RUSSIA vs USA

[Lehsyrus]

Half joking.

If we went to war with any other nation on the planet it wouldn't even be close. Don't kid yourself.

China has more than double our population in soldiers, Russia has more weaponry than us at the front, and it depends on who we go to war with. China could swarm our troops, as well European countries will tend towards banding together depending on what we go to war over. Our military is stretched far too thin over the world for it to be effective against an all out frontal assault. Also we tend to use military tactics that rely on electronics far more than we should, one nuclear device over Louisiana and all electronic communication will be done, meanwhile other countries can flood out shores with hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Our country is not met to be put to war on our own soil, if it did we would most surely lose or suffer dramatic casualties for a cause that Americans would lose their patriotism over.

Don't be so pompous. Our officials would easily go into hiding and leave the fighting to the common people in guerilla warfare. Our facilities for manufacturing war machines are so divided an require so much effort to ship them to the correct facilities for complete production we would run out of vehicles to use, and I'm damn well sure our army could be erradicated by Chinese soldiers. Th Vietcong managed to do it and their army was significantly lesser than that of chinas. We still never officially won that military conflict.

Without allies the united states would fall faster than fat Albert down the stairs.

[nevs666]

China has more than double our population in soldiers, Russia has more weaponry than us at the front, and it depends on who we go to war with. China could swarm our troops, as well European countries will tend towards banding together depending on what we go to war over. Our military is stretched far too thin over the world for it to be effective against an all out frontal assault. Also we tend to use military tactics that rely on electronics far more than we should, one nuclear device over Louisiana and all electronic communication will be done, meanwhile other countries can flood out shores with hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Our country is not met to be put to war on our own soil, if it did we would most surely lose or suffer dramatic casualties for a cause that Americans would lose their patriotism over.

Don't be so pompous. Our officials would easily go into hiding and leave the fighting to the common people in guerilla warfare. Our facilities for manufacturing war machines are so divided an require so much effort to ship them to the correct facilities for complete production we would run out of vehicles to use, and I'm damn well sure our army could be erradicated by Chinese soldiers. Th Vietcong managed to do it and their army was significantly lesser than that of chinas. We still never officially won that military conflict.

Without allies the united states would fall faster than fat Albert down the stairs.

In an age where a single bomb can wipe out a miles and miles of land in a blink of an eye, the number of soldiers doesn't really matter. You mentioned Chinese soldiers swarming our men 3 separate times. You say that a nuke over Louisiana will destroy all of our electronics, this might be true but how do you think we would react to a nuke going off on our own soil? We would wipe the whole fucking planet out. America has the most sophisticated military technology in the world. Any, ANY country that even attempted to come here would be completely obliterated off the face of the fucking planet whether it be by land, sea, or air. Just for the record, I blame the hippies for losing Vietnam.

[Chester Bennington]

Half joking.

If we went to war with any other nation on the planet it wouldn't even be close. Don't kid yourself.

Not to start anything but if America went to war with Great Britain the only reason you would win is because of military size. It's a known fact that the UK has the finest military soldiers in the world. The SAS, RBS and Royal Marines are better than the SEALS, fact.

None of that matters though cause America and Great Britain are far from war with each other.

[Lehsyrus]

In an age where a single bomb can wipe out a miles and miles of land in a blink of an eye, the number of soldiers doesn't really matter. You mentioned Chinese soldiers swarming our men 3 separate times. You say that a nuke over Louisiana will destroy all of our electronics, this might be true but how do you think we would react to a nuke going off on our own soil? We would wipe the whole fucking planet out. America has the most sophisticated military technology in the world. Any, ANY country that even attempted to come here would be completely obliterated off the face of the fucking planet whether it be by land, sea, or air. Just for the record, I blame the hippies for losing Vietnam.

We were screwed in Nam from the start, we had e intel, a very basic makeup of the land, as well we were being attacked by people who basically were the landscape around them. The whole island was one giant ambush site.

