Let pretend for a second Hillary won and declare war on Russia...

Let pretend for a second Hillary won and declare war on Russia. Does the US even stand a chance against a giant nation like Russia without any nukes?

Other urls found in this thread:

popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a23738/uss-zumwalt-ammo-too-expensive/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

russia is good at fighting defensively and then counter attacke. if russia attacks first, it will end in a stalemate.

USA: 4 million tons in naval weapons
Russia: ~1 Million
China: ~1 Million
India, France, and UK Navies: 1 Million tons

Not even close, this is like WW1 being Germany, France, Britain, and America all versus the Ottoman empire, no chance in hell.

>America cant even win a war agaisnt sevages with AK47s in the jungle
>believing you have any chance against Russia in a nuclear war

Please stfu

without any nuke ? be ready for a stalemate line somewhere in central/western europe that will turn into a modern ww1

>invading Russia
good luck
we may lose tens of millions, but it will not end up good for NATO either

Even if we weren't vastly inferior there are still two times more Americans than Russians. Without counting NATO cannon fodder. Anyone who says that Russia has any chance in a conventional warfare is just a retard.

>without any nukes

we have almost the same number as them but with more vehicles to move and shoot them
we have fucking nuclear artillery shells for fuck's sake


WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU

Numbers aren't that important. Russian navy is shit, but Russian air force and Russian anti-air defence would make invading Russia pretty tricky. At the same time invading NATO is impossible for Russia. Even without nukes it's just a stalemate.

>war in 2016 between two first world nations

Hundreds of millions would die, this would be a global war that takes place on 6 continents, 5 oceans, and probably in space. At first Russia would be at a disadvantage, but it wouldn't matter because a modern industrialized country could quickly go Total-War mode and convert all factories to churning out weapons and bombs.

Imagine how rapidly we industrialized war in world war 2, now take the efficiency of factories and infrastructure of modern times and multiply by it the massive increase in population since WW2 and a modern total war like this would just be an assembly line of death.

Even without nukes it would be world-ending just from the economic damage, we would never recover and it would basically be the walking dead universe except with no zombies.

This. Russia is very smart to continue expanding their nuclear program.
It's funny, the most destructive tool we ever conceived is our most potent instrument of peace

>the most destructive tool we ever conceived is our most potent instrument of peace
The internet is not an instrument of peace

what i Wonder is how big of a leap in technology we would make with such a war , ww2 gave us the reaction plane , the assault rifle , main battle tanks as we know them , the radar etc

this
>lost Korea
>lost Vietnam
>lost Afghanistan
>lost Iraq
>can't even Isis

the US armed forces are a meme. imagine trying to enlist a bunch of sjw. You would need 17 different barracks for all the gender identities.

Well, we did stop WW3

>without any nukes?
It would go to nukes immediately. Stop playing with yourself thinking up these no-nukes scenarios.

>implying trannys are mentally fit enough to be soldiers
America has been conducting war as a business, and I think that has a lot to do with why we don't fix a problem as soon as possible. We haven't been truly committed to war since WW2.
When the world needs a hero, it's going to be us.
Besides, would you rather live under the thumb of China? I fucking hope not.

Situation has changed, there would be no leap, our shift to digital from analog(in everything) means we are dependant entirely on the grid, and to my knowledge there is no existing technological failsafe to fall back on once the electric and computer-dependent grid goes down. It is cyclical, once the computers go down, the pipelines will halt, electricity will be gone, and we will be fucked and set basically back to the 1800s.

The world of course could not handle a 2016 population with 1800s tech and infrastructure, and this would be basically an extinction event.

Don't underestimate naval firepower. If the US Navy perfects the railgun cities like St. Petersburg would be absolutely fucked.

These are all interesting answer. Even without NATO, the US still has a lot more fire power than Russia but past history keep telling us that the US end up fucking up their own army and end up with a "tie" against a smaller force. In the end, everyone would lose from all the killing just because one stupid leader says the Russia is the enemy. Thank you for answering this.

I find it retarded that I learn this from a VIDEOGAME of all things and not from high school.

Mmm... I really want to join the navy ... I should probably ask /k/ first, I don't know what is best for me.

Baltic fucking sea.
Just take a look at the world map. See there is no large coastal cities besides murmansk and vladivostok, and these two are on the different parts of the globe.

Yes, because "war with Russia" doesn't necessarily mean "invading and conquering Russia."

It would be a defensive war focused on strangling their economy via force projection.

Kojima is a redpill master.

Sons of Liberty came out in 2001 and it reads like prophecy

>I find it retarded that I learn this from a VIDEOGAME of all things and not from high school.

Do you expect them to take a break from teaching history and math and how to write, and just spend a few days redpilling you and telling you that if a first world nation went rogue and wanted to wipe out civilization, it could, and there's nothing we could do?

That doesn't sound fun

I think the plan was to just attack Syria. Basically do what Turkey did but on a massive scale, you know. Like shoot down every single Russian aircraft till they fuck off like cucks.

There is no way to take Russia.

>Ivan thinks rail guns are short range
Kek. Get ready for the next Hyper War.

That still scares me, even today.

No because things like No child Left behind was the most stupidest thing added to the US education where the teacher has to teach their student how to pass a stupid teach and not actually teach anything else. If the student fails that test, those teachers are fired. I already gave up on the US education when they spend more time talking about Anne Frank and how bad the holocaust instead of the involvement of US during WW2.

So you will fire your (rails guns) at moscow from like barents sea, 2k km? I am maybe an Ivan, but not that stupid/

Bruh, rail guns could be used to shoot at niggers in space. I think we'll hit St. Petersburg

THE ALT-LEFT WILL RISE!
PROTECT THE WEAK AND TRAMPLE THE UNEDUCATED!
HAIL HOPE!
HAIL LOGIC!
HAIL SCIENCE!
EMBRACE PARADOX!
LOVE OR DESPAIR!

America has the advantage on paper and will in practice, but the American public has NO stomach for war. During the years of the Iraq war every single day was a news story about how 5-10 or so troops died in Iraq. That's all, and the public thought it was a huge tragedy. The US doesn't have the stomach to lose 1,000 men in a single day of battle with an enemy much more accustomed to casualties. Much like Vietnam the US will win the battles, but the brutality of them will turn the public against the war and the US will pull out.

Hillary wouldn't have declared on Russia you runt. In Diplomacy you must sometimes threaten to get what you want, even if you dislike the thought of going to war.
It's flexing muscles that allowed Hillary to strike a deal with Iran.

Which is why Trump is going to be a bad diplomat.

>russians rush B as expected
>war is over

what else did you expect?

this is silly
why invent this wonderweapon when US has 5000 tomahawks with exactly 2000km range

which is exactly what US would use as a weapon of choice when attacking russia. tomahawks actually is the main reason for Russia trying to have standoff lines of defence at black sea, baltic and kuriles

All it takes is this half a ton of missiles/torpedoes and this bulking slow "navy" the us has will be no more

>giant nation like Russia

Eh? 3/4 of its landmass is just empty tundra/taiga controlled by the chinks. Roughly 4/5 of the rest is remote countryside inhabited by crocodile junkies, and the remaining 1/5 is all important stuff concentrated into ~10 important places.

I go with a fallacy here, but according to my personal experience with Russian military readiness, the USA could most likely conquer the whole country within 24 hours by employing massed airstrikes on key points and then taking the rest with an airborne assault. Russian air/strategic defense wouldn't be available for at least 72+ hours with ground forces probably needing at least a full week to mobilize. This, of course, only if China does not decide that Siberia is theirs for the taking.

In a land war IN Russia, no chance. Same for anyone attempting a land war in the USA, never happen.

In a field where both sides were required to project power, USA wins handily.

Of course, because in every war previously all navy ships of every kind were immediately sunk 30 seconds into the war.

Next you'll tell me argentina is white.

There nothing silly about it. The railing isn't standard issue, it's still in development. It's the cannon of the future.
Don't hate just because you cannot afford comrade.

>*rail gun*
Autocorrect

They can't invade us by land, but we can invade them through Europe.

Europe would be decimated, but we'd win.

Railgun is cheap, bullet is faster than a missile, and it makes more sense to deliver a box of 25lb bullets than ship these giant slow missiles across the world

Yes,your fleets will surrender like they did last time,what a meme nation yours is

Go be a non-white elsewhere. Actual nations are talking.

Couldn't they just immediately take Alaska though?

>Europe would be decimated, but we'd win.
We'd lose once we lost the ability to make food shipments for our troops across a Europe that has been turned to rubble

Europe would be ashes, we'd have to deliver food from the Mediterranean across an Eastern Europe that no longer has roads, while our shipments are being bombed from space.

>Russia already invaded you
>You just dont know it yet

>Their ponds leaking whatever suits them
Sup Forums btfo

Probably not. Our navy and Air Force is nothing to shake a stick at.

Bruh what?

for it to be future it has to offer something
latest relevant news i read is that even replacemnt weapon that was used on zumvalts because railgun wasn't ready is pretty much useless
popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a23738/uss-zumwalt-ammo-too-expensive/

in 10 years after US has wasted tons of money on a wuderwaffe we'll know if it'll be another one of countrless closed projects. To me it all reads like stories about why Super Tigers didn't win the war for Germans

They have no way to reach alaska

They either have to fly over water or sail across it to get there, getting past the US navy

US would BTFO Russian infrastructure.
US would be completely unable to hold ground in Russia except for a few cities.

Russian citizens would fuck with any foreign invaders.

The war would bleed the US dry. Total stalemate.

LET'S GET DOWN TO BUSINESS
TO DEFEAT PINDOS

Just keep hating on a weapon that has yet to be proven. Well see.

You don't have to take over every village idiot. Take the European sections of Russia and you win. Siberians don't care as long as their lives don't change and there's tons of separatists in the south who don't care

Wall would end with baltics occupied by russia and then stalemate and fast peace.

shut the fuck up idiot. the romans had the largest army. ottomans had the largest army. nato military is nothing without it's air force and every airfield in europe lies withing range of kalibr cruise missiles.

