General Mills
More often than not I tend to take that L.
my brother out there in the Mediterranean on one of those ships brehs
Russian doing fly bys over US naval ship in the Black Sea
- Thread starter Digga38
- Start date
usopp
Pro
I heard if 100 nukes go off at any given time, the radiation would kill everyone
yep.
Russo-Georgian war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
basically whats happening in the Ukraine, happened in Georgia. Georgia is pro-western, they have western technology, planes, etc. Basically NATO armed them. Georgia has troops in Iraq helping us, and they started feeling themselves a little too much, they thought that since they die for us in Iraq, we'll die for them. Little did they know theyre dealing with America
Ossetia is kinda like Crimea, its the Russian part of Georgia, it belonged to Georgia, but it has heavy Russian influence and Russian people. Anyways Russia decided to 'stir the pot' a bit, since the president kept talking about that western love bullshyt, Russia decided to wake up its sleeper cells and intelligence agents who were separatist rebels (ring a bell?) Georgia then decided to take it by force (thinking we'd help lol), started slaughtering people in Ossetia who so happen to be of Russian descent.......Russia hit them with theand launched an attack. Destroyed their forces so quick, made our tech look mickey mouse. Our media swept that war under the rug so fast, we let that shyt go quick as fukk. we didn't want none of that. We were quite surprised Russia went to war over a small piece of land, but americans are so stupid and ignorant that all they have to do is open a god damn history book to know that Russia is quite passive, but one thing they're not passive about.....is its land and its people. They will fukking start WWIII over that shyt, not even bat an eyelid.
New president and we're trying it yet again, this time in Ukraine. Ukraine have Russian tech, which Russia is very familiar with, if this idiot Ukrainian president keeps talking he's going to get his people blown the fukk up. He needs to quit playin because he of all people should know how the Russians get down.
and Bush didnt do shyt when putin invaded Georgia either[DOUBLEPOST=1397641865][/DOUBLEPOST]
It didn't expose Russia at alleverybody, and I mean EVERYBODY stated it that it exposed US. It literally exposed our tech and they were able to steal them after they invaded. They're military campaign in Georgia was flawless, one of the swiftest most precise wars in modern era. what are you talking about?
Russia doesn't spend 100 billions on its military.
In case you didn't know this...Russia doesn't need more than a million man army. They have the best missiles in the world, their military is built around spending the least amount of money, but having the most advanced sting. That means pushing buttons instead of sending men.
They have the most powerful bombs, both nuclear and conventional. and the fastest most dangerous missiles in the world. We spend money on multibillion dollar carriers, they spend money on single-digit dollar missiles that can bury them. That is what you call intelligence. You can stop men, but you can't stop missiles.
exactly! All those stupid cacs on facebook talking about US ships should shoot down russian planes doing flyovers over US carriers in the black sea. LOL russian missles would take out US carriers in seconds. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel and the US knows it
Broke Wave
The GOAT
I usually fukks with @Tommy Knocks on almost everything but you are out of your mind if you think there is any evidence to suggest that America couldn't turn Russia's military lights out in a week
Outside of the nuclear thing, do you really think that the Russian Airforce could maintain air superiority with literally thousands of advanced fighters coming from 360 degrees, many of which will be stealthy, flying at and over their bases in literally a matter of minutes? Literally impossible. Once they lose the sky to the Air Force it's a matter of crushing their tiny navy and destroying their harbor. Subsequent to that their army would be flicked over like a standing domino
Tommy Knocks
retired
Russia could defend its land from U.S invasion most def. In order for U.S to maintain air superiority it must have aircraft carriers in the region.I usually fukks with @Tommy Knocks on almost everything but you are out of your mind if you think there is any evidence to suggest that America couldn't turn Russia's military lights out in a week
Outside of the nuclear thing, do you really think that the Russian Airforce could maintain air superiority with literally thousands of advanced fighters coming from 360 degrees, many of which will be stealthy, flying at and over their bases in literally a matter of minutes? Literally impossible. Once they lose the sky to the Air Force it's a matter of crushing their tiny navy and destroying their harbor. Subsequent to that their army would be flicked over like a standing domino
How would aircraft carreriers defend themselves from on coming surface to surface missilies such as the Sunburn missile, which can down a ship with one blow?
Ill wait.
Broke Wave
The GOAT
You talkin about rock paper scissors and not actual war man... And America don't need no Carriers to put it on Russia... they got bases all over Europe and SE Asia. And it's easier said than done to deliver that Sunburn Missle to the carrier group... once u get within the effective range it would have already been good night.
