In a total war scenario, who would win;

In a total war scenario, who would win;

Russia vs. USA

>Conventional war: No nuclear weapons

Other urls found in this thread:

globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Jews

China

NATO

It that a bait OP?

USA.

America. How is this even a question?

The USA would obviously win a lengthy drawn out conflict because it has more resources in every way.
Including nearly double the population of Russia.

Also the USA makes every country fight wars on their land. Which may be beneficial to their soldiers in some ways, but also is very damaging to their infrastructure while keeping the USA completely in tact. Once again, this would favor the US in a long term conflict.

There was a time when the USA couldn't have beaten the SU, but that time passed many decades ago. And modern Russia isn't even as capable as the SU was.

Burgers would invade Russia and get BTFO. Russia would be unable to retaliate except by invading Europe and the whole thing would end in a stalemate that would kill lots of Russians at the expense of any legitimacy America has left.

Needless to say, the US government doesn't want a war. They want isolation and subversion.

Depends.
US attacks - we will win
We attack - US will win

Cockroaches only win in a nuclear war

Why is anyone still posting after this?

I think this sums it up nicely.

This

China obviously

but seriously USA would crush Russia without nukes

Russian strategy relies heavily on small 'tactical' battlefield nuclear weapons to make up for their huge conventional disadvantage vis-a-vis USA

Russian generals and security policy experts at Russian think tanks freely admit this...

Nope.

Ground forces + force multipliers like air superiority are what I'm really getting at.

Resilience of the people also.

I would argue that Russia has the capability of denying our air superiority and invading our country. They also could attack our country from within, using the haji's tactics of guerrilla warfare in our own country.

Remove the head and the body dies.

Just bomb Putin and Russia is ours for the taking.

Or this.

Russia because they aren't PC.

They will straight up carpet bomb an entire city if they have to.

The US would just condemn it and Americans will change their profile picture into a flag.

Russia because they aren't PC.

They will straight up carpet bomb an entire city if they have to.

The US would just condemn it and Americans will change their profile picture into a flag.

>Just bomb Putin
Which one?

Matters less when so much of russias land is 1000s of km from the ocean.

Also aren't arircraft carriers and easy target for all sorts of land based missiles and submarines? There hasent been a war yet to prove they aren't just a meme weapon you can use to bomb brown people post ww2.

It would really matter where the battlefield was geographically for advantage purposes. Defense usually has the advantage, right?

According to most recent World Fire Power Rankings, Russia is in 8th place

>he doesn't realize the US K:D ratio is always excellent
political victory and personal victory are entirely different things.

From a soldier success rate perspective, every conflict is a massive success. The most causalities the USA has taken was 50,000 in a 10 year war with Vietnam while they lost 1.5 million.
>Thats not counting the civil war of course.

'BTFO' simply has never happened from a soldier perspective.
The conquests in mudslime countries were even more successful, 10+ year occupation and not many causalities to speak of.

>Conventional war: No nuclear weapons
Who gives a shit. Conventional war is for babies.

Killing a ton of enemy soldiers and losing few doesn't make a victory if your political objectives are not achieved. The Soviet Union won WWII, not Germany.

>Russia.
>Asia.
SAVAGE

This is actually the dumb thing I read ever

Provided no one else got involved it would be an easy victory for the US

>8th place
>owns 1/5 of land in the world
These rankings are bullshit.
Mate, we just come and take part of a coutry and nothing happened.
Has any other country become bigger since ww2?

>Matters less when so much of russias land is 1000s of km from the ocean.

Preventing Russia from deploying troops anywhere that isn't in Russia matters quite a bit.

USA, by most accounts. The Russian army is facing a pretty huge tech gap with the United States and I don't see them catching up any time soon regardless of the tech demo gadgets they produce (Armata, T-50).

It would be extremely messy, though.

Chine.

dude kek, nice MS paint skillz

original -> globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

>Israel in 2nd

Does this chart include allies? Because that's cheating.

Meant to u :^ )

getting "btfo" implies you are not faring well.
The USA has proven it can stay anywhere it wants to as long as it wants to and the soldiers will perform at a very high capacity.

You realize the USA chooses when it wants to come and go right? none of these countries ever have the power to actually force the USA to leave through shear combat success.

Soviet Union had to get lots of aid. It would have lost to Germany in a 1v1 war. They still were at the brink of being conquered while Germany was fighting on two fronts and the SU was receiving supplies from the USA and maybe a couple other countries because their infrastructure was shit.