As for being able to just drop a bomb on the enemy, if we have no electronics how do we fight back? Go do we tell our subs and missile carriers to attack? How oils we even know WHO attacked us? We wouldn't be able to retaliate.
America, also, would NEVER launch the first nuke in this day and age. The UN forbids nuclear weapons to be used in warfare, and we'd be putting ourselves down the sites of every foreign countries gun involved. We are also not the most advanced military, considering we share all of our technology with MANy European arms manufacturers and weapons specialists to aid us in designing many of our weapons.
And Europe has the SAS and the GSG9, the two most deadly militaristic forces out there. Our green berets and delta don't train nearly as hard as these soldiers do.

---------- Post added at 02:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:37 PM ----------

Btw sorry for the typos but I'm stuck using my iPod at work -.-

[Commander X]

It's a known fact that the UK has the finest military soldiers in the world. The SAS, RBS and Royal Marines are better than the SEALS, fact.

There is no way to really test that, unless there are primary sources that some how did experiments and concluded that the UK has a superior force.

[Chester Bennington]

I remember watching a documentary and reading a research report somewhere. It detailed that by statistics, the UK have a higher success rate for special operations performed by special forces in the UK than any other nation on the planet.

[Commander X]

I remember watching a documentary and reading a research report somewhere. It detailed that by statistics, the UK have a higher success rate for special operations performed by special forces in the UK than any other nation on the planet.

For an experiment of seeing who has the best special forces that wouldn't do because there are way too many variables that can affect the outcome of a mission.

[Lehsyrus]

SAS = best precision snipers
GSG9 = most accurate close quarters with sub-automatic weaponry
Delta/SEAL = best for use in hostage situations.

All was shown in a documentary on discovery about the top special forces in the world.

[nevs666]

We were screwed in Nam from the start, we had e intel, a very basic makeup of the land, as well we were being attacked by people who basically were the landscape around them. The whole island was one giant ambush site.

As for being able to just drop a bomb on the enemy, if we have no electronics how do we fight back? Go do we tell our subs and missile carriers to attack? How oils we even know WHO attacked us? We wouldn't be able to retaliate.
America, also, would NEVER launch the first nuke in this day and age. The UN forbids nuclear weapons to be used in warfare, and we'd be putting ourselves down the sites of every foreign countries gun involved. We are also not the most advanced military, considering we share all of our technology with MANy European arms manufacturers and weapons specialists to aid us in designing many of our weapons.
And Europe has the SAS and the GSG9, the two most deadly militaristic forces out there. Our green berets and delta don't train nearly as hard as these soldiers do.

---------- Post added at 02:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:37 PM ----------

Btw sorry for the typos but I'm stuck using my iPod at work -.-

We would have won Vietnam if we didn't lose the support of the people, which was caused by those damn fucking hippies.

You contradict yourself. You say that the UN forbids nuclear warfare and that if we dropped a nuke on someone they would all be after us. Yet, if that is true then we wouldn't really need to fight whoever dropped the bomb on us, seeing that the UN would just attack the first aggressor.

What are you talking about? We have been making our own weapons since... well to be honest, I frankly don't know. My best guess would date back before the civil war with the Springfield musket that I think was made in the early 1800's. You say that we are not the most advanced military, but in the vary same sentence you say we share OUR tech with them.

I don't really know how you can compare special forces when damn near all special forces teams cross train. If you are talking about success rate, that is just an unfair comparison. Lets not lie here, we both know that the U.S fights way more then Britain does right now. So naturally they are going to have a higher success rate because they don't fight as often. Lets say for example the SAS conducts 10 operations in one year, they succeed 9 out of 10 of them. Now lets say that delta operates 100 this year and succeeds in 89 out of 100. SAS has a higher success rate but delta completed more missions.

[Commander X]

We would have won Vietnam if we didn't lose the support of the people, which was caused by those damn fucking hippies.

It is impossible to keep the support of the people unless it was an attack on your homeland, but even if we still had the support it would be like the Iraq war. U.S. generals don't know how to combat guerrilla fighting especially during the Vietnam war. But it's all irrelevant because we lost support of the people and then we withdrew our troops. Also hippies didn't have much of an effect on the people's will to war, they were a minority and the average American hated yippies and hippies.

