This Muttering About An American Russian Military Showdown

[Mutt]

Ain't ever going to happen even if nuclear weapons of total destruction on both sides didn't exist. Russians are human punching bags, the United States lost 500,000 soldiers in WWII, the Russians lost 27 MILLION people and then when the war ended Stalin went to work on his own people. America can't win a war against Russia, they don't have the stomach for death that Russia does.

[pimpmaster9000]

americans can not even handle minor events like 9/11 or a guy with a pressue cooker ...the most afraid nation in the world...americans have super thin skin and bringing any sort of conflict to their stolen land would destroy their fragile fragile economy completely...

[Markul]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

americans can not even handle minor events like 9/11 or a guy with a pressue cooker ...the most afraid nation in the world...americans have super thin skin and bringing any sort of conflict to their stolen land would destroy their fragile fragile economy completely...

Let's not forget that the US is still the only real military super power in the world.

Russia may be ready to kill all it's people to get what they want, we all see where the USSR is today.. it's not.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Ain't ever going to happen even if nuclear weapons of total destruction on both sides didn't exist. Russians are human punching bags, the United States lost 500,000 soldiers in WWII, the Russians lost 27 MILLION people and then when the war ended Stalin went to work on his own people. America can't win a war against Russia, they don't have the stomach for death that Russia does.

Soviet's losses had nothing to do with "stomach". It was just a bloody battle against Nazi-Germany. Not much options. The thing is always different when you fight on your own soil for your own survival.

Well, not all losses came from fighting just for own survival, but majority. Soviets did the majority of fighting against Nazi-Germany, USA popped in when Nazis were already retreating and far from their height of power.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by aka123

Soviet's losses had nothing to do with "stomach". It was just a bloody battle against Nazi-Germany. Not much options. The thing is always different when you fight on your own soil for your own survival.

Well, not all losses came from fighting just for own survival, but majority. Soviets did the majority of fighting against Nazi-Germany, USA popped in when Nazis were already retreating and far from their height of power.

Not a chance if Germany surprise attacked the US on American soil would the Americans have sustained 20 million civilian deaths, they'd have gone the surrender/diplomatic route. The Russians forced women, old men, children to throw themselves in front of the Germans, those who didn't were shot.

Maybe I'm wrong, I think in the end the US values the life of its citizens. The US never lost anywhere near even 1 million soldiers let alone civilians in any war.

[dyna mo]

me thinks you should learn up on what the USA did in the ww2 Pacific theater if you think we don't have the stomach to hurl American bodies at our enemies.

[theking]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Ain't ever going to happen even if nuclear weapons of total destruction on both sides didn't exist. Russians are human punching bags, the United States lost 500,000 soldiers in WWII, the Russians lost 27 MILLION people and then when the war ended Stalin went to work on his own people. America can't win a war against Russia, they don't have the stomach for death that Russia does.

Pigshit.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

americans can not even handle minor events like 9/11 or a guy with a pressue cooker ...the most afraid nation in the world...americans have super thin skin and bringing any sort of conflict to their stolen land would destroy their fragile fragile economy completely...

You Europeans are such fuckups that the US had to enter 2 World Wars to help end them and then spend trillions to become the world's policeman because you had proven yourselves so useless and defenseless that half of you became little Soviet bitches and without the US the other half would have done the same.

[theking]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

americans can not even handle minor events like 9/11 or a guy with a pressue cooker ...the most afraid nation in the world...americans have super thin skin and bringing any sort of conflict to their stolen land would destroy their fragile fragile economy completely...

Pigshit...you are consistent in your lack of knowledge about America and Americans.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

me thinks you should learn up on what the USA did in the ww2 Pacific theater if you think we don't have the stomach to hurl American bodies at our enemies.

Soldiers not civilians. Less than half a million dead Americans in WWII, 27 million Russians.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by theking

Pigshit.

Listen Captain America, your imaginary war hero Private Pathfinder couldn't even save Korea from the Commies. Then you got your asses handed to you in Vietnam by a bunch of third world peasants who outsmarted and outfought you.

[theking]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Listen Captain America, your imaginary war hero Private Pathfinder couldn't even save Korea from the Commies. Then you got your asses handed to you in Vietnam by a bunch of third world peasants who outsmarted and outfought you.

You are full of ignorance/pigshit when you are talking about both Korea and Vietnam...which is not unusual for you and your countrymen. BTW PF was an 03.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by theking

You are full of ignorance/pigshit when you are talking about both Korea and Vietnam...which is not unusual for you and your countrymen. BTW PF was an 03.

Did I miss some news? Korea is a united country? South Vietnam is a bastion of democracy today? And Iraq?

