>Hey, Sup Forums. How likely is it for the USA to actually go to war with Russia?

>>Hey, Sup Forums. How likely is it for the USA to actually go to war with Russia?

Old thread died. Here is the new one.

A guy from Donbass here. Russian military is a garbage like military of any ex-soviet country. E.g. their only carrier runs on fucking diesel (see image). The only real threat are their nuclear warheads, but Putin will not use them because he is not ideological, but he is just an extra-large oligarch, his one daughter lives in Germany and is married to a local businessman, his other daughter lives in Holland or smth. Putin's threats are only for what we in ex-soviet countries call "internal consumption" to keep his rating up and allow him and his friends continue oligarch-ing.

Other urls found in this thread:

military.com/daily-news/2015/06/16/navy-plans-to-fire-lasers-from-carriers.html
news.usni.org/2016/10/11/uss-mason-fired-3-missiles-to-defend-from-yemen-cruise-missiles-attack
militarytimes.com/articles/trump-letter-generals-admirals
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>The only real threat are their nuclear warheads.
The only threat you need.

As I said, he is not going to use it, because all his fucking family lives in EU. Similar to the family of every single oligarch or official in Russia. Half of their kids are studying in ivy league or private schools in EU.

Anything but ground battle we win, so yea no prob honestly. Trust I'm a doctor

Clinton will be too busy being investigated to go to war.

Trump is hopefully just smart enough not to go to war.

So not likely.

Even the ground battle. The last time my friends served in Russian army they had shovels for rifles during the on-field drills.

Aircraft Carriers are pointless in a modern war - that's why almost no one invests in them anymore. All moderate to major powers know where they all are at any given time thanks to satellite tracking. Missile strikes would make short work of them. The only thing a carrier is good for these days is attacking much weaker countries.

Mutually assured destruction is still a great deterrent for conventional warfare - I'd say it's very unlikely that a direct confrontation will happen between any of the G20 in the foreseeable future. It's all proxy wars and economic/political maneuvering now.

>>G20
I would narrow it down to G7+Russia. The others can still have unannounced wars like one between Russia and Ukraine.

Ukraine doesn't rank among the G20, though. And, unless something drastic and unexpected occurs, no one in the EU is going to be fighting amongst themselves.

You can not have a war without using them. It would escalate until you do. It's why it would not happen.

A modern carrier battle group is expensive, over $30 billion. That's why almost no one can invest in them anymore.

You can pretty much have some unannounced war between Russia and some fucking Indonesia on some group of islands somewhere in the ocean.

Many more countries would be willing to invest if they still made sense, though. The money's going to be spent anyways, but the thought process is "why buy something that's not very useful anymore and is a very large target when we can spend it on many smaller things that accomplish much more collectively."

Carrier is a pretty useful thing when you have to fight over the oil rigs with some African country. Probably worth $30b investment.

Anything other then a proxy war wouldn't make sense. Unless China had some thing to do with instigating it.

see > "The only thing a carrier is good for these days is attacking much weaker countries."

military.com/daily-news/2015/06/16/navy-plans-to-fire-lasers-from-carriers.html

Can you name some countries that could but choose not too.

Hillery already sold him a bunch of weapons grade Uranium.

Still laser carrier is as bad as the regular carrier. No big countries will use it against each other. Max the gonna do is shoot a bit from some helicopter at each other. Therefore they gonna keep carriers for some poor countries, but for them it does not matter whether you shoot them with a laser or with a napalm bomb.

>implyimg russia didnt already have it

That is the US military trying to justify the great expense of maintaining their carrier fleet. There is no reason these weapons couldn't be put aboard smaller, inexpensive vessels.

The other side of it is that most navies are intended to be defensive in nature. A carrier doesn't have much use in a defensive role unless they're trying to defend a foreign nation.

Most of the G20 could manage just fine. Most choose not to for one reason or another.

WW3 is exactly as likely as Hillary winning the presidency. Go figure.

The lasers are for missile defense. We already have a working anti-missile system but it's more expensive then lasers:
news.usni.org/2016/10/11/uss-mason-fired-3-missiles-to-defend-from-yemen-cruise-missiles-attack

Railguns and offensive missiles are for attacking

Yeah because they are entirely solo.

