Possible war between USA and Russia/China

How do you destroy world's largest navy using pretty much submarines alone? Do you know how goddamn downsized Russian Navy got since 1991?

As Werewolf already pointed out, invasion of mainland US is utterly pointless. Costs would outweight benefits several times. Such an operation could only be conducted by Mexico if it became strong enough and built a large army.

RUSSIAN NAVY WITH CHINESE NAVY CAN ISN'T IT ? CHINA HAS Larger navy than usa ( no aircraft carriers thought but it can be taken care off with missiles ) .

max steel wrote:RUSSIAN NAVY WITH CHINESE NAVY CAN ISN'T IT ? CHINA HAS Larger navy than usa ( no aircraft carriers thought but it can be taken care off with missiles ) .

For what purpose? There is no point seazing soil that holds no valuable resources which Asian continent already has in far bigger amounts than one can even imagine. There is a reason why constantly the "civilized west" attacked russia not the otherway around. Parasites always tend to go where Resources are.

Its a hypothetical thread . We can ask such hypothetical stuff . So can Russia and China navy can take care of usnavy in pacific .

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:How do you destroy world's largest navy using pretty much submarines alone? Do you know how goddamn downsized Russian Navy got since 1991?

As Werewolf already pointed out, invasion of mainland US is utterly pointless. Costs would outweight benefits several times. Such an operation could only be conducted by Mexico if it became strong enough and built a large army.

200-300 tactical nukes could annihilate any conventional military in the world, US not excluded.

Theoratically speaking yes, but only when you are optimistic for one side and pessimistic for the other, in reality that will end up with all 3 countries and their fleets all sunk, no left navy nor logistics to maintain a supply chain to conquer the US mainland. It is not realistic at all.

Werewolf wrote:Theoratically speaking yes, but only when you are optimistic for one side and pessimistic for the other, in reality that will end up with all 3 countries and their fleets all sunk, no left navy nor logistics to maintain a supply chain to conquer the US mainland. It is not realistic at all.

Even if only tactical nukes were involved, and nothing bigger, I agree everyone would probably lose. Ironically the side that's nuclear saber rattling the most is the NATO side, with talks about using tactical nuke bunker busters against Iran, and continuing placing the Euro Meatshield bases in Eastern Europe while supposedly against Iran a country that they successfully brokered a deal on nuclear enrichment, which means the Meatshield is really targeting Russia because they plan on continuing the program.

On that same note, here's why Raytheon is the most OVERRATED aerospace defense conglomerate in the world:

The Pentagon’s $10-billion bet gone bad

$10 bln down the drain? US spends billions on 'ineffective' missile defense systems

Now I reverse my question . Can US invade RF and PRC ?

Someone stated that Russia fulfill Boeing's demand of Titanium by supplying them 80 % . If Russia retaliates ( don't know when they'll get rid of their passive diplomacy ) , how one of the largest MIC company will even work ?

max steel wrote:Now I reverse my question . Can US invade RF and PRC ?

Non of those countries can defeat the other country on their own soil. The strongest in defensive would be Russia, due its vast spending on the last decades for exactly the case of defeating NATO armies on their own soil, logistcally not the strongest but neither are China nor US in the position of attacking force against russia. The entire NATO has no logistics to deploy any serious armies on russian front. The only thread in NATO is obviously the US, UK, France,Turkey,Poland and that it is actually, but even among those armies only UK posses logistical capacities to even deploy anything of the size of divsion rapidly enough on eastern front. The rest of NATO logistaclly speaking for an offensive, has no capacities in logistics. For example, Germany, Poland, Czech, Holland, France and Australia need Antonov 124 from russian companies like Dnepr, they constantly lease them to bring Leopard2 and Tiger helicopters along with Pzh2000 over Russian military bases in Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan to deploy them in Afghanistan. The entire NATO supply chain for European theatre goes 100% only through germany, meaning it is a the main threat and interest, tactical nuking of NATO logistical bases in germany would stop the invasion on its start, leaving eastern european NATO countries like Poland locked from supply and they would be fought untill the last pole and czech soldier when it comes to US.

In case of Russian invasion of US we already cleared it, the US is the weakest among those three countries of its defensive, inland, capabilities, but it has one very strong and outweighting point, its strategic geopolitical position, military speaking a fortress at least for the navies on this globe.

China is well enough protected from invasion over Siberia, the deployment for Russia would take far to long to even form a significant front against China. PRC is very strong when it comes to inland logistics, manpower and the kings of every battlefield (artillery). They pretty much can sustain decade long war, regardless if their navy gets destroyed, Chinas military power is very well suited to defeat even Superpowers on its own soil.

They are pretty much immune to each other for an invasion from each other, that would lead only to destroyed armies of invaders, destroyed navies of every involved country, destroyed Europe due its NATO aggreement and logistical and strategical Meatshield for US with millions deaths and i speak only about conventional warfare with limited theatre deployed nukes, evading strategic deployment of nukes.

No one wins and everyone losses without a single gain.

I asked a) can us invade russia ? b) can usa invade china ?

max steel wrote:Someone stated that Russia fulfill Boeing's demand of Titanium by supplying them 80 % . If Russia retaliates ( don't know when they'll get rid of their passive diplomacy ) , how one of the largest MIC company will even work ?

They will be bound to buy their Russian titanium indirect via european or asian countries, leaving them with higher costs while those european and asian countries make profit with russian titanium which they sell to US.

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.


EDIT:

Made an embarrassing mistake here.

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

Not over Azerbaijan but over Uzbekistan.

You mentioned Poland . Are you serious ? Even my country can level the whole poland .

max steel wrote:You mentioned Poland . Are you serious ? Even my country can level the whole poland .

South Pole has strategic weapons?

I guess Santa Claus won't be happy to hear about that. You should fear some sanctions on X-mas.

Technically saying, US is not able to occupy even a mid sized country for more than a few years. If US invaded Germany, it would have to withdraw after max. 5 years due to heavy casualties

As for potential invasion or Russia, I doubt many Euro countries would be willing to take part in it - of course excluding Poland, Baltics and Galician Ukrainians. US Army in Russia would face logistical shortages, harsh winter and would have to deal with raging partisan campaign in Belarus, Eastern Ukraine and Russia itself. I estimate that if Russians planned the entire campaign well, the invading force would collapse in less than a year and would not even reach Moscow.

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.

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.