited]

US could walk all over Russia...

Nope.

Nukes are to be used, you know, otherwise it would be such a senseless waste of money to
develop them in the first place...

[Cid_Yama]

<i>The Russians changed tactics back in the Soviet days. Rather than go expensively toe-to-toe with the US, they simply looked for blades for the Achilles's heels.</i>

You are absolutely correct. The Age of Armored Warfare is over. The politicians and defense contractors won't listen though.

We saw a hint at modern Russian ground warfare thinking in the 2006 Lebanon war.(Not suggesting Russia trained Hezbollah, just that they recognized the same reality and effectively used Russian armaments supplied by third nations.)

The Russian focus on cheaply produced anti-tank missiles with dual or thermobaric warheads more than offsets any disadvantage in numbers / generation of armored vehicles. Russia made a deliberate decision to modernize the T-72(called the T-90) and limit their production in favor of infantry carried anti-tank weapons produced in large numbers.

It was already apparent at the end of WWII that at some point, infantry carried anti-tank weapons would dominate the battlefield.

I believe the media attention on IEDs in Iraq was a cover-up of the vunerability of US armor to infantry carried anti-tank weapons. That somehow the losses of US armor was attributable to something other than anti-tank weapons. (Defense contractors and their paid supporters in the US government don't want to lose those lucrative tank contracts!)

link

link

[Consensi]

The biggest problem for the US would be the nuclear danger. Most countries with nuclear weapons have a published policy governing their willingness and intent to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. The Russian policy outlines a "first strike against imminent threat" position, meaning they don't believe they have to wait for the conflict to go nuclear before considering the nuclear option. If they believe they're outmatched conventionally, their policy is to escalate first to gain the initiative. This is also stressed by their assertions that the use of smart-bombs by the US or allies would be considered as a threat worthy of nuclear response.
In the event the US bombed Russian installations, it would no doubt be with very accurate smart munitions. According to their public statements and defense policy, Russia would immediately exercise the nuclear option as a response.

The Russians have indeed reformulated their defense policy to include the use of tactical nukes should it become apparent that their forces will lose on the battle field. The policy, called "National Security Concept of the Russian Federation", dated January 2000, clearly spells out the first use of nukes on an otherwise conventional battle field. This new policy supersedes all previous Soviet policy.

New Russian Security Doctrine The Russians believe they would lose in a conventional battle against Smart US Military Technology. Hence, tactical nukes.

[allenwrench]

<i>The Russians changed tactics back in the Soviet days. Rather than go expensively toe-to-toe with the US, they simply looked for blades for the Achilles's heels.</i>
You are absolutely correct. The Age of Armored Warfare is over. The politicians and defense contractors won't listen though.

Won't listen cause they need to employ people and armament is as good an area as any. link