View Full Version: United States vs. USSR

Haven Of Wiidom > Non-Fiction > United States vs. USSR


Title: United States vs. USSR
Description: Cold war outbreak.


boston_celtics - April 7, 2008 12:24 AM (GMT)
OK, this match is between the United States and the Soviet Union. Let's say, somewhere along the road during the Cold war, the Americans and Russians attacked. If the war had become a real war, which side would have prevailed?

Both sides at the peak of their power, but nothing after 1991.

super_wolverine_Man - April 7, 2008 08:19 PM (GMT)
it would have meant the end of the world, so there would have not been a winner, by 1985 the two countries combined had amasses enough damage to do 50,000 times the damage of what the us did to Hiroshima and nagasaki, add in the dreaded island dissappearing A-bomb in the mix and you have armageddon, so no one wins just the end of life.

Wingman - April 7, 2008 08:51 PM (GMT)
I'll do this with no nukes, cause if nukes are involved, there will be precious little fighting. All of North America, Northern Asia, Europe, and parts of the Middle East would become uninhabitable wasteland, screwing the planet up permenently. This this is peak powers, I'll say USSR about 1970 and US about 1988. I'm going by your rules, dude. Read the book Red Storm Rising. I'm almost finished with it, and it gives an absolutely amazing account of a theoretical Soviet attack against Western Europe over lack of oil. Read it TODAY. Basically, most of it would be the trouble of Warsaw Pact forces vs. NATO forces in the battlefields of Europe. The US in 1988 owned all, and we would rapidly begin to take control of the seaways and use aircraft carrier striking power to keep the Soviets penned into Asia. The threat from them is massed supersonic bomber attacks with cruise missiles, as well as literal swarms of conventional and nuclear submarines. The key to the whole battle is keeping the trade routes to Europe open for the US to supply and arm the troops fighting there. Airlifting only goes so far. I believe the AEGIS equipped Ticos and Arleigh Burkes give us a critical advantage for our fleet, and our power projection is several times greater than theirs. The Sovs had at most two aircraft carriers during the entire Cold War. We has anywhere from 10 to 30 at any one time. You can't beat that kind of projection of power. The land threat is the threat of thousands of battle tanks attempting to overrun NATO positions. US anti-armor capablities are second to none, with A-10 Warthogs, AH-64 Apaches, the M1A1 MBT, as well as AV-8Bs, F/A-18s, F-16s, F-117s, and several bomber types for support roles, but this type of defense is up in the air unless it was actually tried. I can't make a definite decision on it. Again, the key is to keep the Sovs from closing the North Atlantic supply routes. They can hardly hit us, and we can keep building new material, while their assets are more in range. Plus, I am convinced the Germans, Brits, Italians, Belgiums, French, Norwegians, Swedes, and Swiss would see the imminent threat and come to our aid as well. The Challenger 2's and Leopard 2A6's are kickass tanks, almost as good as the M1 (the Challenger may even be superior to the Abrams in some aspects), and both those countries have excellent troops. The Germans would not give up a single square foot of their soil without making the Russians pay dearly for it. Thats' the fighting spirit they've cultivated since the First World War, and the Sovs paid a very high price for it. And the Brits survived the London Blitz...nuff' said. Bottom line: we have the quality, they have the quantity. We'd actually have to fight to see which would ultimately win. Desert Storm was a good indication that quality wins, if inplemented right. Sorry for the long post, but this is a good theoretical fight.