They are weaker countries because they do not have carriers. Strength is global projection.

>"may outfit is new Ford-class aircraft carriers with a wide range of laser weapons ... and eventually provide offensive fire power, senior service official said."

They don't need carriers. Carriers wold only be good for them if they were to go after Australia. Every place else they can get to by land or a small water crossing.

The article claims the USS Ford was built with a power generator much more powerful then other models. Sounds like designing a smaller ship with a laser grade power generator would be more trouble then it's worth.

That's just military hype. Probably referring to shooting down planes and copters.

I never said they were.

If you were going to prioritize targets at sea, the one capable of seizing air superiority would be pretty near the top of that list. Being as large and as slow as it is, no anti-missile system would hold up against the shit storm that would rain down on a carrier from a developed country.

>Most of the G20 could manage just fine. Most choose not to for one reason or another.
The ones that can have them.
Do you mean Turkey, Mexico or Indonesia. They can not afford them or the industry to build them.

Maybe he doesnt give a shit about his family. Like Stalin

> Most could manage
A lack of local industry doesn't mean you couldn't contract the work to an allied country, or work towards building the needed infrastructure yourself to develop them.

Any nation capable of building a large cargo ship is already halfway there.

Other oligarchs and officials do care about their families. And unlike Stalin, Putin cannot call the decisions against the entire elite. He is powerful but his power hinges on "the family", just like in italian mafia.

Large and slow? My father couldn't tell me how fast they cruise at. But between station calls and such. I figured out they can in calmer waters. Do about 40 knots easily... For a ship like a carrier to do 40 knots is fucking fast.

lol, good troll.

It's all still fairly experimental at this point. Larger ships are a good starting point for laser weapons, but I'm willing to bet that you could replace a fair bit of existing weapons tech on something the size of a frigate with power generators & lasers and still have it be very effective. That's still a long way's off, I'd imagine.

what game?
from the depths?

That's cruising speed. Maneuvering something that large to try and avoid air/missile strikes would be all but pointless.

You understand the first aircraft carriers were actually converted cargo ships, yes?

You don't need to avoid air/missle strikes. There are 30mm laser guided anti missle cannons on almost every ships deck in the fleet. That will just. Bzzzzzzrrpp them out of the sky. No dodging needed.

We should team up with Russia and beat the fuck out of Africa.

Dude we could just walk into africa. And be like "murica" and bam its ours... Hell north Korea would at least be a fight.

Was in the news.

(1) Russia will not back down on Syria. Regime change means Russian navy and airforce will be booted from its only bases outside of Russia (Ukraine, ok, ok).

(2) This floating shitbox is the pride of Russia's navy, and like 200 years old. While the US might "accidently" bomb an airfield or shoot down a plane (fog of war and all), taking out the carrier is a nukable offence.

(3) S-300 and S-400 already on the ground. Russia has imposed a no-fly zone of sorts.

How likely? That's up to the USA. Russia has made it clear there's no backing down on Syria.

Yes, this war has nothing to do with isis or terrorism or any of that crap. It's smoke and mirrors of some serious ge0-political stuff. Like access to the EU markets for the east.

This is scary stuff, our own cuban crisis, but it's just not being talked about much.

No, they were mostly converted cruisers.

Once again, I'm not saying a carrier is defenseless. Against a modernized military force, those defenses could be overwhelmed in a way that just isn't possible against a poorer nation. My only point in this was to say that a carrier is not nearly as effective as it was decades ago, which is why so few navies bother with them.

Okay, so we beat the fuck out of Africa, then beat the fuck out of North Korea, then nuke pakistan and invade Iran.

>Carrier
Lol, that's why more carrier are currently built and in service than ever since the end of the cold war ?

Times have changed since the falkland and a single ASM will be easily shot down by most "modern" AA ships. Successfull attack will come from saturation, which mean having several vectors able to delivers a payload at the same time.
All in all, a carrier much less vulnerable than a conventional airbase. only 'bad' thing about carriers is that it's a lot of eggs in the same basket.

