Redpill me on who would win WW3 between the US and Russian military

Redpill me on who would win WW3 between the US and Russian military.

Neither.

At least it's a war between two capable countries who can actually surrender.

>chasing towelheads around the desert for 15 fucking years

I feel like we need to have a real war in order to gain any respect. Not that I actually hope for a war with Russia.

guy who sells guns and doesn't be poor

the rich

Mutually assured destruction.

China, as long as they stay out of it.

The Jews

no one
There would be no "winners" when 2 superpowers fight eachother.

This

Terrible effort. Download the proper font and logo you melon.

The Russians. Americans will let their daughters fight whilst the numales stay at home breast feeding the little ones.

That dog is going to enjoy those hot dogs

the niggers will win. an armed conflict between the west and Russia and china will end in an all out nuclear exchange. It will decimate America, Europe, Asia and if the fallout will not destroy most life on earth and prohibit life to flourish for a long, long time, there will be one continent nobody nuked. Because it was already a toxic wasteland devoid of anything worth destroying. Africa. Over many decades the Africans will be completely isolated by a wall of radiation. They will revert back to their even more apelike primitive form now that they get no more food from us. Millions of years will pass. They will evolve to grow Geiger organs, and a way to deal with radiation. They will have children with the cockroaches who also survived the war in Turkey. And Millions of years after that they will become sentient, and start to migrate to the north. There they will grow pale skin and start working the earth, mining. Building great civilizations. It will all start over again. Much like it did in the past, but then with inbuilt Geiger counters and cockroach parts.

Nobody.

Everyone's jumping to the nukes. It wouldn't go that far.

Assuming nukes are on the table, Americans would win 100% of the time. Russia doesn't have the capablities or force projection to attack the United States. Through allies/NATO, though, we could be fighting on Russian turf within weeks. Eventually, we'd ruin their economy to the point where they'd be in complete starvation mode as a country.

In a conventional war? The USA. They have superiority at sea, in the air and an edge on the ground. That victory would be at a cost of man and materials you've not seen since WW2 mind you.

But obviously no war between the US and Russia could stay conventional. We would all die.

You need to read about the battle of Stalingrad

Soros probably

Meant to say assuming nukes are OFF the table

The jews.

Neither could win in a land war. Russia is too cold and vast while America is too entrenched with well-protected coasts and allies to the north and south. It would end in a stalemate with strong renegotiations and a truly unfortunate amount of lives lost.

jeb

Are you retarded? There is literally precedent for nukes being dropped in war time

Jews win just like Mr. House does in New Vegas

USA is NCR and Russia is Legion. Both sides can't be beat because NCR is bloated and Legion is limited on resources for a full scale invasion.

Hillary supporters

The U.S. would have to fight a lot of Stalingrads, I agree. But:

1.) Our military wouldn't be compelete fucking idiots about it like the Germans were. Our logistics are top-notch.

2.) When Germany invaded Russia, Russia invaded Germany right the fuck back. That couldn't happen under this scenario. Worst the Russians could do would be to smack US/NATO forces back to Germany, but it's not like that would hurt American morale or infrastructure or anything.

the last time we could win a nuclear war was the Cuban Missle Crisis. MAD means nobody wins.

>Nukes
Russia will probably destroy the entirety of the western world. Russia wins.

>No Nukes
Europe and East Asia will probably corner them and kill them off. America wins.

Major nuclear powers would never go to war. Everyone says they wouldn't resort to nukes, because no one is psycho or stupid enough, but trust me, when one country is getting their ass handed to them, the finger will gravitate to the red button, guaranteed. The US would slowly wreck Russia, then after about 2 years, they would launch everything they have in pathetic desperation.

Also, this is what will happen in about 2020 if Clinton is elected. Thanks dykes, nigger and nu-males.

Depends. Full scale war would be mutually assured destruction, no winners.

Anything less depends more on diplomats, deals they'd undergo, politicians of other countries with ties to both US and Russia.

> Nuclear war
Everyone loses
> Sea war
America wins
> Tank war
Russia wins?
> Vodka war
Russia wins
> Pop culture war
America wins

It would be impossible to have this conflict without starting WW3

Hypothetically though without the use of nukes the U.S would eventually win the war of attrition. Russia doesn't have the funds to fight a war against us for longer than 5+years.

It depends on three factors.
1: when?
2: where?
and 3: how?
There are countless factors involved. The majority of American population can't tell the difference between strategic and tactical nuclear warfare, let alone understand the doctrines of each the countries involved in a MAD scenario. Some dice that can be rolled in this game of probabilities involve even India, Pakistan, China, Syria, Iran, Europe, the so called no fly zone, the Baltics and so forth. The way it is as of now, it will probaly start off as a short range missile exchanges of tactical nuclear warheads between the US and Russia, which would eventually escalate into the usage of strategic bombers and eventually, a first strike against silos, which is the final key to MAD - the full unleash of high mega tonnage nuclear weapons against civilian and military targets across the globe. Even in a best case scenario of a nuclear war, due to the several considered circumstances, both the United States and the rest of NATO a few dozen million civilian casualities. Remember, there is never such a thing as "winning" a war, let alone a nuclear one. It's just who in the end has the remaining power to plant a flag on the capital of the enemy and force them into unconditional surrender. I could get into more specifics but thats the general idea.

Israel.

Of course the most well versed on nukes is a fucking jap.

You fucking idiot.

bethesda softworks

what is the difference between strategic and tactical nuclear warfare

How Senpai?

juice

>Redpill me on who would win WW3 between the US and Russian military.
Za whole Warldo loses because nobody wants that shit, military tech is far too advanced now that a full-scale war would cause massive casualties...

This isn't WW2 anymore where doomsday weapons of mass destruction were fables or only a few existed, this isn't WW1's motherfucking trench warfare.

WW3 will be the end of all of us

Strategic: the goal is to kill civilians and wipe out the other nation from the face of the Earth. Nuclear warheads beyond the megaton range, usually launched from silos. Notably, MIRV warheads (cluster warheads), targeting a metropolitanean area or a city too big.
Tactical: the goal is to destroy the military and its infrastructure, leaving the nation unshattered and undefended. Tactical targets are fleets, battlegroups, major bases (ie: camp 12 palms, ramstein AFB, area 51), command centers (Mons HQ, NORAD, the pentagon). Small warheads like those avaiable to North Korea, preferrably launched from a submarine like the Los Angeles class, a B-2 or a short range missile like the Iskander. This is a sattelite imagery from an unconfirmed Chinese submarine base in Hainan.
;^)

Damn. Dropping some knowledge.