Not to mention America letting loose some of its own missiles... I think you may have heard of them... the cruise missiles
Conventional war wise America would turn out Russia's lights in a matter of days man....
Digga38
The seperation between what's fake and what's real
yall go to farYou talkin about rock paper scissors and not actual war man... And America don't need no Carriers to put it on Russia... they got bases all over Europe and SE Asia. And it's easier said than done to deliver that Sunburn Missle to the carrier group... once u get within the effective range it would have already been good night.
Not to mention America letting loose some of its own missiles... I think you may have heard of them... the cruise missiles
Conventional war wise America would turn out Russia's lights in a matter of days man....
these cacs have been watching too much faux news. You clowns got your asses kicked in vietnam what chance would U have against russia's mighty army? U cacs cant hide behind cute little drones
A conventional war in Eastern Europe
This is the other scenario that never happened in the Cold War. Now, the possibility of scenario one (nuclear Armageddon) makes this one almost equally unlikely. But for the sake of argument, let's assume this hypothetical U.S.-Russia war breaks out in Ukraine, and that other NATO forces are supplementing U.S. troops, ships, and aircraft. Unlike in the Asia-Pacific, where the U.S. keeps China in check (and vice versa, as Eugene Chow explained), NATO provides the United States with a robust military alliance set up specifically to take on Soviet Russia.
The first dynamic is that Russia would have home field advantage: The Russian navy has long called Crimea its home, and whatever troops Russia doesn't already have in Ukraine are right next door, one border-crossing away. The other big starting point is that the U.S. and its NATO allies have Russia effectively surrounded. By its own public count, the U.S. has 598 military facilities in 40 countries, along with the 4,461 bases in the U.S. and U.S. territories.
Along with its large number of bases in Germany, the U.S. has major military installations in Qatar and the Diego Garcia atoll to Russia's south and Japan and South Korea to its east. NATO allies France and Britain are even closer, as this map from Britain's The Telegraph shows:
On top of that, NATO has bases around Russia's western perimeter and in Turkey, right across the Black Sea from Ukraine. What about Russia? "They have a presence in Cuba," more a way station than a base, NYU professor Mark Galeotti tells The Washington Post. And Russia has a naval base in Tartus, Syria. But otherwise "they have no bases outside the former Soviet Union."
Russia has an estimated 845,000 active-duty troops, with as many as 2.5 million more in reserve. NYU's Galeotti isn't very impressed. Russia's military is "moderately competent," he tells The Washington Post. "It's not at the level of the American or British or German military, but it's better than in the 1990s." The Russian troops, especially the Spetsnaz special forces, are "good at bullying small neighbors, but it would not be effective against NATO. It would not be able to defeat China." Galeotti is even more brutal about Russia's Crimea-based Black Sea Fleet:
As a war-fighting force, it's not particularly impressive. Its main vessel was basically built to fight other ships and so is only useful in fighting a naval war. It's got the Moskva, an aging guided-missile cruiser; a large anti-submarine warfare cruiser — very dated; a destroyer and two frigates, which are more versatile; landing ships; and a diesel attack submarine. It's not a particularly powerful force. The Italian navy alone could easily destroy it. [Washington Post]
The U.S. military's 1.4 million active duty troops and 850,000 reservists, but it can't just throw all of them at Russia — somebody has to maintain those 598 bases around the world, as well as defend the U.S.
NATO's Response Force (NRF), which would probably be the first armed unit to engage the Russians, has 13,000 troops at the ready and thousands more in reserve. Here's NATO describing its first-response team, right before NRF war games last fall:
If Russia would have the advantage at sea — Sevastopol is its home port, and the U.S./NATO would have to dislodge its navy — the U.S. would have an edge in the skies, mostly. "The U.S. planes have better radar, missiles, and electronic warfare equipment, while the Russian planes are judged to have superior handling and thrust-to-weight ratio, which would give them an edge in a classic dogfight," says Charles Clover at the Financial Times.
But classic dogfights are at least as dated as Top Gun, Russian defense analyst Ruslan Pukhov tellsFT. "Ever since Soviet days we have been lagging behind the U.S. in military aviation." Because of that gap, he adds, Soviet and Russian military planners have invested heavily in air defense systems, and the S-300 and S-400 systems are the best in the world. "It's like boxing," Pukhov says. "If you have a weak right arm, you need to compensate by a strong left arm. Soviet strategists made up for a weakness in aviation by investing heavily in air defense systems."
A U.S.-Russia war probably wouldn't end up a draw, but it would be a bloody mess. The site Global Firepower ranks the U.S. the most powerful conventional military in the world, and that's without NATO, but Russia is a pretty close second (here it differs with Galeotti). If you look down the list of military assets, the U.S. beats Russia in almost every category — Russia has more tanks, ground artillery, and mine warfare craft.