Actually Germany would have whipped the Russians in both World Wars if it was truly a 1v1 conflict. However it was more like a 5v1 conflict both times.

Aren't the Russians catching up with the tech at lightning speeds? Thought I had read about that earlier

This. Homeground advantage is too strong for both sides.

Russians will fight to the death over a vast expanse of land till US does repeat of Nazi Germany and tires out.

USA will win on home soil because whole country is well armed and it will be impossible for Russia to subdue every citizen.

Holy shit, jews too.
>Chine.
Wiki says it isn't. But than again, >wiki

I would like to rape Russian women in an unprovoked invasive war just like you did to German women.

Russians are ruthless and their military is currently in better shape. America needs to upgrade its toys.

This. Large boats have been sunk with shitty missiles before. Throw enough missiles at one and it'll sink, regardless or how nice the support fleet is.

I meant it literally. As in they'd get blown the fuck out of the country, Russia would not be able to seriously retaliate, and the war would end.

>The USA has proven it can stay anywhere it wants to as long as it wants to and the soldiers will perform at a very high capacity.
You exclusively invade 10th rate countries whose regimes can't last more than a few weeks. Then you occupy post-conquest for a decade and call that a war.

Too bad it will never happen.

WEW. Vikings are real.

Tibet was acquired post-WWII (although it was only just after WWII). It also took some territory from India in 1962.
Another example is Israel eating Palestine.

Also, carriers are expensive and important. Missiles are cheap

Russia because their population are loyal to their homeland.

If USA had a conventional war, there would be nu-male cucks who refused to fight, feminist bitches that would flock to other countries as refugees because they don't want to be caught up in white male wars, blacks would revolt because they refuse to be drafted by cracka ass slave massas, Mexicans would scurry back over the border to Mexico at the first sign of trouble.

That would leave a bunch of Alex Jones' to fight the hordes and hordes of testosterone and vodka filled Russians that have been made hard just by their lives in Russia.

Sorry but you don't stand a chance.

Well, Russians have many prototype shit.
>AI tanks, robots, exoskeletons, mind-control machines. Recently they even mentioned satellite with nukes.

USA would be fucked with their funny drones and strong wimmin soldias, as US Army only works in 3rd world countries, unlike Russia's.

>Assuming Putin is the only reason Russia might resist a foreign invading army

If Russia started the war and had siezed little territory, yes. A successful decapitation strike suggests US military supremacy, and makes a good excuse for a clean withdrawal ('Putin made us do it. You killed him, thanks, backing up now').

If the US started the war or was occupying significant Russian territory, no. Russia has continuity plans for nuclear war; they can use them just as well in the event of a successful conventional decapitation strike. Russia would not want to be conquered by the US, and taking Putin out of the picture wouldn't change that any more than Russia removing Obama would make all the patriot militias here cheer a Russian invasion.

Nice. Didn't like how his first dubs turned out so he quickly gets the correction dubs.

And if shit goes south, Russian-speaking Americans like yours truly can always help tovarysch vova out ;)

In a conventional war it would end up being a stalemate.

without allies no one because neither can invade properly

>What are Chechens?

Considering that Russia is technologically inferior to America, I'd say America wins with 70% chance. The only wars Russia has ever won has been on their soil or with the help of the rest of Europe.

As parade pieces, sure - but nothing has actually gone into production and there is doubt whether Russia has the production base to actually deliver large quantities of of any of their new toys.
They're at least a generation behind in most military hardware. This is not accounting for tactics, of course - I have no way of discerning those.

Russia does a lot of posturing, which generally gets them what they want geopolitically since their regular army can still stomp most nations. But they're no where near Cold War-level military.

Bering strait lad.

The (((people))) that always win

This honestly. The weakest looking countries in history have BTFOd the strongest when fighting at home. And Russia isnt even that far behind the US compared to the rest off the world

Winner is one who has enough money to run a long war.
/thread

Butthurt? Good.

Now imagine how the German women felt when your ancestors raped them.

>>Conventional war: No nuclear weapons

In this case, whoever attacks first and ships over forces will lose.

No, your tanks, jets, and rifles are outdated. Russia keeps developing new, better military tech and implementing then, while the US hasn't made the transition to the next generation yet.

you can't support millions of troops via Alaska or in Eastern Siberia

ah, but would the US of A have the capability to stomach the casualties? my feeling is that the russian populace is simply tougher.