Guardian Of Nesh - April 7, 2008 10:02 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 7 2008, 08:51 PM)
I'll do this with no nukes, cause if nukes are involved, there will be precious little fighting. All of North America, Northern Asia, Europe, and parts of the Middle East would become uninhabitable wasteland, screwing the planet up permenently. This this is peak powers, I'll say USSR about 1970 and US about 1988. I'm going by your rules, dude. Read the book Red Storm Rising. I'm almost finished with it, and it gives an absolutely amazing account of a theoretical Soviet attack against Western Europe over lack of oil. Read it TODAY. Basically, most of it would be the trouble of Warsaw Pact forces vs. NATO forces in the battlefields of Europe. The US in 1988 owned all, and we would rapidly begin to take control of the seaways and use aircraft carrier striking power to keep the Soviets penned into Asia. The threat from them is massed supersonic bomber attacks with cruise missiles, as well as literal swarms of conventional and nuclear submarines. The key to the whole battle is keeping the trade routes to Europe open for the US to supply and arm the troops fighting there. Airlifting only goes so far. I believe the AEGIS equipped Ticos and Arleigh Burkes give us a critical advantage for our fleet, and our power projection is several times greater than theirs. The Sovs had at most two aircraft carriers during the entire Cold War. We has anywhere from 10 to 30 at any one time. You can't beat that kind of projection of power. The land threat is the threat of thousands of battle tanks attempting to overrun NATO positions. US anti-armor capablities are second to none, with A-10 Warthogs, AH-64 Apaches, the M1A1 MBT, as well as AV-8Bs, F/A-18s, F-16s, F-117s, and several bomber types for support roles, but this type of defense is up in the air unless it was actually tried. I can't make a definite decision on it. Again, the key is to keep the Sovs from closing the North Atlantic supply routes. They can hardly hit us, and we can keep building new material, while their assets are more in range. Plus, I am convinced the Germans, Brits, Italians, Belgiums, French, Norwegians, Swedes, and Swiss would see the imminent threat and come to our aid as well. The Challenger 2's and Leopard 2A6's are kickass tanks, almost as good as the M1 (the Challenger may even be superior to the Abrams in some aspects), and both those countries have excellent troops. The Germans would not give up a single square foot of their soil without making the Russians pay dearly for it. Thats' the fighting spirit they've cultivated since the First World War, and the Sovs paid a very high price for it. And the Brits survived the London Blitz...nuff' said. Bottom line: we have the quality, they have the quantity. We'd actually have to fight to see which would ultimately win. Desert Storm was a good indication that quality wins, if inplemented right. Sorry for the long post, but this is a good theoretical fight.

Twenty years moe tech on our side, we win. U.S.A.! U.S.A.!

Buzz Line - April 8, 2008 12:00 AM (GMT)
There are just too many people in Russia for the US to win, shoot the USSR was bigger than Russia is now.

Ok so Japan did beat China, they kinda make contradict this theory. I don't know how much of a technology gap was between Japan and China either but Japan sort of took the big nation off guard, Chinese were practically in civil war. US and USSR are both ready so I say "ganar de numeros". Maybe they'd let us still be a democracy, just no free markets.

super_wolverine_Man - April 8, 2008 12:46 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 7 2008, 08:51 PM)
I'll do this with no nukes, cause if nukes are involved, there will be precious little fighting. All of North America, Northern Asia, Europe, and parts of the Middle East would become uninhabitable wasteland, screwing the planet up permenently. This this is peak powers, I'll say USSR about 1970 and US about 1988. I'm going by your rules, dude. Read the book Red Storm Rising. I'm almost finished with it, and it gives an absolutely amazing account of a theoretical Soviet attack against Western Europe over lack of oil. Read it TODAY. Basically, most of it would be the trouble of Warsaw Pact forces vs. NATO forces in the battlefields of Europe. The US in 1988 owned all, and we would rapidly begin to take control of the seaways and use aircraft carrier striking power to keep the Soviets penned into Asia. The threat from them is massed supersonic bomber attacks with cruise missiles, as well as literal swarms of conventional and nuclear submarines. The key to the whole battle is keeping the trade routes to Europe open for the US to supply and arm the troops fighting there. Airlifting only goes so far. I believe the AEGIS equipped Ticos and Arleigh Burkes give us a critical advantage for our fleet, and our power projection is several times greater than theirs. The Sovs had at most two aircraft carriers during the entire Cold War. We has anywhere from 10 to 30 at any one time. You can't beat that kind of projection of power. The land threat is the threat of thousands of battle tanks attempting to overrun NATO positions. US anti-armor capablities are second to none, with A-10 Warthogs, AH-64 Apaches, the M1A1 MBT, as well as AV-8Bs, F/A-18s, F-16s, F-117s, and several bomber types for support roles, but this type of defense is up in the air unless it was actually tried. I can't make a definite decision on it. Again, the key is to keep the Sovs from closing the North Atlantic supply routes. They can hardly hit us, and we can keep building new material, while their assets are more in range. Plus, I am convinced the Germans, Brits, Italians, Belgiums, French, Norwegians, Swedes, and Swiss would see the imminent threat and come to our aid as well. The Challenger 2's and Leopard 2A6's are kickass tanks, almost as good as the M1 (the Challenger may even be superior to the Abrams in some aspects), and both those countries have excellent troops. The Germans would not give up a single square foot of their soil without making the Russians pay dearly for it. Thats' the fighting spirit they've cultivated since the First World War, and the Sovs paid a very high price for it. And the Brits survived the London Blitz...nuff' said. Bottom line: we have the quality, they have the quantity. We'd actually have to fight to see which would ultimately win. Desert Storm was a good indication that quality wins, if inplemented right. Sorry for the long post, but this is a good theoretical fight.

