What would a war between Russia and the US look like today?

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,644
Sydney
Probably, and then it's still going to be based on a pack of Russian lies
the article is true ....but highly misleading , it doesn't mention the Non-Citizen , only those granted Estonian citizenship ,

from the German Deutsche welle

from the Estonian defense ministry

"Estonian residents with undetermined citizenship have the most problematic relationship with the state and are the least proud and happy over living in Estonia—only 29% chose the answer ‘very often or often enough’. "

for historical perspective , Britain went to war against the Orange state to protect the rights of British Empire citizens living there
Was it out of concern for the poor downtrodden "Uitlanders" or to get their hand on the resources is a moot point
if a pretext sound good enough it is good enough to be used
polls give a ranking in the 60% of Russians seeing Estonia as an enemy with mirror number for Estonian

Describing the Non-citizens situation as rosy is far from accurate , in Estonia the clivage was rather stark , while most understand Russian
they did not answers if I used my poor Russian vocabulary , but gushed with friendliness if I spoke English
if it was a Non-citizen the response was the opposite ,
Narva has about 90% of Russian speakers and You can feel it , there was few Estonia flag displayed but quite a lot of St George ribbons
 
Last edited:
Jun 2017
3,027
Connecticut
Could you please elaborate on the first option? How exactly they gonna win in a conventional conflict, considering that Napoleon and Hitler failed before this speculative WWIII scenario?
Napoleon failed because it was the 19th century and the commonly cited challenges of Russia's size and climate were far more daunting then they were in the 20th century or today for a potential invader. People say the Germans lost because of these things and while they certainly didn't help they were not the deciding factor in their defeat. By the winter of 1941 the Germans had seized Kiev, had Leningrad under siege(the siege while not technically successful wasn't also really defeated btw, the population all but all starved to death or left and the Germans only withdrew in early 1944 when the whole invasion was pretty much a lost cause) and were almost in Moscow. While winter and geography is relevant to them not winning in 1941 the Germans had a further two years of the initiative where they were very close to having conquered all of Russia's main industrial centers. In the spring of 1942 the Germans could have resumed their push to Moscow and had all the time in the world to do so....but they didn't instead venturing into the Caucuses.

Hitler only failed because he was a Nazi. If Germany had a generic fascist leader who wasn't hell bent on slaughtering the entire population the Germans did enough to win, many times over based on what usually makes a country give up. The revolution that ended up leading to the USSR was caused by much much much less hardship than the Soviets endured during WWII but in WWII the Soviets didn't have the option of giving up because the alternative was death.

Also Russia in the present day is still feeling the demographical effects of WWII and is set to have less than 100 million people by the end of the century. In the 20th centuries(with the swedes more about Swedes lack of people than Russia having a lot because at the time they really didn't)Russia's biggest advantage was their population was considerably larger than any other power. The USA has about the same numerical superiority over Russia that the Soviets did against the Germans(3 to 1).Germany and France together have the same population. Russia's population advantage has withered away. Also geographically speaking Russia's borders are further east(save Kalingrad) than just about any time since the Mongol period. The truth is not only has technology improved there would simply be far less ground to cover to reach the main Russian cities. Russia's main power is derived from what the Soviet's left behind, a nuclear arsenal and the UNSC permanent seat/veto given to the Soviets when the UN was founded. Their conventional ability pales in comparison to that.

And any conventional war between USA and Russia would see Russia invaded on two fronts rather than just one. Russia hasn't been invaded through the back door since Mongol times, while Japan was a great power to their east, they lacked the interest/ability to invade(by invade I mean attempt to totally defeat not cross the border with military forces in pursuit of nominal territorial gains).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Son of Athena

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
6,096
the article is true ....but highly misleading , it doesn't mention the Non-Citizen , only those granted Estonian citizenship ,
Which is an increasingly smaller number (76 000 in 2018), since the Estonians are in fact dealing with this, and Estonian citizenship legislation isn't any more restrictive than that of any other country – less so than Russia's fx – and the continuously growing number Estonian citizens who are of ethnic Russian extraction are increasingly hostile to the idea of being used as pawn by the Kremlin. Which is the source of the continuing propaganda against the Baltic states over this.
This is also from Deutsche Welle, linked to in the article you linked to:
But generally German language sources need to be taken with a certain grain of salt, since Germany is directly courted by Russia, and there is very considerable naivety about Russia still in parts of the German public and media.
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
5,143
Australia
Russia has an economy the size of Spain and Australia. They can't fund a war with the US. And this is before US-enforced sanctions prevent them from selling their resources. A war with the US will cripple Russia long before the US even notices any damage.
 

Edratman

Forum Staff
Feb 2009
6,784
Eastern PA
I cannot think of any reason for the leader of whichever nation is facing imminent defeat to refrain from launching nuclear weapons.
 
Sep 2012
118
I cannot think of any reason for the leader of whichever nation is facing imminent defeat to refrain from launching nuclear weapons.
I Can.
It's called "opening Pandora's box".
EVERYONE (on the entire Planet) will feel the effects, to one degree or another.
Human Civilization (however) will still survive such an event, and the nation that chose to "pull the trigger" (i.e. "initiate") will most likely be eradicated by the survivors.
That is if they are not already eradicated as a result of the conflict itself.
While there still exists the ability for Two Nations (of 200+ on the Planet) to completely, utterly, destroy each other?

Taking the game to this level does not ensure the end of the Human race on the Planet in this day and age.

There are people that would be adequately prepared and survive through such an event.
Perhaps in the 1970's or early 80's, when the US/USSR arsenals had ridiculous yields?

An exchange during this period would induce a truly Global Catastrophe.

In this day of manifest precision, yields are greatly reduced and correspond to the physical area of the target, not to the 1960's idea of tossing 30 MT at something in a "close is good enough" situation.

If the proposed conflict is a purely "conventional" affair?

The US would boot-stomp Putin in a heart beat, simply on the basis of air power alone.
And he realizes this.
And (for the immediate future of our Planet?) this is a good thing...
 
Jul 2019
1,063
New Jersey
I cannot think of any reason for the leader of whichever nation is facing imminent defeat to refrain from launching nuclear weapons.
Forget about all the nice cuddly talk of human rights you hear all over. If a nation launches a nuclear weapon because it's going down anyway, you can rest assured that every man, woman, and child in that country will be wiped out. The stakes are too high for the rest of the world to not make a frightful example of that nation as a deterrent to others.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Menshevik
May 2019
277
Northern and Western hemispheres
The last time Russia was invaded was Operation Barbarossa during WWII. The last time the U.S.A. was invaded was by the Mexicans in the 1910s? If its a conventional war the home team would have the advantage. I don't think the Americans would be willing to repeat what Napoleon and Nazi Germany tried to do. If Russia attempts to invade the U.S.A. a Red Dawn like scenario might happen. Any war between Russia and the U.S.A. would likely go nuclear with the potential to end human society as we know it. The likelihood of two nuclear armed nations going to war seems very slim.
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
5,143
Australia
There w
The last time Russia was invaded was Operation Barbarossa during WWII. The last time the U.S.A. was invaded was by the Mexicans in the 1910s? If its a conventional war the home team would have the advantage. I don't think the Americans would be willing to repeat what Napoleon and Nazi Germany tried to do. If Russia attempts to invade the U.S.A. a Red Dawn like scenario might happen. Any war between Russia and the U.S.A. would likely go nuclear with the potential to end human society as we know it. The likelihood of two nuclear armed nations going to war seems very slim.
There won't be a direct war and neither side will have the "home team" advantage. It will be conducted through proxies in other countries like Ukraine and Syria.