Re: War Scenereo, who wins?
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
Non nuclear
1. The goal is to invade and occupy who wins?
neither side has enough strength the successfully invade or occupy their opponents
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
2. The goal is to cause as much damage to your enemys mainland cities base etc to force a surrender who wins?
America because of Aircraft Carriers. Russia, China and Iran lack the ability to extend their forces in a conventional way that would allow them to bombard America in a non-nuclear conflict, save retrofitting ICBMs to contain non-nuclear payloads...
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
3. Nuclear, who wins or does the most offensive damage?
America, because their second strike capacity is much greater than the Russians or Chinese
As I recall for all their warheads the Russians only have a few hundred (if even that) in ready to fire condition whereas America has around a thousand on standby.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
As much as people dislike cbc's threads, this topic is admittedly much more interesting than any of the other topics on this page.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
As I recall for all their warheads the Russians only have a few hundred (if even that) in ready to fire condition whereas America has around a thousand on standby.
in a first strike situation though, given America doesn't have a fleet of bombers in the air, several hundred well aimed bombs could do massive damage to America's ability to launch a nuclear counter-strike.
I think it is more that Russia would have no follow-up, and there is no way they could get a full killing blow on the American nuclear capacity.
EDIT: hmmm, wiki says America only operates 450 ICBMs atm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile#Land-based_ICBMs
Originally posted by inimalist
in a first strike situation though, given America doesn't have a fleet of bombers in the air, several hundred well aimed bombs could do massive damage to America's ability to launch a nuclear counter-strike.I think it is more that Russia would have no follow-up, and there is no way they could get a full killing blow on the American nuclear capacity.
America has more submarine nukes.
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
what about china hacking the crap out of our gps navigation and stealth bombers?what abouy chinas vast submerine fleet which can deliver missles from underwater?
According to Wikipedia, China only has five submarines capable of launching missiles. America has eighteen.
Russia has one (two are being reactivated but aren't currently operational) and the UK has four.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
What I remember is that the two biggest concerns of both sides during the Cold War were tactical nukes (admittedly much less of a problem now) and submarines armed with ICBMs.America has more submarine nukes.
indeed, America has 6x the active number of nuclear armed subs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine
vs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_class_submarine
however, Soviet missiles themselves might pack a bit more punch than the American's do, as they generally carry more warheads:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UGM-133_Trident_II
vs
Originally posted by Omega Visionflight bombers would get shot down, china and russia is large.
China has impressive Cyber Warfare capabilities, but I don't know if they could hack in flight bombers.
so china would badly cripple us with there cyber warfare, while russia bombs us and we cant bomb back.
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
flight bombers would get shot down, china and russia is large.so china would badly cripple us with there cyber warfare, while russia bombs us and we cant bomb back.
Russia doesn't really have a large fleet of conventional bombers that can reach the USA and defeat its air defenses.
You exaggerate everything.
Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
so the usa can solo?
no
it is really unlikely that the US could mount a successful ground invasion of either China or Russia.
Well, save some very long and bloody coastal siege, but I still would have my doubts. Both of those nations are just too large and the terrain in parts too rough to be occupied.
America is the exact same, plus the citizens are armed to the teeth.
If you put both the teams on like, a neutral field where they just engaged in conventional war? sure, I'd say US is the last guy standing, with or with out the UK/Israel
EDIT: also, it is arguable that China has a stronger cyber-military than America. In America, the best talent tends to be in the private sector, but even look at stuff like Stuxnet. China has a lot of nationalists who do low level attacks and stuff, but in terms of technical sophistication, America is steps ahead. China is good, very good, but I wouldn't say they are so much better it collapses the Americans.