but think about it wingy back in the day, between these two, it was either all or nothing, sure you can list all the aircraft, on both sides, you can name the ships and the vehicles, but it really comes down to who was better trained, you know the whole army of one kind of thing, i believe it is the quantity of the soldier that matters, not the quality. This includes the way the use their technology. All in all i see the US was slightly better trained during that time, but the USSR were no pushovers either. anyways after awhile they would get tired of pointless ground fighting, and go to mass air raids, but sooner or later it would have resulted in a nuclear holocaust

super_wolverine_Man - April 8, 2008 12:46 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 8 2008, 12:46 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 7 2008, 08:51 PM)
I'll do this with no nukes, cause if nukes are involved, there will be precious little fighting. All of North America, Northern Asia, Europe, and parts of the Middle East would become uninhabitable wasteland, screwing the planet up permenently. This this is peak powers, I'll say USSR about 1970 and US about 1988. I'm going by your rules, dude. Read the book Red Storm Rising. I'm almost finished with it, and it gives an absolutely amazing account of a theoretical Soviet attack against Western Europe over lack of oil. Read it TODAY. Basically, most of it would be the trouble of Warsaw Pact forces vs. NATO forces in the battlefields of Europe. The US in 1988 owned all, and we would rapidly begin to take control of the seaways and use aircraft carrier striking power to keep the Soviets penned into Asia. The threat from them is massed supersonic bomber attacks with cruise missiles, as well as literal swarms of conventional and nuclear submarines. The key to the whole battle is keeping the trade routes to Europe open for the US to supply and arm the troops fighting there. Airlifting only goes so far. I believe the AEGIS equipped Ticos and Arleigh Burkes give us a critical advantage for our fleet, and our power projection is several times greater than theirs. The Sovs had at most two aircraft carriers during the entire Cold War. We has anywhere from 10 to 30 at any one time. You can't beat that kind of projection of power. The land threat is the threat of thousands of battle tanks attempting to overrun NATO positions. US anti-armor capablities are second to none, with A-10 Warthogs, AH-64 Apaches, the M1A1 MBT, as well as AV-8Bs, F/A-18s, F-16s, F-117s, and several bomber types for support roles, but this type of defense is up in the air unless it was actually tried. I can't make a definite decision on it. Again, the key is to keep the Sovs from closing the North Atlantic supply routes. They can hardly hit us, and we can keep building new material, while their assets are more in range. Plus, I am convinced the Germans, Brits, Italians, Belgiums, French, Norwegians, Swedes, and Swiss would see the imminent threat and come to our aid as well. The Challenger 2's and Leopard 2A6's are kickass tanks, almost as good as the M1 (the Challenger may even be superior to the Abrams in some aspects), and both those countries have excellent troops. The Germans would not give up a single square foot of their soil without making the Russians pay dearly for it. Thats' the fighting spirit they've cultivated since the First World War, and the Sovs paid a very high price for it. And the Brits survived the London Blitz...nuff' said. Bottom line: we have the quality, they have the quantity. We'd actually have to fight to see which would ultimately win. Desert Storm was a good indication that quality wins, if inplemented right. Sorry for the long post, but this is a good theoretical fight.

but think about it wingy back in the day, between these two, it was either all or nothing, sure you can list all the aircraft, on both sides, you can name the ships and the vehicles, but it really comes down to who was better trained, you know the whole army of one kind of thing, i believe it is the quantity of the soldier that matters, not the quality. This includes the way the use their technology. All in all i see the US was slightly better trained during that time, but the USSR were no pushovers either. anyways after awhile they would get tired of pointless ground fighting, and go to mass air raids, but sooner or later it would have resulted in a nuclear holocaust

....so uhhh i agree with you except it would just become a nuclear war after awhile

super_wolverine_Man - April 8, 2008 12:48 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Buzz Line @ Apr 8 2008, 12:00 AM)
There are just too many people in Russia for the US to win, shoot the USSR was bigger than Russia is now.

