Possible war between USA and Russia or China

copters along with Pzh2000 over Russian military bases in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan to deploy them in Afghanistan.

Not over Azerbaijan but over Uzbekistan. [/quote]

I didn't get it .

India can level Poland quite easily . They've nukes capable of hitting any nation in Europe , Oceania , Africa etc . US is still not in our reach though .

Werewolf - I've decided to remove you from my ignore list. Your knowledge expressed in various topics is good enough to redeem you in my eyes and I'm willing to forgive these few clashes we had in the past.

What an honor.

max steel wrote:

copters along with Pzh2000 over Russian military bases in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan to deploy them in Afghanistan.

Not over Azerbaijan but over Uzbekistan.

max steel wrote:I didn't get it .

India can level Poland quite easily . They've nukes capable of hitting any nation in Europe , Oceania , Africa etc . US is still not in our reach though .

The point about Poland as part of those few NATO countries that actually even have some basic capabilities to bring their armies to eastern front or at least be not just a burden for US NATO logistic bases in Germany, but actually at least give some support,  nothing serious, but at least not a burden like every single other NATO country that was not listed. The NATO is actually only the US while the rest is dead weight from military or logistics or both, speaking in a scenario of Super Power conventional or limited deployed theatre based tactical nukes. I  did not mean Poland as being some military that could do anything to Russia, just participate in mobilization, unlike germany that can not even participate with 5000 soldiers not to mention, it has no capabilities to deploy AFV nor jets on eastern front.

what were you saying about Azerbaijan and stuff ? I didn't get you .

max steel wrote:I asked a) can us invade russia ? b) can usa invade china ?

A)Yes, they can. It would be the last war USA would fight. Maybe last for Russia too.
B)Yes, they can. Same results.
Mutual destruction is a bitch.

US will loose if they plan of invading these two . Morale will be higher for the russians and chinese not the invaders .

max steel wrote:what were you saying about Azerbaijan and stuff ? I didn't get you .

The logistical route of NATO to afghanistan goes over Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. I made a mistake first and said Azerbaijan instead of Uzbekistan.

Werewolf wrote:

max steel wrote:I asked a) can us invade russia ? b) can usa invade china ?

I thought i answered that. No, the US even with entire NATO, they can not invade Russia nor does the US and NATO have the logistical or military capability to even get to Russian or Chinese soil without getting wiped out at their logistical routes.

I understand that US cant invade Russia becouse US have no chance to beat Russia with mark force becouse Russia got like three times more tanks, surely twice more active soldiers than US and US can't then use their advantage of helicopters and aircraft's againsts Russia becouse Russia can't just obtain antiaircraft against US. It should be if US use their veto in UN security council and stabilze military zones and like in the arctic ocean or something and bomb Moscow but it seems inpossible becouse Russia will just use their antiaircraft against US (if it's even possible to stabilze carriars or military zones at the arctic ocean for a military attack on Moscow), maybe at the Meditarian Ocean.

Is China's navy really stronger than US's, that seems weird becouse China's navy seems to consist of a huge amount of submarines, like 70 and a few hundred other warships and US's navy seems to consist of a equal amount of submarines but not a equal amount of other warships. Maybe China's navy is stronger than US's but that seems disproportionately. The question whether US can invade China - No! US's navy can't easilty beat China's navy and I dont seem any way to invade China at, when do you guys think that China's army is stronger than US's? I mean the navy seems already stronger than US's, China should have more soldiers, dont know about vechiles but US army must be much more better equipped and better trained and so on than China's army.

max steel wrote:Keeping this invasion part apart . Why you think its difficult for Russia to completely destroy US navy ?

Isen't US navy stronger than Russia's? I mean US seems to have the advantage of both submarines and got like at least 10 operative carriars, and Russia like one? I mean Russia must have more corvettes if that statement should be incorrect? Becouse how can US's navy obtain a force against a Russia invasion of the Ocean Pacific in the ocean, I mean, Russia must be able to destroy US's submarines and carriars at sea, with their possible advantage of corvettes? Does anywone here know how many corvettes US got? It seems like zero, US have a equal amount of submarines, maybe a bit more than Russia and how can US use their carriars if they can't obtain a equal strong force at sea than the Russia navy? Carriars, can they just be used to set up military zones and aircraft bases? How can they obtain a military force at sea, bomb destroyers, frigates and such warships?