[aka123]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Not a chance if Germany surprise attacked the US on American soil would the Americans have sustained 20 million civilian deaths, they'd have gone the surrender/diplomatic route. The Russians forced women, old men, children to throw themselves in front of the Germans, those who didn't were shot.

Maybe I'm wrong, I think in the end the US values the life of its citizens. The US never lost anywhere near even 1 million soldiers let alone civilians in any war.

You are right, Soviets didn't care much if their soldiers live or die, if it somehow helped their war efforts, but they were soldiers, not civilians. But still, it was the Germans who killed them. US troops had massive casualties even though they did fight against already much weakened and demoralized enemy (Germans). On average the turnover from D-day to the end of war in Europe was 100 % amongst US troops. So excluding replacements, everybody died or wounded or were otherwise taken out of action.

[theking]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Did I miss some news? Korea is a united country? South Vietnam is a bastion of democracy today? And Iraq?

Yes you are missing something and that is knowledge of what our Governments strategy was in both conflicts.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by Mutt

You Europeans are such fuckups that the US had to enter 2 World Wars to help end them

Germans were and are Europeans. I don't think that they wanted any help from US. ;)

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Soldiers not civilians. Less than half a million dead Americans in WWII, 27 million Russians.

the actual # is 8 million russian soldiers dead.

But again, we had no problems sending soldiers after dead soldiers all through the Pacific theater. The invasion of Japan was embraced by all the top brass and that invasion alone was expected to kill a million + soldiers.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by theking

Yes you are missing something and that is knowledge of what our Governments strategy was in both conflicts.

To contain the spread of Communism, I concede they maintained the status quo in Korea but when you consider yourselves the baddest asses on the planet a 'draw' looks like a defeat - Vietnam was a debacle, leading to Cambodia and Laos as well becoming Communist states.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Soldiers not civilians. Less than half a million dead Americans in WWII, 27 million Russians.

You really have to understand that Soviet fought on it's own soil, US didn't. US civilians were safe and sound thousands of miles away from any major fight, if you don't count Pearl Harbour. That makes a great difference in casualty rates, especially civilian casualty rates.

If USA would have been bombed, starved and terrorized, the numbers would be very different.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

the actual # is 8 million russian soldiers dead.

But again, we had no problems sending soldiers after dead soldiers all through the Pacific theater. The invasion of Japan was embraced by all the top brass and that invasion alone was expected to kill a million + soldiers.

It's the main reason they dropped the atom bombs, so a million American lives wouldn't have been lost in an invasion of the Home Islands.

Americans DON'T want to fight wars where they suffer major casualties, why they spend billions on gadgetry that does the killing keeping soldiers as protected as possible.

As Patton said "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."

[theking]

Originally Posted by Mutt

To contain the spread of Communism, I concede they maintained the status quo in Korea but when you consider yourselves the baddest asses on the planet a 'draw' looks like a defeat - Vietnam was a debacle, leading to Cambodia and Laos as well becoming Communist states.

American military forces were pulled out of Vietnam in '73 without having lost a single battle. In the following two years Northern forces defeated Southern forces in '75 and even then the South would not have fallen except for the fact that Congress had previously voted no more funding or assistance for Vietnam.

The US military is magnificent and performs with magnificence with a kill ratio ranging from 10 to 1 to 1000 to 1. but unfortunately it has to suffer with micromanagement from dumb ass politicians that want to play General.

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by Mutt

It's the main reason they dropped the atom bombs, so a million American lives wouldn't have been lost in an invasion of the Home Islands.

Americans DON'T want to fight wars where they suffer major casualties, why they spend billions on gadgetry that does the killing keeping soldiers as protected as possible.

As Patton said "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."

yeah, I have to disagree with most of this. no biggie. but that's not the primary reason we went nuclear, we dropped those bombs to send a clear message to russia, for instance. Historically, we've had no problems killing americans, from the civil war to now.

Technology is a primary driver of military weapons, we spend 750 billion a year to be the leader in military, not necc. to save lives. Sure we don't want to waste bodies but I think it's incorrect to think we would have a problem defending ourselves such that we would not fight due to a casualty rate.

Also, don't under-estimate the anti-communist sentiment that still resides and is very strong in this country. Many people here still concern themselves with communist/russian expansion and the Ukraine debacle reinforces their view.

[Mutt]

http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm

One theme presented by supporters of the American empire is the U.S. military is invincible and can never lose unless stabbed in the back by impatient politicians. They claim the U.S. military never lost a battle during the entire Vietnam war. On August 30, 2011, President Barack Obama proclaimed to a gathering of veterans: "But let it be remembered that you won every major battle of that war. Every single one." This myth had been disputed by America's most decorated officer of that war, Col. David Hackworth, in his book "About Face." The U.S. military had every advantage, yet mistakes were made and battles lost. Internet research turns up these 70 lost battles of the Vietnam war:

http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

yeah, I have to disagree with most of this. no biggie. but that's not the primary reason we went nuclear, we dropped those bombs to send a clear message to russia, for instance. Historically, we've had no problems killing americans, from the civil war to now.