SAS = best precision snipers
GSG9 = most accurate close quarters with sub-automatic weaponry
Delta/SEAL = best for use in hostage situations.

All was shown in a documentary on discovery about the top special forces in the world.

Do you happen to remember the documentary's name?

[nevs666]

It is impossible to keep the support of the people unless it was an attack on your homeland, but even if we still had the support it would be like the Iraq war. U.S. generals don't know how to combat guerrilla fighting especially during the Vietnam war. But it's all irrelevant because we lost support of the people and then we withdrew our troops. Also hippies didn't have much of an effect on the people's will to war, they were a minority and the average American hated yippies and hippies.

That first statement is just plane wrong, a perfect example is the Korean war. Our homeland wasn't attacked and the majority of the U.N troops were American and was led by the great general Douglas MacArthur who was an American. We retained perfect support of the people and found victory.

It's not that we don't know how to fight guerrillas, it's just that is vary hard too. When the enemy looks like, talks like, and acts like the civilians, innocent people are going to get hurt.

The hippie movement was definitely not a minority. Vietnam was our first televised war, and the hippies had a felid day with it. All they did was cause unrest and violent protest. Then cry when they get arrested after committing arson. Not to mention most of them treated our soldiers like shit, then proceed to call for "peace" in Vietnam. Even when we did withdraw and the hippies were content for the meanwhile. They seem to have completely ignored the domino effect that was predicted if we withdrew. What do you know? It came true, and the communist committed genocide in Cambodia and Laos. Then they proceed to get high and die while smiles on their faces after 60,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese died for nothing. If we stayed the fucking course, maybe Vietnam wouldn't be such a shithole today.

[Lehsyrus]

We would have won Vietnam if we didn't lose the support of the people, which was caused by those damn fucking hippies.

You contradict yourself. You say that the UN forbids nuclear warfare and that if we dropped a nuke on someone they would all be after us. Yet, if that is true then we wouldn't really need to fight whoever dropped the bomb on us, seeing that the UN would just attack the first aggressor.

What are you talking about? We have been making our own weapons since... well to be honest, I frankly don't know. My best guess would date back before the civil war with the Springfield musket that I think was made in the early 1800's. You say that we are not the most advanced military, but in the vary same sentence you say we share OUR tech with them.

I don't really know how you can compare special forces when damn near all special forces teams cross train. If you are talking about success rate, that is just an unfair comparison. Lets not lie here, we both know that the U.S fights way more then Britain does right now. So naturally they are going to have a higher success rate because they don't fight as often. Lets say for example the SAS conducts 10 operations in one year, they succeed 9 out of 10 of them. Now lets say that delta operates 100 this year and succeeds in 89 out of 100. SAS has a higher success rate but delta completed more missions.

Do you know anything about the nuclear arms doctrine of the UN? If any country uses nuclear weapons they are ensuring themselves Mutual Assured Destruction, meaning whatever they used will be (and it's a definite will) be under the same heat.

Our technology has been from innovations of other countries, all except for that of certain jets, bombers, and gunnery in its own. We also manufacture each part in separate locations and "produce" them from one location, with the exception being gun depots. That will leave us only gunnery disposition in any onslaught considering the first move any country takes in war is destroying those supplying manufacturers, plus we don't really keep it a secret where the parts are being manufactured in the first place.

My comparison for special operations units are that only of what they excel in. Hence my post in what the individual strongpoints for each were. Some are trained more specifically in one situation. Yes they cross train in each units strongpoint, but they still train more in individual strongpoints more than others at the end of the day.

Also for Nam, we were trained for trench warfare until that point. Our soldiers were not prepared in the least for guerilla tactics. I mean come on, it took us a whole year to come up with a cast iron battering ram for tanks so the could plow through the trees bordering the grain fields.

---------- Post added at 05:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:52 PM ----------

That first statement is just plane wrong, a perfect example is the Korean war. Our homeland wasn't attacked and the majority of the U.N troops were American and was led by the great general Douglas MacArthur who was an American. We retained perfect support of the people and found victory.

It's not that we don't know how to fight guerrillas, it's just that is vary hard too. When the enemy looks like, talks like, and acts like the civilians, innocent people are going to get hurt.