There is no scenario USA vs Russia. There's only NATO vs Russia and there is no way Russia would do this without chinese support.

So the real question is NATO vs Russia & China and minor allies like IRAN, Kazakhstan etc.

Given the fact that numbers play an less important role in modern wars and its all about tactics, gear & supply I'd say it's nearly impossible for Russia to win. They would've have to invade USA somehow, which hold superiority in naval & air forces + technology advantage and American soldiers are actually motivated and not conscripted mongols like the Russian army.

Thanks, i just become a little smarter(or not).

Neither can successfully invade the other - logistics, and sheer area to cover

Both ground forces are comparable/equal

Russia trails in air superiority, but leads in ground-based anti-air

Russia loses handily in the ocean

It would just be a stalemate without nukes

with nukes it'd just be both sides losing

NATO vs CSTO, don't forget

Where is Best Korea?

Neither.
The economic consequences would cripple both nations.

The war would be nothing like the wars in Middle-east because Russia is largest country in the world and the environment is nothing like in the United States. Lots of forests and some really extreme weather conditions at least in the north. Military can be spread out and hidden much better than in a small desert nation.

lol dude do you think Germans didn't rape?
do you know almost 20 million civillians died in German invasion of USSR?
are you 12 years old? or just dumb?

Chechen males make up 0.4% of the population of Russia.

Black males make up 7% of USA
Spics males make up 8.5% of USA


Non-Hispanic whites are 32% of USA

Nu-males? Well I'd say at least 40% of white males are nu-male.

So you already have around 38% of the male population potentially being subversive.

But it is even more because Spics are younger and make up a larger percentage of the military age population.

It is too multikulti to for the public support a conventional war where people know that millions will die.

People have to many alternative allegiances.

Nether would really win without nukes, If the U.S invades we would be facing the same challenges that Napoleon and Hitler faced. Over stretching supply lines, Russia would face the same problem. You can't simply win by invading when it comes to these countries.

>Butthurt? Good.
Lmao, i'm not even mad, bruh, chill out.
It's not like i did the repening or anything.

yes this is ultimately the problem is the US Military would be stabbed in the back by the homefront

There is no unity in America anymore. And unity is ultimately what wins a total war scenario

Last I looked, Ukraine wasn't part of Japan. Getting East Ukraine them doesn't prove that you're above 8th place, just that you're stronger than the part of Ukraine that wants to keep Donbass.

That said, it's pretty clear that this list is strength per capita or some such shit, not total national strength. Israel has very good weaponry *for their size*, and they beat Egypt last time they had a war, but I don't buy Israel beating out India or China.

>I would argue that Russia has the capability of denying our air superiority and invading our country

It's time to stop posting

depends
russian populace only get more resilient as they die off because they're already depressed and used to death, so "tougher" by that metric sure
americans are more finnicky, vietnam opinion went south quick as body bags came home, it would really depend on how valid the excuse for war given to the american public is

Conventional wars are so last century. Fourth generation, indirect, highly unconventional warfare is the future.

It depends.

On the long run Russia would give up. Their population is too small.

Check out Russia's latest jet.

>20 million civillians died

Those numbers are as inflated as muh (((6 GORILLION))) kike fantasies.

see
You lost veitnam because of a stab in the back and like Germany in ww1 you would probably lose a third world war because of a backstab

Russians never give up. Theyd rather all die than surrender.

Brazil, Spain and Italy have fucking aircraft carriers?

It's larger than Vietnam's lad.

American Army has women and trannies running it...

Check out our latest jet

oh wait i forgot this was all the way back in the 50s and we never mass produced it because our government is a pile of shit

slav sleeper agent in the US reppin

okay should've explained you're a Hitlerboo
by the way, who will do the raping you desire? your 90% nu-male youth?
don't mistake fantasies for reality Westcuck

>russia winning
>ever
not with their economy

>21 trillion debt

do you even know who the debt is owed to?

The US. How is this even a question? They'd bomb Russia to the stoneage

economy in peacetime and economy during war are different things
Russians could mobilize very quickly, nationalize everything, and they have the resources for autarchy
in any case this is a dumb scenario, US would never dare fighting Russia without allies

But mate, we always win.
Even with Mongols.

how would they do that?
Russian airforce and air defense will just vanish?

The only way Russia ever falls is from within.

They simply have too many people they can call upon to fight.

and who has the balls to collect, leaf?

>Polack thinks that Russia has Command & Conquer technology

Nigga get off the krokodil.