Ok so Japan did beat China, they kinda make contradict this theory. I don't know how much of a technology gap was between Japan and China either but Japan sort of took the big nation off guard, Chinese were practically in civil war. US and USSR are both ready so I say "ganar de numeros". Maybe they'd let us still be a democracy, just no free markets.

Look at china, they a 1 billion man army, if our country was at full strength, and the military was allowed to do it's job, I say if needed we could take them dow. WHy? because how well each individual soldier is trained, and our superior technology

Wingman - April 8, 2008 12:08 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 7 2008, 08:48 PM)
QUOTE (Buzz Line @ Apr 8 2008, 12:00 AM)
There are just too many people in Russia for the US to win, shoot the USSR was bigger than Russia is now.

Ok so Japan did beat China, they kinda make contradict this theory. I don't know how much of a technology gap was between Japan and China either but Japan sort of took the big nation off guard, Chinese were practically in civil war. US and USSR are both ready so I say "ganar de numeros". Maybe they'd let us still be a democracy, just no free markets.

Look at china, they a 1 billion man army, if our country was at full strength, and the military was allowed to do it's job, I say if needed we could take them dow. WHy? because how well each individual soldier is trained, and our superior technology

Chinas army is around 2 million men at the moment, with an additional one million of the People's Police Force, which is close to a new KGB, a bureau for state security. It makes me so mad when people whine and moan about the CIA or NSA wiretapping programs or their spying on terrorists programs. They have no, frickin', idea how free they are. The KGB was arguably the most powerful single organization in the USSR. They could arrest any person, ANY person, I'm talking 4 star generals, Marshals, members of the Politburo, for ANY reason, and detain them indefinitely. They could execute anyone they chose, and they were known to practice torture techniques. They also were the organization with direct access to Russian's arsenal of nuclear warheads and the launch codes. Compared to these Communist organizations, the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA are cakewalks.

Anyway, our technology is far more advanced than that of China or Russian in almost all aspects. Like I said, it comes down to quantity vs. quality. Your call.

Wingman - April 8, 2008 12:12 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 7 2008, 08:46 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 8 2008, 12:46 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 7 2008, 08:51 PM)
I'll do this with no nukes, cause if nukes are involved, there will be precious little fighting. All of North America, Northern Asia, Europe, and parts of the Middle East would become uninhabitable wasteland, screwing the planet up permenently. This this is peak powers, I'll say USSR about 1970 and US about 1988. I'm going by your rules, dude. Read the book Red Storm Rising. I'm almost finished with it, and it gives an absolutely amazing account of a theoretical Soviet attack against Western Europe over lack of oil. Read it TODAY. Basically, most of it would be the trouble of Warsaw Pact forces vs. NATO forces in the battlefields of Europe. The US in 1988 owned all, and we would rapidly begin to take control of the seaways and use aircraft carrier striking power to keep the Soviets penned into Asia. The threat from them is massed supersonic bomber attacks with cruise missiles, as well as literal swarms of conventional and nuclear submarines. The key to the whole battle is keeping the trade routes to Europe open for the US to supply and arm the troops fighting there. Airlifting only goes so far. I believe the AEGIS equipped Ticos and Arleigh Burkes give us a critical advantage for our fleet, and our power projection is several times greater than theirs. The Sovs had at most two aircraft carriers during the entire Cold War. We has anywhere from 10 to 30 at any one time. You can't beat that kind of projection of power. The land threat is the threat of thousands of battle tanks attempting to overrun NATO positions. US anti-armor capablities are second to none, with A-10 Warthogs, AH-64 Apaches, the M1A1 MBT, as well as AV-8Bs, F/A-18s, F-16s, F-117s, and several bomber types for support roles, but this type of defense is up in the air unless it was actually tried. I can't make a definite decision on it. Again, the key is to keep the Sovs from closing the North Atlantic supply routes. They can hardly hit us, and we can keep building new material, while their assets are more in range. Plus, I am convinced the Germans, Brits, Italians, Belgiums, French, Norwegians, Swedes, and Swiss would see the imminent threat and come to our aid as well. The Challenger 2's and Leopard 2A6's are kickass tanks, almost as good as the M1 (the Challenger may even be superior to the Abrams in some aspects), and both those countries have excellent troops. The Germans would not give up a single square foot of their soil without making the Russians pay dearly for it. Thats' the fighting spirit they've cultivated since the First World War, and the Sovs paid a very high price for it. And the Brits survived the London Blitz...nuff' said. Bottom line: we have the quality, they have the quantity. We'd actually have to fight to see which would ultimately win. Desert Storm was a good indication that quality wins, if inplemented right. Sorry for the long post, but this is a good theoretical fight.