The first carrier in the US navy was a converted cargo ship.

If war between russia and USA, China and russia will ally up. Philippines either stay neutral or ally with russia. Syria and Iran would probably tend to russia too. On the other side is Europe, Japan, USA and australia. But its unclear how much they would support when threat of nuclear disaster and USA Aggressor (public won't support it).

From Units russia has shit ton of tanks, China lots of soldiers. US lots of aircraft. Nobody can see what would happen. It would probably give a lot of proxy wars and an economical war.

Id give it about a 1% chance. Both countries realise that a war would probably mean the end of the world. The closest they'll get to a war is a war by proxy, which you could argue is happening now. Also don't count on Putin being in charge for much longer. More and more Russians are getting tired of his corrupt shit.

Few navys build carriers because their expensive.. Also carriers are offensive tools. And hardly defensive until you lose land.. During the gulf war a carrier was used for all emergency medical operations needed Because they truely are floating citys.

They aren't past their prime. Well the USs isnt and China is building theirs up now too. Ive even heard of talk over about japan building one carrier themselves.

The Us navy did not invent the carrier.

Never said they did, friendo.

>war by proxy

Considering a Russian fighter was already shot down by NATO last year, it's not proxy anymore. They're really close to eachother.

Simulations all say the same, nolimited engagements; when it starts, you can't put it back in the bag.

never said you said that, pal.

There's absolutely no way a war will happen. If you actually think that's a possibility you should kys.

But you said the first carriers were converted cargo ships.

Well alright then.

US has not much friends but the right. But Japan won't participate preventive in an war I think. EU citizien would Riot probably too. On the other side China, russia and the whole middle east. It's more an economical war. As soon as US loosed oil sources they would be game over in months

Russia is still recovering from world war 2 in sheer male volume. The numbers where massive and its still been less than 100 years. And they only hurt themselves doing stupid shit like keeping asbestos legal. And drinking while pregnant. What vlad the kid with fetal alcohol syndrome is gonna pose a threat?

Im more afraid of china.

China eiltes could benefit from a massive war. If you could wipe even half of China's population. It will keep them afloat for another 100 years. The problem china is having is they run out of clean drinkable water in 2025! Theyve drink/drained whole rivers dry!

And some of the first carriers WERE converted cargo ships.

What do you mean? What don't you get?


Syria has been a Russian (Soviet) client, always. Now, we, the west, are funding terrorists to oust the Syrian leader. We want friendly leaders who will give the Russians their marching orders.

Shit, read this...
Russia will not back down here. Can we expect the americans to do so? That'll determin if they go to war.

We're very close. I'm born 1971, I remember the fears of the 80s. Syria is a major possibility.

but not THE first, as was previously stated.

Japan, Australia, Korea, Canada, Germany, any Nordic country... off the top of my head. So fuck you.

>Muh Swarm of Missiles
Fuck off, Faggot. That's not even /k/ tier level of retarded.

I said the first carrier in the US navy was a converted cargo ship, not that the first ever carrier was.

i think they meant the first US carriers were converted cargo ships.

What did I do to earn your wrath, sir?

but that's irrelevant to the proceeding discussion about what the first carriers derived from with qualifiers.

We're backing them into a corner. Russia, China, Iran. Incroaching on areas they've traditionally held sway.

Imagine Iranian crusiers in the gulf of mexco harassing the coast guard? Or chinese subs sliding up and down the east cost from their base in Mexico?

But it seems perfically normal for the to be in in the p.gulf or patrolling the spratelys.

>You understand the first aircraft carriers were actually converted cargo ships, yes?
Not sure HMS Argus was

A missile defense system isn't some impenetrable wall. It doesn't take much for such a system to be overwhelmed.

>Japan
They don't even have their own military

Why would the fuck Russia and China ally up? There is no soviet ideology anymore. Like half of the China industry is the outsource from USA. They have more reasons to ally up with USA.

In what way is it irrelevant? I began by stating that any country sufficiently motivated who was also capable of building large cargo ships would also likely be able to build a carrier. Someone called bullshit, so I explained that some of the first carriers were indeed converted cargo ships. Everything that followed was pointless.