Technology is a primary driver of military weapons, we spend 750 billion a year to be the leader in military, not necc. to save lives. Sure we don't want to waste bodies but I think it's incorrect to think we would have a problem defending ourselves such that we would not fight due to a casualty rate.

Also, don't under-estimate the anti-communist sentiment that still resides and is very strong in this country. Many people here still concern themselves with communist/russian expansion and the Ukraine debacle reinforces their view.

Civilized secular countries don't fight until there's one person left standing, if Britain had lost the Battle of Britain and Hitler had invaded by sea as he planned to the Brits would have put up a fight the best they could but it wouldn't have lasted long, they weren't going to throw the Queen in front of a German tank - they would have made whatever deal they had to.

Which is my whole point, not that Americans are cowards, but that there comes a point when you take a defeat before you lose 27 million soldiers, women and children.

'Better Dead Than Red' is a patriotic slogan but I think if you put that proposition to the test with people today I think the majority would choose to live.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Mutt

the United States lost 500,000 soldiers in WWII, the Russians lost 27 MILLION people and then when the war ended Stalin went to work on his own people.

That's because the war zone was on the Soviet territory and the US civilians were not affected (you were too far for the Nazi aviation and SS forces). Perhaps it will be a big surprise for you, but most of the Soviet losses during WWII were civilian people.

[just a punk]

http://www.nationalww2museum.org/lea...de-deaths.html - Soviets had 15 killed civilians on every 10 killed soldiers.

[seeric]

Originally Posted by crucifissio

americans can not even handle minor events like 9/11 or a guy with a pressue cooker ...the most afraid nation in the world...americans have super thin skin and bringing any sort of conflict to their stolen land would destroy their fragile fragile economy completely...

You got it wrong. The US Government influences and controls the entire world. Some American's are mouth breathing, lazy, reality TV, ice cream eating, fat fucks, 24/7/365. Others are nails tough.

Come to my fucking house with some drama and I'll fucking gut you and leave you on the door step for the rest of the fucking wolves to find.

Don't judge a collective people by the stance of a government.

That sound soft?

[LightscapeMedia]

The world will miss us when we're gone.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by seeric

You got it wrong. The US Government influences and controls the entire world.

Influences yes, but controlling is a bit overstatement.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by LightscapeMedia

The world will miss us when we're gone.

Going somewhere?

[Rochard]

Russia's losses during WWII had nothing to do with "stomach" and everything to do with proximity. Russia lost a lot of territory to the Nazis in the beginning and had entire regions laid to waste through bombing, artillery, and general fighting. If the Nazis invaded NYC or DC or Miami in the 1940s we would have lost millions also.

As for the United States fighting Russia.... Russia doesn't even have a blue water navy and their air force doesn't seem to be too impressive either. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, they have a huge lack of funding and haven't invested much into their military. This doesn't mention the fact that if the US and Russia do end up at war, Russia's entire Western border would be suspect to NATO attacks...

[theking]

Originally Posted by Mutt

http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm

One theme presented by supporters of the American empire is the U.S. military is invincible and can never lose unless stabbed in the back by impatient politicians. They claim the U.S. military never lost a battle during the entire Vietnam war. On August 30, 2011, President Barack Obama proclaimed to a gathering of veterans: "But let it be remembered that you won every major battle of that war. Every single one." This myth had been disputed by America's most decorated officer of that war, Col. David Hackworth, in his book "About Face." The U.S. military had every advantage, yet mistakes were made and battles lost. Internet research turns up these 70 lost battles of the Vietnam war:

http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm

You are ignorant of the nuances of what constitutes a battle. Does any firefight that US forces engage in...no matter the size of the force...constitute a battle...no it does not. Did US forces ever engage in a firefight that they did not win...yes. When a SAV/ARVN units with American Advisers attached lost a fight represent an American loss....no it does not.

BTW...I have personally met Col. Hackworth when I was at Ft. Bragg...and PF met him during the Korean conflict.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by Rochard

As for the United States fighting Russia.... Russia doesn't even have a blue water navy and their air force doesn't seem to be too impressive either. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, they have a huge lack of funding and haven't invested much into their military. This doesn't mention the fact that if the US and Russia do end up at war, Russia's entire Western border would be suspect to NATO attacks...

Yep, Russian military forces can't be compared to the US ones even close, because they are much (incomparable) weaker. On the other hand, Russian military doctrine does not presume any other way of fighting NATO than using nukes. Russia has about the same amount of strategic nukes as the USA for the guaranteed mutual destruction + incomparable larger amount of tactical nukes targeting the EU NATO countries.