but think about it wingy back in the day, between these two, it was either all or nothing, sure you can list all the aircraft, on both sides, you can name the ships and the vehicles, but it really comes down to who was better trained, you know the whole army of one kind of thing, i believe it is the quantity of the soldier that matters, not the quality. This includes the way the use their technology. All in all i see the US was slightly better trained during that time, but the USSR were no pushovers either. anyways after awhile they would get tired of pointless ground fighting, and go to mass air raids, but sooner or later it would have resulted in a nuclear holocaust

....so uhhh i agree with you except it would just become a nuclear war after awhile

True. The Politburo would never touch the idea that they had lost: it's almost against what they believe in. But my scenarios are taken from that where the Sovs would not use nuclear weapons. And the population of the US is about 300 million. The population of Russia is about 180 million. Do the math. The Soviets have more men and material commited to the cause, but NATO has much better technology than they do.

DataSnake - April 8, 2008 12:50 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 8 2008, 12:48 AM)
QUOTE (Buzz Line @ Apr 8 2008, 12:00 AM)
There are just too many people in Russia for the US to win, shoot the USSR was bigger than Russia is now.

Ok so Japan did beat China, they kinda make contradict this theory. I don't know how much of a technology gap was between Japan and China either but Japan sort of took the big nation off guard, Chinese were practically in civil war. US and USSR are both ready so I say "ganar de numeros". Maybe they'd let us still be a democracy, just no free markets.

Look at china, they a 1 billion man army, if our country was at full strength, and the military was allowed to do it's job, I say if needed we could take them dow. WHy? because how well each individual soldier is trained, and our superior technology

No, because we could reduce China to a pile of radioactive rubble if we wanted to.

super_wolverine_Man - April 8, 2008 02:15 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 8 2008, 12:08 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 7 2008, 08:48 PM)
QUOTE (Buzz Line @ Apr 8 2008, 12:00 AM)
There are just too many people in Russia for the US to win, shoot the USSR was bigger than Russia is now.

Ok so Japan did beat China, they kinda make contradict this theory. I don't know how much of a technology gap was between Japan and China either but Japan sort of took the big nation off guard, Chinese were practically in civil war. US and USSR are both ready so I say "ganar de numeros". Maybe they'd let us still be a democracy, just no free markets.

Look at china, they a 1 billion man army, if our country was at full strength, and the military was allowed to do it's job, I say if needed we could take them dow. WHy? because how well each individual soldier is trained, and our superior technology

Chinas army is around 2 million men at the moment, with an additional one million of the People's Police Force, which is close to a new KGB, a bureau for state security. It makes me so mad when people whine and moan about the CIA or NSA wiretapping programs or their spying on terrorists programs. They have no, frickin', idea how free they are. The KGB was arguably the most powerful single organization in the USSR. They could arrest any person, ANY person, I'm talking 4 star generals, Marshals, members of the Politburo, for ANY reason, and detain them indefinitely. They could execute anyone they chose, and they were known to practice torture techniques. They also were the organization with direct access to Russian's arsenal of nuclear warheads and the launch codes. Compared to these Communist organizations, the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA are cakewalks.

Anyway, our technology is far more advanced than that of China or Russian in almost all aspects. Like I said, it comes down to quantity vs. quality. Your call.

i was speaking of if we went to war, every man 18 and up would be drafted

super_wolverine_Man - April 8, 2008 02:17 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (DataSnake @ Apr 8 2008, 12:50 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 8 2008, 12:48 AM)
QUOTE (Buzz Line @ Apr 8 2008, 12:00 AM)
There are just too many people in Russia for the US to win, shoot the USSR was bigger than Russia is now.

Ok so Japan did beat China, they kinda make contradict this theory. I don't know how much of a technology gap was between Japan and China either but Japan sort of took the big nation off guard, Chinese were practically in civil war. US and USSR are both ready so I say "ganar de numeros". Maybe they'd let us still be a democracy, just no free markets.