I think Russia can beat US's navy at Ocean Pacific or can control the sea at Bering strait and succes a invasion of North America, becouse even US mark force or US navy can stop an such invasion, they don't have the military capability to fight Russia's many tanks, soldiers and military vechiles on the ground? It should be if US can stabilize Russia's mark force, and take the advantage of the airspace and force Russia back, with a good coordination by the US'navy and at the same time prevent that Russia get a powerful force on the ground.

i am sure russia must be having df-21 sort of anti-aircraft carrier killer . In waters it is always about missiles vs ships not ship vs ship .
 bwt i dont remember  what we were talking about .

nobody can successfully invade the CONUS- you have to go through the collective might of admirals Pacific and Atlantic and the US Navy- arguably the most powerful Navy ever!!! Then if you manage to touch solid ground you would find a semiauto behind every blade of grass. Murica Fck Yeah!

Currently us navy strength is nominal . I havent shared the secret link here yet . There is no point in invading usa just turn it to ash thats it .

Soros Warns Russia-China Military Alliance Will Take on US

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20150618/1023508506.html#ixzz3dQ8bldXe

mack8 wrote:

henriksoder wrote:I am courios about knowing the opportunities of Russia to invande North America from Bering Strait. I have seen that Russia got many military bases near the Bering Strait in Russia and want to discuss differents aspects and facts of a such invasion.

Russia must have Canada allied to success a such invasion, right? Becouse Russian troops need to be supported with supplies if they should make it to US. First, Russia must stabilze Canada to compete US, right? Have US much military forces in Alaska, becouse Russia can surely beat Alaska, and how is the opportunities to stabilze military zones in Canada for a Russian invasion of US? I mean, food shoulden't be any problem, but supplies to the military eqiupment should also be to be foreseen? Have Russia a strong navy enough to beat US's many carriars and submarines, it kind seems funny to seet in all Russian corvetttes to fight US navy? Can Russia stabilze antiaircraft near the Bering Strait and avoid that US take the control of the airspace and sea and win the war? If Russia can stabilze antiaircraft and control the sea at Bering Strait, it shoulden't be any problem to stabilze military bases at North America and beat US, right? Canada and Alaska, Russia beat easily, and how strong is the home US army actually? I mean they got like less then a third then Russian tanks, and many vechiles, and much more aircraft's and helicopters than Russia, Russia must take substantially all their army to beat North America? And that seems pretty illogial for Russian security.

Any other facts and opinions about a such invasion? How strong is US army amongs Russian army actually?

/Henrik

Are you serious?

Aside from the fact that Russian leadership does not appear to be insane, Russia is not a power out to start wars, I think he was being serious.

But he fails to offer any speculation as to the motivation for a Russian invasion of the USA.

Other than recent and ongoing American provocations against Russia in Europe, why would Russia start a major war by invading the USA?

henriksoder wrote:

max steel wrote:Keeping this invasion part apart . Why you think its difficult for Russia to completely destroy US navy ?

Isen't US navy stronger than Russia's? I mean US seems to have the advantage of both submarines and got like at least 10 operative carriars, and Russia like one? I mean Russia must have more corvettes if that statement should be incorrect? Becouse how can US's navy obtain a force against a Russia invasion of the Ocean Pacific in the ocean, I mean, Russia must be able to destroy US's submarines and carriars at sea, with their possible advantage of corvettes? Does anywone here know how many corvettes US got? It seems like zero, US have a equal amount of submarines, maybe a bit more than Russia and how can US use their carriars if they can't obtain a equal strong force at sea than the Russia navy? Carriars, can they just be used to set up military zones and aircraft bases? How can they obtain a military force at sea, bomb destroyers, frigates and such warships?

I think Russia can beat US's navy at Ocean Pacific or can control the sea at Bering strait and succes a invasion of North America, becouse even US mark force or US navy can stop an such invasion, they don't have the military capability to fight Russia's many tanks, soldiers and military vechiles on the ground? It should be if US can stabilize Russia's mark force, and take the advantage of the airspace and force Russia back, with a good coordination by the US'navy and at the same time prevent that Russia get a powerful force on the ground.

The USA has 19 carriers commissioned [10 are fleet carriers, the rest are "helicopter carriers"], 1 in reserve, 3 under construction, and 1 more ordered/planned.

I was talking with a friend, a man who is a professor in engineering [he has a PhD in mechanical engineering and a number of patents, he did some groundbreaking work in the field of mechanical engineering, getting into areas nobody had ever ventured into], and we were discussing the possibility of a war between Russia and the USA.

He agrees entirely with my assertion that if war starts between Russia and the USA, it will be because the USA/NATO started it.

My main point is that there are people alive today in Russia who lived through the Second World War, Russia lost no less than 20-25 million people killed in that war, and only the most insane of radical nationalists would want to drag Russia into a conflict that would likely be even more destructive and deadly than WW2... By comparison, no American alive today has any memory of the USA being invaded, of large numbers of Americans dying in a horrible war brought home to the heart of America, America's losses in WW2 barely amounted to 400,000 soldiers killed from combat or disease, which is minuscule in comparison to the Soviet/Russian losses [many of which were civilians].

Most Americans do not have an appreciation for the destructive potential of war, to them the destruction of war is something that happens far away, in distant lands, it is something American soldiers inflict on other nations [while spreading freedom of course], it does not happen in their city or their backyard.

I do not believe Russia has any desire to invade the USA.


However a journalist in Orange County California recently did surveys on the street, asking people in the USA to sign a petition to destroy Russia with nuclear weapons "before it is too late" and about 90% of Americans signed the petition.

When journalists in Russia heard about it, they circulated a petition in Moscow, asking Russians to sign a petition to launch nuclear weapons against the USA, about 95% of Russians refused, many called the journalists "irresponsible" or "crazy" and some even went on rants, "we have our differences with the USA, but this is not the answer!"

Mike E wrote:

par far wrote:We know what the war on terror is all about,  hope Russia is ready. In 2016 us elections will happen and after that they will push for war.


http://edition.presstv.ir/iphone/detail.aspx?id=382723

They simply cannot go to war with Russia... As a US citizen, we don't have the money, we don't have the equipment *ready*, and most importantly - the public doesn't want war, more so against Russia. The nuclear shield is more relevant than ever, and I expect it to stay that way for years to come... If the US actually goes to war with Russia (they won't), you can bet your money that there will be a bad case of coup d'etat heading towards Washington.

The military does not operate independent of the central banks.

All general and flag officers require approval by Congress... In short, they are political tools. There will not be a coup from the military. They would actually be likely to support a war with Russia since it would result in their budget being increased and it would probably result in their receiving five to ten million new recruits via a national draft. War with Russia would give the military a huge boost in national relevance and importance.

Mike E wrote:

Werewolf wrote:

Mike E wrote:

par far wrote:We know what the war on terror is all about,  hope Russia is ready. In 2016 us elections will happen and after that they will push for war.


http://edition.presstv.ir/iphone/detail.aspx?id=382723

They simply cannot go to war with Russia... As a US citizen, we don't have the money, we don't have the equipment *ready*, and most importantly - the public doesn't want war, more so against Russia. The nuclear shield is more relevant than ever, and I expect it to stay that way for years to come... If the US actually goes to war with Russia (they won't), you can bet your money that there will be a bad case of coup d'etat heading towards Washington.

What do you think US has so many slaves for?

Like in Roman empire they will send stupid retarded slave countries to do their wars aka EU and NATO and even non NATO slaves are doing their Terrorist academies with annually thousands graduates.

WW3 is set in stone that is unavoidable.

I completely disagree... Any war with Russia, and you can expect a revolution here in the US. In fact, I doubt many troops would even fight! 

The best way for war to be stopped or avoided, is internally, and that is how it is here in the US... 

Not with nuclear weapons it isn't. People have been predicting WW3 ever since WW2, and guess what?

When soldiers are told to fight or else they won't get paid and they will go to prison, that is a strong motivator for fighting... In fact most of them won't even need to be told those things, they will understand those issues...

BTRfan wrote:

henriksoder wrote:

max steel wrote:Keeping this invasion part apart . Why you think its difficult for Russia to completely destroy US navy ?

Isen't US navy stronger than Russia's? I mean US seems to have the advantage of both submarines and got like at least 10 operative carriars, and Russia like one? I mean Russia must have more corvettes if that statement should be incorrect? Becouse how can US's navy obtain a force against a Russia invasion of the Ocean Pacific in the ocean, I mean, Russia must be able to destroy US's submarines and carriars at sea, with their possible advantage of corvettes? Does anywone here know how many corvettes US got? It seems like zero, US have a equal amount of submarines, maybe a bit more than Russia and how can US use their carriars if they can't obtain a equal strong force at sea than the Russia navy? Carriars, can they just be used to set up military zones and aircraft bases? How can they obtain a military force at sea, bomb destroyers, frigates and such warships?

I think Russia can beat US's navy at Ocean Pacific or can control the sea at Bering strait and succes a invasion of North America, becouse even US mark force or US navy can stop an such invasion, they don't have the military capability to fight Russia's many tanks, soldiers and military vechiles on the ground? It should be if US can stabilize Russia's mark force, and take the advantage of the airspace and force Russia back, with a good coordination by the US'navy and at the same time prevent that Russia get a powerful force on the ground.