The hippie movement was definitely not a minority. Vietnam was our first televised war, and the hippies had a felid day with it. All they did was cause unrest and violent protest. Then cry when they get arrested after committing arson. Not to mention most of them treated our soldiers like shit, then proceed to call for "peace" in Vietnam. Even when we did withdraw and the hippies were content for the meanwhile. They seem to have completely ignored the domino effect that was predicted if we withdrew. What do you know? It came true, and the communist committed genocide in Cambodia and Laos. Then they proceed to get high and die while smiles on their faces after 60,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese died for nothing. If we stayed the fucking course, maybe Vietnam wouldn't be such a shithole today.

I will agree that the hippies didn't help, but I still dont believe we should have been over there ourselves. If we were there to ati Chinese expansion, why were there no Chinese? It was a spur if the moment war fueled by greed and untold reasoning that should have been left as a regional conflict.

Only good thing about Nam was that that the Rolling Stones music fit it perfectly.

---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

It is impossible to keep the support of the people unless it was an attack on your homeland, but even if we still had the support it would be like the Iraq war. U.S. generals don't know how to combat guerrilla fighting especially during the Vietnam war. But it's all irrelevant because we lost support of the people and then we withdrew our troops. Also hippies didn't have much of an effect on the people's will to war, they were a minority and the average American hated yippies and hippies.



Do you happen to remember the documentary's name?

I'll try to find it stuck on my iPod for now (so difficult for this nice debate we have here).

[nevs666]

Do you know anything about the nuclear arms doctrine of the UN? If any country uses nuclear weapons they are ensuring themselves Mutual Assured Destruction, meaning whatever they used will be (and it's a definite will) be under the same heat.

Our technology has been from innovations of other countries, all except for that of certain jets, bombers, and gunnery in its own. We also manufacture each part in separate locations and "produce" them from one location, with the exception being gun depots. That will leave us only gunnery disposition in any onslaught considering the first move any country takes in war is destroying those supplying manufacturers, plus we don't really keep it a secret where the parts are being manufactured in the first place.

My comparison for special operations units are that only of what they excel in. Hence my post in what the individual strongpoints for each were. Some are trained more specifically in one situation. Yes they cross train in each units strongpoint, but they still train more in individual strongpoints more than others at the end of the day.

Also for Nam, we were trained for trench warfare until that point. Our soldiers were not prepared in the least for guerilla tactics. I mean come on, it took us a whole year to come up with a cast iron battering ram for tanks so the could plow through the trees bordering the grain fields.

---------- Post added at 05:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:52 PM ----------



I will agree that the hippies didn't help, but I still dont believe we should have been over there ourselves. If we were there to ati Chinese expansion, why were there no Chinese? It was a spur if the moment war fueled by greed and untold reasoning that should have been left as a regional conflict.

Only good thing about Nam was that that the Rolling Stones music fit it perfectly.

---------- Post added at 05:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------



I'll try to find it stuck on my iPod for now (so difficult for this nice debate we have here).

That's my point, you said that if a nuke was dropped on us our communications would blah blah blah. That wouldn't matter because the first aggressor would get buttfucked by all the other country's. So if the China, or Russian, or Europe did attack and didn't drop anything to destroy our electronics how the hell would they even dream of penetrating our defenses? They would be blown out of the fucking sky trying to fly over here.

You say this about our weaponry as if we haven't produced any yet. Even if they destroyed ALL of our weapon factory's and did occupy our land, they would face the same dilemma Hitler did when his generals gave him invasion plans for America. He knew we, just like Switzerland, had our citizens armed.

Vietnam wasn't fought to stop Chinese expansion, it was fought to stop communist expansion. As I said before, if we stayed the course our soldiers and the Vietnamese wouldn't have died in vain. Not to mention all the genocide victims in Cambodia and Laos due to our withdraw.

[unicorn69]

Wars between "superpowers" are fought by proxies nowadays.

[porygonzx]

Wars between "superpowers" are fought by proxies nowadays.

Perfect.
No superpower goes to war anymore, at least full out war.