Vata Golovnogo Mozga

>Rome had the biggest army
Said somebody who knows nothing about the fall of Rome

Let me give you a hint, they weren't beaten by the fucking Russians.

>without any nukes
You might as well talk about lord of the rings and if this and that if that would this
Nobody attacks Russia.
Nobody attacks the norks either.

essentials are there
US nas the largest navy, but that means little against a land power like russia
US also has a lot of airpower, but russia's got best air defense outside NATO

out of cuttent US arsenal, cruise missiles were the biggest real capability gap since the 80es and up to 00s, and it's pretty much gone now

Russia being able to defend itself in an imaginary no-nukes case rests on NATO being able to operate from somewhere close to Russian borders, say within 300km to make fighter flights frequent and responsive enough or risk operating without constant air support their troops are used to, with Russia having much better precision strike options that don't depend on air superiority

that's going to be a tough job for current sand-war NATO and even in 5 years if they're serious about rearming for big wa, it'll be a tough call

>Let pretend for a second Hillary won and declare war on Russia.
Why would ever Hillary do such a thing?

It's far more likely that Trump will declare war where ever the Kremlin tells him to.

> Does the US even stand a chance against a giant nation like Russia without any nukes?

hahahahahaha yea, a country with NO mobilization ability. They dont stand a fucking chance vs US. rofl hahahahaha what a putinshillcuck.

no one wants to invade your shit country. its shit.

what part of "every airfield in europe" do you fail to understand little napkin?

>no nukes

Yeah, that's not going to happen. The moment the US declares war, Russia will be threatening nukes.

Can anyone provide even the smallest shred of evidence that Trump belongs to Russia? This is the biggest political red herring I've ever head. Russia is fucking nothing. They have nothing to do with our politics. Fucking poor 3rd world shithole with nukes. WHO GIVES A SHIT?

that's basically the only sort of countries US military invades though tyrone

Modern war like this wouldn't be like WW2

it would all go super fast

and it would be completely devastating for all human life
I think reaching "global climate goals" would be pretty much...over

well before that, probably

if thats what you have just imagine whats looking right back at you :)

Nobody stands a chance lol. There is no winner in nuclear war.
But without nuclear weapon I think the USA would quickly defeat Russian military.

i have no idea what are you trying to convey with this, demented imbecile

The combination that might happen is that A) The Russian government feels their country is going to shit, B) NATO shoots down a Russian plane over Assad-controlled areas, C) Given the fact of A, the russian government decides launching nukes is better than seeing their country fall apart around them and a triumphant US humiliating them.

So let's try to avoid this happening, by allowing some basic level of Russian control of their own hood, and not trying to turn Assad into the next Gadaffi. Thanks.

no. we dont need a hundred million, poor malnourished cesspool. its more like you stupid russians violating every sovereign country airspace on your borders. macho men with countries of a couple million, but would get BTFO fucking around with us. stick to patrolling your rat hole. no one wants to work with you.

He's trying to say that NATO is likely to have 10x the amount of firepower that you're describing aimed right back at you.

tomahawks that will have to be launched from outside 1000km from Russian borders, because of Russia trying hard to control Baltic and Black sea

with tomahawks usually flying a complex path to avoid detection, that puts most Russian production centers into a relative safety. as well as 80% of Russia's airfields. those around Urals are pretty much untoucheable. That, when all of Europe is open season the moment war starts

WTF is this shit?

well then he's just as retarded as his flag suggests. the closest nato equivalent of kalibr is a 1970s tomahwak, with 2x lesser range and 3x accuracy

>hill-a-cunt """wins"""
>succeeding in anything
>she couldn't even be corrupt correctly

we would be better off learning russian

that cunt would probably sell us out because of russian """donations""" to the clinton foundatioin

>he doesn't know the truth
Wake up man.

with 25% less range and probably same or better accuracy, let's be reasonable. most modern tomahawks have features kalibr doesn't have too, like re-targeting in flight or "kill cams" or laser guidance

In a non-nuclear scenario:
If Russia invaded they'd be destroyed. There's no real doubt about that.
If the US invaded they'd probably win with a large amount of attrition but eventually pull out as they run into the same problem every other war in the last decade has run into: communication. With communication so strong the only way to truly end a war in which you're claiming enemy cities is to make a people too afraid to resist, which the US would never have the stomach to do.

Shortly: Russia would lose either way, the US wouldn't win an invasion.

amazing features allowing them to stray into iran after being launched at baghdad. tomahawk is obsolete dogshit just like american missile technology in general

Along with NATO we would destroy them. The only hope they have is going nuclear.

I am pro-Russia, but I have to be honest here

>Let pretend for a second Hillary won and declare war on Russia. Does the US even stand a chance against a giant nation like Russia without any nukes?

russia is vastly inferior to the western nations militarily.

>strangling economy
>force projection
did you have any actual goals in mind there sport

hopefully you don't attribute yourself to those nations. irish military truly stands in the league of its own

>they would welcome us as liberators comrade

they would start a price war in cocaine and natural gas amgo