There's a wild card, though: Since 2010, the U.S. and Russian militaries have been increasingly cooperating, including engaging in joint military exercises. Unlike in Soviet times, or even the 1990s, U.S. and Russian military commanders know one another and are familiar with each other's armaments and strategies. Until the U.S. put all U.S.-Russian military engagements on holdMonday, the relationship was good and improving.
There's "a very robust, cooperative effort between our militaries," Rear Admiral Mark C. Montgomery, deputy director for plans, policy, and strategy at U.S. European Command (EUCOM),told Foreign Policy in 2012, as Russian officers were in NORAD headquarters in Colorado, practicing counterinsurgency tactics.
The naval exercises "tend to be fairly deep in their level of technical engagement," Montgomery said, "where say, the ground ones and [special operations forces] ones are still fairly young exercises that do a lot more walk-thru than detailed exercising. But as they go year to year, they get more complicated."
So basically the U.S. would win as expected but would end up taking most likely the heaviest lumps its ever taken in history if this shyt drags out more than a year, which of course it would
This is the other scenario that never happened in the Cold War. Now, the possibility of scenario one (nuclear Armageddon) makes this one almost equally unlikely. But for the sake of argument, let's assume this hypothetical U.S.-Russia war breaks out in Ukraine, and that other NATO forces are supplementing U.S. troops, ships, and aircraft. Unlike in the Asia-Pacific, where the U.S. keeps China in check (and vice versa, as Eugene Chow explained), NATO provides the United States with a robust military alliance set up specifically to take on Soviet Russia.
The first dynamic is that Russia would have home field advantage: The Russian navy has long called Crimea its home, and whatever troops Russia doesn't already have in Ukraine are right next door, one border-crossing away. The other big starting point is that the U.S. and its NATO allies have Russia effectively surrounded. By its own public count, the U.S. has 598 military facilities in 40 countries, along with the 4,461 bases in the U.S. and U.S. territories.
Along with its large number of bases in Germany, the U.S. has major military installations in Qatar and the Diego Garcia atoll to Russia's south and Japan and South Korea to its east. NATO allies France and Britain are even closer, as this map from Britain's The Telegraph shows:
On top of that, NATO has bases around Russia's western perimeter and in Turkey, right across the Black Sea from Ukraine. What about Russia? "They have a presence in Cuba," more a way station than a base, NYU professor Mark Galeotti tells The Washington Post. And Russia has a naval base in Tartus, Syria. But otherwise "they have no bases outside the former Soviet Union."
Russia has an estimated 845,000 active-duty troops, with as many as 2.5 million more in reserve. NYU's Galeotti isn't very impressed. Russia's military is "moderately competent," he tells The Washington Post. "It's not at the level of the American or British or German military, but it's better than in the 1990s." The Russian troops, especially the Spetsnaz special forces, are "good at bullying small neighbors, but it would not be effective against NATO. It would not be able to defeat China." Galeotti is even more brutal about Russia's Crimea-based Black Sea Fleet:
As a war-fighting force, it's not particularly impressive. Its main vessel was basically built to fight other ships and so is only useful in fighting a naval war. It's got the Moskva, an aging guided-missile cruiser; a large anti-submarine warfare cruiser — very dated; a destroyer and two frigates, which are more versatile; landing ships; and a diesel attack submarine. It's not a particularly powerful force. The Italian navy alone could easily destroy it. [Washington Post]
The U.S. military's 1.4 million active duty troops and 850,000 reservists, but it can't just throw all of them at Russia — somebody has to maintain those 598 bases around the world, as well as defend the U.S.
NATO's Response Force (NRF), which would probably be the first armed unit to engage the Russians, has 13,000 troops at the ready and thousands more in reserve. Here's NATO describing its first-response team, right before NRF war games last fall:
If Russia would have the advantage at sea — Sevastopol is its home port, and the U.S./NATO would have to dislodge its navy — the U.S. would have an edge in the skies, mostly. "The U.S. planes have better radar, missiles, and electronic warfare equipment, while the Russian planes are judged to have superior handling and thrust-to-weight ratio, which would give them an edge in a classic dogfight," says Charles Clover at the Financial Times.
But classic dogfights are at least as dated as Top Gun, Russian defense analyst Ruslan Pukhov tellsFT. "Ever since Soviet days we have been lagging behind the U.S. in military aviation." Because of that gap, he adds, Soviet and Russian military planners have invested heavily in air defense systems, and the S-300 and S-400 systems are the best in the world. "It's like boxing," Pukhov says. "If you have a weak right arm, you need to compensate by a strong left arm. Soviet strategists made up for a weakness in aviation by investing heavily in air defense systems."