[aka123]

Originally Posted by Rochard

As for the United States fighting Russia.... Russia doesn't even have a blue water navy and their air force doesn't seem to be too impressive either. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, they have a huge lack of funding and haven't invested much into their military. This doesn't mention the fact that if the US and Russia do end up at war, Russia's entire Western border would be suspect to NATO attacks...

Russia has been rebuilding it's military and fast, and with BIG money. Basically has rebuild it's army or is at least near it. Your intel is years behind.

[theking]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Yep, Russian military forces can't be compared to the US ones even close, because they are much (incomparable) weaker. On the other hand, Russian military doctrine does not presume any other way of fighting NATO than using nukes. Russia has about the same amount of strategic nukes as the USA for the guaranteed mutual destruction + incomparable larger amount of tactical nukes targeting the EU NATO countries.

The US/NATO forces were intentionally kept weaker in Europe than Soviet Forces were ...during the cold war...so that the Soviets would know that we would have to use our nukes to defend Europe.

[theking]

Originally Posted by aka123

Russia has been rebuilding it's military and fast, and with BIG money. Basically has rebuild it's army or is at least near it. Your intel is years behind.

Not really.

[Barry-xlovecam]

This chess thumping and nationalism is both sickening and ridiculous.

Go back to your video games ...

The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.
Leon Trotsky

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by theking

The US/NATO forces were intentionally kept weaker in Europe than Soviet Forces were ...during the cold war...so that the Soviets would know that we would have to use our nukes to defend Europe.

Nope. Russia and States have about the same amount of strategical nukes to destruct each other at least 10 times in a raw. As about the European NATO countries, so they will be eliminated in the first 10-15 minutes of war with tactical nukes.

Strategic nuke balance:



Tactical nuke balance:



Sorry but the USA can not protect Europe. The tactical nukes will be launched first to suppress the European military targets. This is not a secret actually.

These launchers are designed specially to hit the low-range targets in Europe:

[theking]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Nope. Russia and States have about the same amount of strategical nukes to destruct each other at least 10 times in a raw. As about the European NATO countries, so they will be eliminated in the first 10-15 minutes of war with tactical nukes.

Strategic nuke balance:



Tactical nuke balance:



Sorry but the USA can not protect Europe. The tactical nukes will be launched first to suppress the European military targets. This is not a secret actually.

These launchers are designed specially to hit the low-range targets in Europe:

WTF...are you babbling about? What does any of this shit have to do with the Soviet Union...the cold war and anything that I had to say?

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by theking

WTF...are you babbling about? What does any of this shit have to do with the Soviet Union...the cold war and anything that I had to say?

It has nothing to do with the Soviet Union at all. There is no Soviet Union anymore, but NATO is still here

[dyna mo]

Originally Posted by aka123

Russia has been rebuilding it's military and fast, and with BIG money. Basically has rebuild it's army or is at least near it. Your intel is years behind.

Regionally yes.

Worldwide no.

[theking]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

It has nothing to do with the Soviet Union at all. There is no Soviet Union anymore, but NATO is still here

Did you even read my post? It is about US/NATO strategic policy during the era of the Soviet Union and the Cold War as regarded Europe. Nothing in either of your posts...to me...has anything to do with my post.

[Alesulx]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Regionally yes.

Worldwide no.

You know that Russia curently made a deal with China, Brazil and India, don`t you?

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Regionally yes.

Worldwide no.

So true. And personally I'm very happy that our country does not spend the money to the worldwide influence. Russia is not an empire and I believe it will never be it (all empires die)

[theking]

Originally Posted by Alesulx

You know that Russia curently made a deal with China, Brazil and India, don`t you?

Do you have a pertinent point to make...in regards to the Russian military?

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by theking

Did you even read my post? It is about US/NATO strategic policy during the era of the Soviet Union and the Cold War as regarded Europe.

Yes, I did, Sir. The cold war is "gone", but the NATO is not. It has even extended a lot since that time. So Russia uses almost the same military doctrine against NATO as the USSR had. Unfortunately we just have no choice. Do you think otherwise?

[theking]

Originally Posted by CyberSEO

Yes, I did, Sir. The cold war is "gone", but the NATO is not. It has even extended a lot since that time. So Russia uses almost the same military doctrine against NATO as the USSR had. Unfortunately we just have no choice. Do you think otherwise?

Your reading comprehension is severely impaired by English not being your first language. I think that...rightly or wrongly...all is fair in "love and war".

[Alesulx]

Military is not everything. You understand that CHINA is on the Russian side?

[theking]

Originally Posted by Alesulx

Military is not everything. You understand that CHINA is on the Russian side?

No more so than it is on the side of the US.

[Alesulx]

Originally Posted by theking

No more so than it is on the side of the US.

What do you mean with "no more" ?