Carriers don't travel alone. Any system that'd be able to get any where NEAR within range to deploy that many missiles would be destroyed well before it got close enough to launch it's payload. That is the entire point of the battlegroup. The defensive wall is a last stand.

America has no desire to go to war with Russia. Hillary wants war with Russia, and her puppet faggots will support her in theory...

The only people in the USA you have to worry about are the Right wing folks. We are the war makers. We are the fighters, we are the supporters. We are the ones that support the troops etc., etc.

And we have nothing against Russia...
Again. That is Hillary's wet dream. And Russia would smack the smug off her cunt.

>We should team up with Russia and beat the fuck out of Africa.

Stop shipping food and medicine there and the whole continent would die in a year or two.

Fuck man. Trump has came out multiple times saying that he seeks BETTER relations with Russia. Hillary wants a no fly zone. And, Assuming she enforces it, assuming she gets into office, will be grounds for some more tension.
>Also, Imma just leave this here: militarytimes.com/articles/trump-letter-generals-admirals

But it is not 1912 anymore. You need the planes, electronics, missiles, escorts and nuclear subs. A cargo ship is not a carrier. You need the industry to build all that.

Exactly what will Russia be able to use against US? Their entire GDP is less than that of Texas. Have you even been to Russia? It is a fucking snow Nigeria.

Wanna know a sekreit?

All our most advanced anti weapons systems. And they still cant detect a cannon ball being fired...

Why you think the US wants rail guns so badly? If we can't fire missles. We can use undetectable projectiles.

Shhhh dont tell the commies tho.

And many militaries have access to stealth technology that may render all of that useless. And let's not assume that a treaty is going to stop someone from putting weapons in space. There's no reason to believe the major powers don't have a network of orbital weapons just waiting to drop their payload - no one ground-side need ever know there's something on its way to wipe them out.

>Stealth tech that renders Radar useless
>On a missile
>Space based Weaponry

Holy fuck. You play way too much COD, kid. And here I thought I might be able to have an intelligent discussion.

I believe the Russians see Syria as an existential threat.

I believe our best hope comes from the EU. Lets see what they do. Already, a subtle message from Spain: refueling the Russian carier. My guess is that the EU is tired of the fugees and the wars causing them. They want this done, and the refugees back home rebuilding their homeland.

>implying America isn't just Nigeria

Spot the pol.

Which ones? USA might but we don't.

Countries like Spain and Italy are like east EU countries, e.g. Ukraine. They have literally no economic power and the only reason why anyone talks about them is that they are in the middle of fucking Europe, thus hard to ignore.

too fat

I'd rather die in nuclear fire than in debt and poverty at this point

One would assume that anyone attempting to build a carrier would already have all of these things, yes (nuclear subs need not factor into this escort).

My point was that it is doable - not that it'd be a state-of-the-art contemporary to what everyone else has currently.

Dude you are writing this post from a PC. What fucking poverty are you talking about?

You're just living in the past. I don't know if you heard, but we're starting to put lasers on warships now. And space-based weaponry is easy if you're already able to launch things into space. And yes, there is stealth tech that renders radar useless. Materials have been developed that can absorb the radar wave and make it appear as if there is no object.

It seems unlikely that direct war would happen.
They do have the edge in cyber and electronic warfare so I could see a mixture of that with proxy wars in the ME

The USA and its allies are the only ones openly declaring their use of these technologies. It's a fair bet that other countries have them but are decidedly more secretive about it.

I agree. Cyber warfare is hot these days. I envision many countries pouring money into the armies of geeks.

Which is my point, everyone that can build them has a carrier. Therefore they are not obsolete.

Are you fucking high?
Dude.
No one has, or is, putting weapons in space. The only three countries that could do that are the US, China, and Russia, but Russia can't even afford to build a carrier that doesn't fucking on on diesel.
Also, Treaties are a thing.
Also, again. Anything that could get close enough to launch enough Ashms against a carrier battlegroup would be destroyed by that point because, y'know, that's the whole point. Any group that large would show up on radar, plus, it's a carrier. It's own aircraft would be launched to intercept and patrol if things ever escalated to that level.