The USA has 19 carriers commissioned [10 are fleet carriers, the rest are "helicopter carriers"], 1 in reserve, 3 under construction, and 1 more ordered/planned.

Eh? So what ? Russia has sufficeint missiles to take care of us fleet and usa leadership will be stupid if they decide to send their complete navy . US can't win against Russia near its teritory . That's the only likely scenario to happen because russians are contended with themselves meanwhile empire of chaos is itching to start a war with Russia . I'd say scratch that itch usa navy and see your ships get blown to kingdom come .

max steel wrote:

BTRfan wrote:

henriksoder wrote:

max steel wrote:Keeping this invasion part apart . Why you think its difficult for Russia to completely destroy US navy ?

Isen't US navy stronger than Russia's? I mean US seems to have the advantage of both submarines and got like at least 10 operative carriars, and Russia like one? I mean Russia must have more corvettes if that statement should be incorrect? Becouse how can US's navy obtain a force against a Russia invasion of the Ocean Pacific in the ocean, I mean, Russia must be able to destroy US's submarines and carriars at sea, with their possible advantage of corvettes? Does anywone here know how many corvettes US got? It seems like zero, US have a equal amount of submarines, maybe a bit more than Russia and how can US use their carriars if they can't obtain a equal strong force at sea than the Russia navy? Carriars, can they just be used to set up military zones and aircraft bases? How can they obtain a military force at sea, bomb destroyers, frigates and such warships?

I think Russia can beat US's navy at Ocean Pacific or can control the sea at Bering strait and succes a invasion of North America, becouse even US mark force or US navy can stop an such invasion, they don't have the military capability to fight Russia's many tanks, soldiers and military vechiles on the ground? It should be if US can stabilize Russia's mark force, and take the advantage of the airspace and force Russia back, with a good coordination by the US'navy and at the same time prevent that Russia get a powerful force on the ground.

The USA has 19 carriers commissioned [10 are fleet carriers, the rest are "helicopter carriers"], 1 in reserve, 3 under construction, and 1 more ordered/planned.

Eh?  So what ? Russia has sufficeint  missiles to take care of us fleet and usa leadership will be stupid if they decide to send their complete navy . US can't win against Russia near its teritory . That's the only likely scenario to happen because russians are contended with themselves meanwhile empire of chaos is itching to start a war with Russia . I'd say scratch that itch usa navy and see your ships get blown to kingdom come .

So what? Somebody asked how many carriers the USA had, so I answered... I didn't say "our carries is the bomb1!11!!! we will destroy the Russian Red Fleet, bomb the commies!!1111" why did you act like that?

You quoted me first that's why . Look it down .

max steel wrote:You quoted me first that's why . Look it down .

Didn't you reference/ask how many carriers the USA has? All I did was provide a numerical break-down answer.

I'm not saying, "oh man, we have all these carriers, our navy is super awesome, we can waste Russia."


Incidentally I believe Russia has a fairly strong submarine force and that their sub force is their main strength, but in terms of naval aviation, the USA is easily way ahead.

I think the Russians have a slight advantage in ground/land combat, they are evenly matched with the USA in the air, and they are at a major disadvantage in naval warfare except for their submarines.

If the USA decided, for whatever absurd reason, to get into a ground fight with Russia in Eastern/Central Europe, I do not believe it would go well for the USA, although Russian losses would probably be heavy as well. If you have observed, America's military has largely morphed into a light infantry force geared towards fighting insurgents, rebels, etc, and engaging in third world peace-keeping operations. I believe the USA is largely unprepared for major maneuver operations against conventional first rate forces.

No BTR i didn't ask that . Read my quoted post again .

I know how many floating aircarriers usa posses . They are coming up with their new Ford EMALS carrier too by 2016 . US navy engaging near russia will be destroyed hands down rest SAMs will take care of Naval Planes . It doesn't matter even if they are carrying more number of ships . Yes I agree Russian Navy isn't that strong as it used to be in Soviet Era . But they are strong enough to protect russian territories . I've few bookmarked pages regarding usa navy , i wish i could share it here .

max steel wrote:No BTR i didn't ask that . Read my quoted post again .

You didn't directly ask, but you ended your post with a question mark, revealing you were making a statement of which you were uncertain.


got like at least 10 operative carriars, and Russia like one?

"got like" = approximately, as in "I am not sure but I think something close to this..."

Question mark ??? = "I am not certain of this statement, I am sort of guessing" and it invites somebody to clarify and address the sentence.