who would win a war between Russia vs USA if it started right now?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

… although if it became a state sponsered insurection by Russia in the long term I think the Russian side would win as in the current climate the American people would not have the resolve to take the casulties indefinatly and the insurgents fighting on their home ground would have to.

I disagree. Fighting defensively on our home ground in a conventional war, I don't see anyone defeating the US. In that scenario, our resolve would be excellent.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[pirana 0]

Quote

And if you are trying to hold/defend north america without being attacked you woul fortify alaska/kamchatka, central america/venizuela and greenland/iceland with 10 -20 armies.

if you then placed 20 armies on nothern or southern europe, the holder of asia would start to get worried!

no one ever holds asia though do they

Tougher and more strategic game if you play by expert rules, plus a couple house rules we have.

No more than 12 armies on any country, ever.

Nuclear war. If the attacker rolls three 1's, they lose all armies from the attacking country. If they roll three 6's, the defender loses all armies from the country under attack.

Nobody inherits a defeated general's RISK cards.

Unlimited reinforcement (within your contiguous realm).

The number of armies received for turning in card sets starts at 3 and only goes up 1 army each time a set is turned in.

We always deal out the cards to determine initial ownership of countries.

The biggest effect is that most of these take some of the luck and circumstance out of the game. It also keeps a boneheaded pl;ayer from tossing the game to someone else. I hate it when a sloppy player not only gets themselves axed, but makes it easy for someone else to roll over the other players.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

I think GAWAIN and auburnguy got it right.

During the arms race there was a popular and horribly misguided idea held by many that the USSR was nearly even, or even, or even ahead in terms of weaponry and capability.

It was never even close, and the gap has only widened since the USSR came apart.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[auburnguy 0]

Another way to look at it. Russia has yet to accept the US Air Force's offer to participate in Red Flag exercises. Why? Because they know that they will get the pants spanked off of them in air combat against the US airforce. The last country to behave like that to my knowledge was Israel who refused to attend for a long time because they were known for having one of the best air forces in the world and didn't want to be embarrassed by the US Air Force. That comes from a retired F-16 pilot who was in the Air Force for 20 years.

"If you don't like your job, you don't strike! You just go in every day, and do it really half assed. That's the American way."
- Homer Simpson

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The US would win a conventional war, we spend about as much as the rest of the world on the military, as opposed to providing social svs. A nuclear war, ...obvious no winner. Truth is the US as well as Russia are pussies. Name the ;last war either has egaged where the enemy was viable?

Afghanistan must have been viable; the Soviets took a beating.

And I read no shortage of predictions of doom on how badly the Iraqi army would hurt the Americans, esp in the first war. That war proved to be safer than a normal training year.

Holding a colony is a different matter - no one can do that anymore. Well, maybe China, where the right to life is only a concept.

[misaltas 0]

Quote

Tougher and more strategic game if you play by expert rules, plus a couple house rules we have.

Oh, those are good rules. I'm going to adopt some and try 'em out. Thanks.

One way to win that sometimes works is to go up against two others and let them wear and attrit each other down to size.

Ohne Liebe sind wir nichts

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

And always remember... the Ukraine is WEAK!!

I'm from the Ukraine. The Ukraine is not weak.

LOL ... classic Sienfeld

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[ElJosh 0]

Quote

You're all wrong. Chuck Norris would win.

Um and who do you think Chuck would fight for?

I'm guessing you haven't seen Invasion U.S.A. or M.I.A. 1-3.

On top of that I serve in our armed forces so we'll win hands down.
~El Josh AKA Ruby

DS #149
Yes I only have 3 jumps...it's the magic number dude.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

… although if it became a state sponsered insurection by Russia in the long term I think the Russian side would win as in the current climate the American people would not have the resolve to take the casulties indefinatly and the insurgents fighting on their home ground would have to.

I disagree. Fighting defensively on our home ground in a conventional war, I don't see anyone defeating the US. In that scenario, our resolve would be excellent.

I agree, but its a very unlikely scenario don't you think?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Funny, I remember watching a Tornado GR1 beat two F5s that bounced him. They were really pissed.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Nelyubin 0]

The history not to that does not learn you?
Tamerlan, Chingishan... Napoleon, Hitler...
I do not think, that the USA want in this turn.

Voted #1

[Skyrad 0]

If it came to a overwhelming total attack designed to destroy the country obviouly the US would win but if it came to holding ground the US wouldn't stand a chance.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Erroll 49]

Quote

You're all wrong. Chuck Norris would win.

Yip. I heard he is a type-qualified AN2 pilot too.

[Nelyubin 0]

We speak only about destruction of the country of the opponent?
Then for the USA two 100 megaton charges (on each coast on one) will suffice.
In Russia they are. There are also submarines being on fighting watch at coast USA.

The USA could not create a charge power more than 10 megatone (I can be mistaken).

[DJL 232]

Quote

China would.

The discussion need not go further than this response.

By the way, how did we fuck up the the chance to use improved post cold-war relations between the US and Russia to bring some great change to the world. We DON'T want to let it go back to an arms race. Especially not with the economic state of the world.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[DJL 232]

Quote

Quote

Quote

no one ever holds asia though do they

Nope.... we have learned that.

I disagree I have held Asia on many occasons. It just takes patience before you move in on it and of course it takes a lucky roll of the dice.

Dude. Australia is the key.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[Nelyubin 0]

It agree with you :)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

We speak only about destruction of the country of the opponent?
Then for the USA two 100 megaton charges (on each coast on one) will suffice.
In Russia they are. There are also submarines being on fighting watch at coast USA.

The USA could not create a charge power more than 10 megatone (I can be mistaken).

The Russians used larger warheads to make up for inadequate accuracy. But diminishing returns are significant. 100MT is only a bit more destructive than 10. Discussion on a strategic nuclear war is pretty retarded in any event. The US has more than sufficient counterstrike force in the subs.

The notion of an arms race is also a bit silly - right now the Russians are a one trick pony - oil exports make up half the cash total. They're basically like a banana republic. In the summer, they were rich and powerful on 140$/barrel oil. Now they're poor fools on $40, hoping for a return of the oil speculators and Chinese consumption.

[Nelyubin 0]

Quote

The Russians used larger warheads to make up for inadequate accuracy.

???
At that time the USA had no ballistic missiles. The USSR as did not have rockets capable to deliver similar charges up to territory of the USA

Quote

100MT is only a bit more destructive than 10.

???
Let's admit. But at Russia it is a charge which it is possible to deliver (various means) and to detonate in any place of a planet. In the USA it is an experimental charge (for which the special building was under construction).

Quote

Discussion on a strategic nuclear war is pretty retarded in any event. The US has more than sufficient counterstrike force in the subs.

And from what position they will strike? From steppes of Kazakhstan, Ukraine or the Mongolian desert?

Quote

They're basically like a banana republic. In the summer, they were rich and powerful on 140$/barrel oil. Now they're poor fools on $40, hoping for a return of the oil speculators and Chinese consumption.

This your right so to think. In any case your country gets at " banana republic " uranium (for power stations), steel, and further... Asks about cooperation in the field of an outer space exploration. What your country of Russia except for " legs Bush " can offer?