Look at china, they a 1 billion man army, if our country was at full strength, and the military was allowed to do it's job, I say if needed we could take them dow. WHy? because how well each individual soldier is trained, and our superior technology

No, because we could reduce China to a pile of radioactive rubble if we wanted to.

we wouldn't have to, but your right we could, but don't forget China has nukes as well, Just not as much or as powerful as ours

Wingman - April 8, 2008 08:39 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 8 2008, 10:17 AM)
QUOTE (DataSnake @ Apr 8 2008, 12:50 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 8 2008, 12:48 AM)
QUOTE (Buzz Line @ Apr 8 2008, 12:00 AM)
There are just too many people in Russia for the US to win, shoot the USSR was bigger than Russia is now.

Ok so Japan did beat China, they kinda make contradict this theory. I don't know how much of a technology gap was between Japan and China either but Japan sort of took the big nation off guard, Chinese were practically in civil war. US and USSR are both ready so I say "ganar de numeros". Maybe they'd let us still be a democracy, just no free markets.

Look at china, they a 1 billion man army, if our country was at full strength, and the military was allowed to do it's job, I say if needed we could take them dow. WHy? because how well each individual soldier is trained, and our superior technology

No, because we could reduce China to a pile of radioactive rubble if we wanted to.

we wouldn't have to, but your right we could, but don't forget China has nukes as well, Just not as much or as powerful as ours

You're right. If we fought China today, there wouldn't be that much too worry about, nuke wise. Their missiles, electronics, and radars are all old, bought Soviet tech, most of it. They don't have enough nukes to counter our current stockpile of around 8000. No one can find the Ohio Class SSBNs, and they are the major striking power of the Nuclear Triad. And the most important single component is the new Aegis upgrade that will allow any Ticonderoga class crusier or Arleigh Burke class destroyer to aquire, target, and eliminate a limited nuclear strike. It will be like this: use airpower and naval assets to basically bomb them back to the stone age for around four months without even worrying about landing troops yet. Keep them bottled up in Asia with the before mentioned assets. We'll us intel to find what nuke stockpiles they have and destroy them. Even if we miss some, and if they decide to launch nuke missiles, the only US targets within range would be our ships in the Pacific and Indian oceans. Those would ba well defended by several Ballistic Missile Defense Aegis ships. Once nuke threat is gone, we land troops. Game over.

super_wolverine_Man - April 9, 2008 07:11 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 8 2008, 08:39 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 8 2008, 10:17 AM)
QUOTE (DataSnake @ Apr 8 2008, 12:50 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 8 2008, 12:48 AM)
QUOTE (Buzz Line @ Apr 8 2008, 12:00 AM)
There are just too many people in Russia for the US to win, shoot the USSR was bigger than Russia is now.

Ok so Japan did beat China, they kinda make contradict this theory. I don't know how much of a technology gap was between Japan and China either but Japan sort of took the big nation off guard, Chinese were practically in civil war. US and USSR are both ready so I say "ganar de numeros". Maybe they'd let us still be a democracy, just no free markets.

Look at china, they a 1 billion man army, if our country was at full strength, and the military was allowed to do it's job, I say if needed we could take them dow. WHy? because how well each individual soldier is trained, and our superior technology

No, because we could reduce China to a pile of radioactive rubble if we wanted to.

we wouldn't have to, but your right we could, but don't forget China has nukes as well, Just not as much or as powerful as ours

You're right. If we fought China today, there wouldn't be that much too worry about, nuke wise. Their missiles, electronics, and radars are all old, bought Soviet tech, most of it. They don't have enough nukes to counter our current stockpile of around 8000. No one can find the Ohio Class SSBNs, and they are the major striking power of the Nuclear Triad. And the most important single component is the new Aegis upgrade that will allow any Ticonderoga class crusier or Arleigh Burke class destroyer to aquire, target, and eliminate a limited nuclear strike. It will be like this: use airpower and naval assets to basically bomb them back to the stone age for around four months without even worrying about landing troops yet. Keep them bottled up in Asia with the before mentioned assets. We'll us intel to find what nuke stockpiles they have and destroy them. Even if we miss some, and if they decide to launch nuke missiles, the only US targets within range would be our ships in the Pacific and Indian oceans. Those would ba well defended by several Ballistic Missile Defense Aegis ships. Once nuke threat is gone, we land troops. Game over.

plus, our nukes carry a lot more radiation, and fatal chemicals, than theirs. I mean their nukes, kind of go into the ground blow up may be take out half a city or whatever. But what makes us dangerous is the radiation that is released that can stay in the area for several decades.

Wingman - April 9, 2008 11:30 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 9 2008, 03:11 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 8 2008, 08:39 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 8 2008, 10:17 AM)
QUOTE (DataSnake @ Apr 8 2008, 12:50 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 8 2008, 12:48 AM)
QUOTE (Buzz Line @ Apr 8 2008, 12:00 AM)
There are just too many people in Russia for the US to win, shoot the USSR was bigger than Russia is now.

Ok so Japan did beat China, they kinda make contradict this theory. I don't know how much of a technology gap was between Japan and China either but Japan sort of took the big nation off guard, Chinese were practically in civil war. US and USSR are both ready so I say "ganar de numeros". Maybe they'd let us still be a democracy, just no free markets.

Look at china, they a 1 billion man army, if our country was at full strength, and the military was allowed to do it's job, I say if needed we could take them dow. WHy? because how well each individual soldier is trained, and our superior technology

No, because we could reduce China to a pile of radioactive rubble if we wanted to.

we wouldn't have to, but your right we could, but don't forget China has nukes as well, Just not as much or as powerful as ours

You're right. If we fought China today, there wouldn't be that much too worry about, nuke wise. Their missiles, electronics, and radars are all old, bought Soviet tech, most of it. They don't have enough nukes to counter our current stockpile of around 8000. No one can find the Ohio Class SSBNs, and they are the major striking power of the Nuclear Triad. And the most important single component is the new Aegis upgrade that will allow any Ticonderoga class crusier or Arleigh Burke class destroyer to aquire, target, and eliminate a limited nuclear strike. It will be like this: use airpower and naval assets to basically bomb them back to the stone age for around four months without even worrying about landing troops yet. Keep them bottled up in Asia with the before mentioned assets. We'll us intel to find what nuke stockpiles they have and destroy them. Even if we miss some, and if they decide to launch nuke missiles, the only US targets within range would be our ships in the Pacific and Indian oceans. Those would ba well defended by several Ballistic Missile Defense Aegis ships. Once nuke threat is gone, we land troops. Game over.

plus, our nukes carry a lot more radiation, and fatal chemicals, than theirs. I mean their nukes, kind of go into the ground blow up may be take out half a city or whatever. But what makes us dangerous is the radiation that is released that can stay in the area for several decades.

*scratches head* umm... all nukes have radiation. The factor is the size of the warhead, which will determine the size of the explosion. I don't know about the kinds of damage they inflict. What you describe would be a ground penetrator, which would be great to take out hardened command and control facilities.

super_wolverine_Man - April 10, 2008 02:11 PM (GMT)
i know all nukes carry radiation, but ours are specially designed to inflict the most long lasting chemical damage. The explosion itself wouldn't be the most damaging, it would be the mass amounts of radiation, that would spread throughout that area, for decades. While others would destroy half a city. Ours are able to level, everything from new york, and to vermont. Plus all that radiation released into the atmosphere, and soil and water, and the area, is done.

Wingman - April 10, 2008 02:30 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 10:11 AM)
i know all nukes carry radiation, but ours are specially designed to inflict the most long lasting chemical damage. The explosion itself wouldn't be the most damaging, it would be the mass amounts of radiation, that would spread throughout that area, for decades. While others would destroy half a city. Ours are able to level, everything from new york, and to vermont. Plus all that radiation released into the atmosphere, and soil and water, and the area, is done.

Where'd you read that? I've never heard of that! Get me a link or something. I'd like to check it out.

super_wolverine_Man - April 10, 2008 08:08 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 02:30 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 10:11 AM)
i know all nukes carry radiation, but ours are specially designed to inflict the most long lasting chemical damage. The explosion itself wouldn't be the most damaging, it would be the mass amounts of radiation, that would spread throughout that area, for decades. While others would destroy half a city. Ours are able to level, everything from new york, and to vermont. Plus all that radiation released into the atmosphere, and soil and water, and the area, is done.

Where'd you read that? I've never heard of that! Get me a link or something. I'd like to check it out.

which part did you want? about the radiation, the blast size, or what?

Wingman - April 10, 2008 08:26 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 04:08 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 02:30 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 10:11 AM)
i know all nukes carry radiation, but ours are specially designed to inflict the most long lasting chemical damage. The explosion itself wouldn't be the most damaging, it would be the mass amounts of radiation, that would spread throughout that area, for decades. While others would destroy half a city. Ours are able to level, everything from new york, and to vermont. Plus all that radiation released into the atmosphere, and soil and water, and the area, is done.

Where'd you read that? I've never heard of that! Get me a link or something. I'd like to check it out.

which part did you want? about the radiation, the blast size, or what?

Radiation. I never knew you could vary the radiation level of a bomb. I though it just, you know, came out when the thing blew. I'm curious, now.

super_wolverine_Man - April 10, 2008 09:28 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 04:08 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 02:30 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 10:11 AM)
i know all nukes carry radiation, but ours are specially designed to inflict the most long lasting chemical damage. The explosion itself wouldn't be the most damaging, it would be the mass amounts of radiation, that would spread throughout that area, for decades. While others would destroy half a city. Ours are able to level, everything from new york, and to vermont. Plus all that radiation released into the atmosphere, and soil and water, and the area, is done.

Where'd you read that? I've never heard of that! Get me a link or something. I'd like to check it out.

which part did you want? about the radiation, the blast size, or what?

Radiation. I never knew you could vary the radiation level of a bomb. I though it just, you know, came out when the thing blew. I'm curious, now.

i think mis typed my idea. I was just trying to say, that america has the most bombs, and the most radiation resulting from those bombs nothing more

Wingman - April 11, 2008 01:50 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 05:28 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 04:08 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 02:30 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 10:11 AM)
i know all nukes carry radiation, but ours are specially designed to inflict the most long lasting chemical damage. The explosion itself wouldn't be the most damaging, it would be the mass amounts of radiation, that would spread throughout that area, for decades. While others would destroy half a city. Ours are able to level, everything from new york, and to vermont. Plus all that radiation released into the atmosphere, and soil and water, and the area, is done.

Where'd you read that? I've never heard of that! Get me a link or something. I'd like to check it out.

which part did you want? about the radiation, the blast size, or what?

Radiation. I never knew you could vary the radiation level of a bomb. I though it just, you know, came out when the thing blew. I'm curious, now.

i think mis typed my idea. I was just trying to say, that america has the most bombs, and the most radiation resulting from those bombs nothing more

Oh, I understand now. More nukes=more fallout=more dead Chinese. *evil grin*

super_wolverine_Man - April 11, 2008 01:46 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 01:50 AM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 05:28 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 04:08 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 02:30 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 10:11 AM)
i know all nukes carry radiation, but ours are specially designed to inflict the most long lasting chemical damage. The explosion itself wouldn't be the most damaging, it would be the mass amounts of radiation, that would spread throughout that area, for decades. While others would destroy half a city. Ours are able to level, everything from new york, and to vermont. Plus all that radiation released into the atmosphere, and soil and water, and the area, is done.

Where'd you read that? I've never heard of that! Get me a link or something. I'd like to check it out.

which part did you want? about the radiation, the blast size, or what?

Radiation. I never knew you could vary the radiation level of a bomb. I though it just, you know, came out when the thing blew. I'm curious, now.

i think mis typed my idea. I was just trying to say, that america has the most bombs, and the most radiation resulting from those bombs nothing more

Oh, I understand now. More nukes=more fallout=more dead Chinese. *evil grin*

yep that's pretty much it puredevilishevil!!!

Wingman - April 11, 2008 07:57 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 11 2008, 09:46 AM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 11 2008, 01:50 AM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 05:28 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 04:08 PM)
QUOTE (Wingman @ Apr 10 2008, 02:30 PM)
QUOTE (super_wolverine_Man @ Apr 10 2008, 10:11 AM)
i know all nukes carry radiation, but ours are specially designed to inflict the most long lasting chemical damage. The explosion itself wouldn't be the most damaging, it would be the mass amounts of radiation, that would spread throughout that area, for decades. While others would destroy half a city. Ours are able to level, everything from new york, and to vermont. Plus all that radiation released into the atmosphere, and soil and water, and the area, is done.

Where'd you read that? I've never heard of that! Get me a link or something. I'd like to check it out.

which part did you want? about the radiation, the blast size, or what?

Radiation. I never knew you could vary the radiation level of a bomb. I though it just, you know, came out when the thing blew. I'm curious, now.

i think mis typed my idea. I was just trying to say, that america has the most bombs, and the most radiation resulting from those bombs nothing more

Oh, I understand now. More nukes=more fallout=more dead Chinese. *evil grin*

yep that's pretty much it puredevilishevil!!!

You're scary. :lol: :lol: :lol: :ph43r:




Hosted for free by zIFBoards