A U.S.-Russia war probably wouldn't end up a draw, but it would be a bloody mess. The site Global Firepower ranks the U.S. the most powerful conventional military in the world, and that's without NATO, but Russia is a pretty close second (here it differs with Galeotti). If you look down the list of military assets, the U.S. beats Russia in almost every category — Russia has more tanks, ground artillery, and mine warfare craft.
There's a wild card, though: Since 2010, the U.S. and Russian militaries have been increasingly cooperating, including engaging in joint military exercises. Unlike in Soviet times, or even the 1990s, U.S. and Russian military commanders know one another and are familiar with each other's armaments and strategies. Until the U.S. put all U.S.-Russian military engagements on holdMonday, the relationship was good and improving.
There's "a very robust, cooperative effort between our militaries," Rear Admiral Mark C. Montgomery, deputy director for plans, policy, and strategy at U.S. European Command (EUCOM),told Foreign Policy in 2012, as Russian officers were in NORAD headquarters in Colorado, practicing counterinsurgency tactics.
The naval exercises "tend to be fairly deep in their level of technical engagement," Montgomery said, "where say, the ground ones and [special operations forces] ones are still fairly young exercises that do a lot more walk-thru than detailed exercising. But as they go year to year, they get more complicated."
So basically the U.S. would win as expected but would end up taking most likely the heaviest lumps its ever taken in history if this shyt drags out more than a year, which of course it would
Type Username Here
Not a new member
I think you're forgetting that the United States spent 45 years preparing to go to war with Russia and China. Go look at their bases in the region.
The United States Military strength is conventional warfare.
Tommy Knocks
retired
Dawg. Every single base in europe is within range of Russia's long range ballistic missiles.You talkin about rock paper scissors and not actual war man... And America don't need no Carriers to put it on Russia... they got bases all over Europe and SE Asia. And it's easier said than done to deliver that Sunburn Missle to the carrier group... once u get within the effective range it would have already been good night.
Not to mention America letting loose some of its own missiles... I think you may have heard of them... the cruise missiles
Conventional war wise America would turn out Russia's lights in a matter of days man....
I don't think you're understanding something. Russia will not be fighting. There will not be any planes vs planes, men vs men. It will be button pushing. This is the part I dont think you all understand. Russia military knows it can't take america machine vs machine, so it has focused all it's efforts on ballistic missiles, bombs and warheads.
I dont think you fully understand Russia's military. I don't think you know what type of missiles and bombs they actually have, and how they are vastly superior to ours. We have the tomahawk missile, they have about 3 missiles with greater accuracy and range.
In fact, they just tested the best missile known to man, the Topol, a few days ago to flex.
ITAR-TASS: Russia - Russia's Space defence force tests launch Yars new ballistic missile
List of missiles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ill leave these lists of missiles here, feel free to study them. Russia have more missiles to destroy all of NATOs bases, whereas NATO does not. That's been a problem with NATO in fact, they don't have enough missiles because they spend so much money on other things such as planes, transportation, tanks, things that can be destroyed by ballistic missiles no problem. Why do you think the U.S was paranoid about the S-300 being deployed in Syria and Iran. That missile alone is one of the most feared missiles on the planet.[DOUBLEPOST=1397664246][/DOUBLEPOST]
and I think you're forgetting Russia and China have done the same. All of those bases are within Russia ballistic range. How do you propose they stop em? Trying to stop Russia's missile system is like trying to stomp asteroids.
America's military is literally DECADES ahead of everyone else...
Type Username Here
Not a new member
and I think you're forgetting Russia and China have done the same. All of those bases are within Russia ballistic range. How do you propose they stop em? Trying to stop Russia's missile system is like trying to stomp asteroids.
They have infinite amount of missiles? The US has prepared to sacrifice bases in preparation of this and this is not a secret, all you have to do is read Cold War documents. This is Cold War planning. Russia now is much weaker than it's Soviet days as well. It can no longer keep up with the technological advancements of the US and doesn't have the cash flow to do it.
Even during WWII, The Soviets were damn near collapsing until US Lend-Lease supplied them with cash and equipment. Mater of fact, Stalin was preparing to have his shyt pushed in and the Americans knew it. Ultimately, the Soviet's greatest contribution was bodies, as cold as that sounds. Go read up on the Lend-Lease. The Americans gave the Soviets 144 Billion dollars (adjusted for inflation)
You'd be naive to think the US stopped planning for a massive World War after 1991.
Last edited:
