who would win the war???
Side Score: 66
Side Score: 49
America would win the third world war at first. Then nobody would win since nukes would destroy planet earth. The only reason we did not demolish Russia before was that they had a barge full of nuclear bombs with enough nukes to destroy the world. It would all end up as everyone dieing but if the war happened the US would have the upper hand until everyone sent nukes at each other murking everyone.
We would slaughter Russia. Right now everyone's pissed about the Iraq war and we're divided, but if Russia invades us or something, then suddenly everyone's united. In spite of Bush's best efforts to squander them, we still have more resources than any country. We also have more nukes than the rest of the world combined. We wouldn't need them though. Our technology is better. We have more money. Most of all we care more. At the end of the day Americans love America more than Russians love Russia. Russians are patriotic because they fear, Americans are patriotic because we love freedom. Of course one of the two parties has been trying to switch to the fear kind of patriotism, but we're resiliant.
And Canada? Are you kidding?
Side: United States
During the Cold War you were right about nuclear Armageddon killing everyone, but that was before the US became the dominant nuclear power. When the USSR and the US had roughly equivalent numbers of nuclear weapons MAD applied, now anyone who deployed nukes against the United States only gets the last two letters: Assured Destruction. Thousands, perhaps even millions of Americans would die; but the perpetrator would pay much more dearly for their trouble. Russia's nuclear arsenal is steadily aging and showing no signs of growing or revamping, their strategic bombers have been mothballed and their subs are either at dock or their crews are significantly under trained. Nuclear war is out of the question.
No this is a question of conventional war, and the US has the best trained and armed military in the world; bar none. That doesn't mean that the war would be short and bloodless, it does mean that in a straight up fight the US has very little chance of being defeated.
I don't understand why people are voting for Russia. The United States is proven to be the strongest military power on the planet. Combined with NATO and the EU, which will be on the American side of the war, it would be basically impossible for Russia and its potential allies to win. Now obviously this is a hypothetical situation and it is therefore inaccurate to say that NATO and the EU will be on the US side regardless of the situation, but based on the past, most European countries have had closer ties to America than Russia. Also, considering the fact that Russia is not a member of NATO and the US is, there is no reason to believe that Russia will have any NATO country as an ally. Since NATO is also designed so that if one member gets attacked, the other members lead an offensive against the opposing nation, Russia would immediately have 28 countries fighting against them if they chose to attack the USA. This is in addition to, of course, the 27 EU member countries. Not even to mention the technological advancements that the US has over Russia.
Russians have some elite hacking groups responsible for things like the Storm worm. Aimed against one nation, they could become quite powerful. And in today's world, if you take down enemy communications, you render much of their forces impotent.
Of course, it's still questionable whether the hackers could make big enough of a difference - if the hackers even decided to help Russia.
Russia would win, here is why, one simple word.
Here we have americans, saying Russian army is shit, this is funny, coming from country who was defeated by Canada in 1812.
Everyone in the past who says Russian army is shit and goes to war with Russia always ends up losing, one such example would be Hitler. unlike america, who can't defeat third world nations like Vietnam, North Korea, Iraq or even Canada.
The debate should be, can america defeat Canada? Russia is obviously way out of their league!!!
The Germans would have won, but by then Hitler was too sick to efficiently lead. At one point he slept 24 hours straight while Russia was attacking and Germany couldn't respond because there was a standing order to not wake Hitler. It had little to do with Russia, them winning those battles, it had more to do with Hitler being addicted to anphedamines and being in the middle stages of what looks like Parkinsons.
Next point. We defeated Germany, not Russia. Russia defended its borders.
Russia defended it's borders in the sense that early Romans 'defended their borders'. The rationale is that if you kill your neighbours, then your neighbours cannot harm you. More to the point, an incompetent leader does not necessitate stagnant leadership. If we look at Mao's mismanagement of China, we still see adept figures who are able to rise and act despite their disillusioned leader. Moreover, who do you encompass under 'we'? It is unspecified if you refer to allied forces or to America's entry into the war. I would also like to allude to Stalin's pact of non aggression with Hitler, indeed, Stalin expected Hitler to attack, however realised at the time that Russia could not sustain an immediate war with Germany because of it's technological inferiority, the non aggression pact was suppose to last until 1942 in order to buy Stalin time to build the infrastructure necessary to sustain a war effort. This strategy involved shifting industry away from the front lines to secure areas. One should then note that Russia expected to lose until such a point where it's base industry was strong enough to manufacture weaponry and equipment necessary to win battles. Yes, the USA entered in 1941, and yes, Hitler suffered from illness, but that should not discount the finesse with which Russians executed their own strategy, and indeed the significant grounds reclaimed by Russia as it engaged itself more wholistically.
you are obviously a propaganda bloated zombie... 1. Germany lost because of Russia, US claims WAY more than they actually didto Germany, if you think US defeated Germany you are a dumbfuck who knowledge came from an American textbook made by a man with literally no education other than from movies wo was born from Texas: Operation Baggration, Stalingrad, Leningrad, Karhkov, Sevastopol, andmost importantly THE BATTLE OF FUCKING BERLIN!!!!!! were all RUSSIAN victories and had nothing to do with US, these are also known by historians (note not primary school textbook writers) know are the most desciceiv and important victories against GErmany. HOW DARE YOU SAY US BEAT GERMANY AND NOT RUSSIA ! 2/ GErmany had no chance of winningf, although they had less casualties they were hopelessely outnumbered and way too thinly spread, also take into account that by te time the Germans got to the kazak they would have literally no oil reserves, therefor making it impossible to defeat russia ( this is a problem america would face in if they went to war with russia, even thought you have more oil you dont have enough to hold get through such a vast terrain, too much area) 3. The US is sickly unnprepared for a war against a superpower that outclasses them(Russia) as tehy are thinly spread across the earth and have used most of there materials on lOSING wars in the middle east. 4. the only nation that recognizes US as a strong nation right now is the US. 5. Hitler being asleep would have very little to do with Germany's failure in WWII as this would infact give Germany a temporary upperhand as Hitler wasunskilled in war tactics so his genarals coyuld make the plans and not him. 5. notice that while they claim to be strongest nation on earth, US has lost every war they have gotten involved in since after WWII: Korea, Vietnam, Desert storm, Iraq, gahnistan, and soon .. IRan. 6. Everytime Russia is attacked, no matter how grim it looks, we ALWAYS win, ALWAYS!!! 7. US might have more, but there SEAL team is dead, most of your soliders are ill-trained teenagers, and the stuff you have sucks, and russia has little theyre stuff is better
"Here we have americans, saying Russian army is shit, this is funny, coming from country who was defeated by Canada in 1812."
That isn't really an argument.
Following this logic I could easily say:
Here we have a Russian who praises his country armed forces, this is funny coming from a country who was defeated in 1612 by Poland (Poles took Moscow and not by treachery like Russians like to call it but by defeating Russian forces) and again in 1920 and who can't even defeat a third world country like Afghanistan. (Russia did loose there)
The debate should be can Russia defeat Poland? (I don't have doubts that she can :P) America is obviously way out of their league!!!
See? It's very simple. If you want to start a debate submit some real arguments.
Like for example America's Army is fully a professional Army where Russia depends mainly on conscripts.
Well, you guys got defeated by canada, who, unlike poland, is not a real nation or never had an empire, like say, the poles did. also, russia conquered poland many times, america, has never conquered canada. And you can't use afghanistan against russia, you can't defeat talibs either. And the worst part is, no one is giving them weapons like you guys did for them against the soviets, so if anything, you are doing worse there, and you are bombing droves of civilians in the process. And you can't say your soldiers are proffessional, no you can't. Your army has drastically reduced reqruiting requirements to fill their ranks for the wars in Iraq and afghanistan, and you know that they are now reqruiting thugs and criminals. No, your arguement that america's army is proffessional could of held water, before Iraq, but not now. There is infamous video of us soldiers and what they do in their free time, very proffessional. Look at all these cry babies bitch about it so much I can't even find the video, stupid cows, stop bitching! I don't want to see your face!
there is this too
then there is my favourite, these geniuses,
Reality is, american army is not all that proffessional. At least, no more or less than russian army.
Wow, what an utter lack of historical perspective. I'll examine each of these issue one by one.
The War of 1812 was fought between the United States and the United Kingdom. There was, at one point, a campaign to "liberate" Canada that was turned back by British soldiers whether they be from Canada or from the Great Britain they were backed by the United Kingdom. In the end, the US won the war anyway.
In both world wars Russia ended up on the winning side, but that doesn't change the fact that they took enormous casualties and spent most of the time pushing the Germans out of their borders. In both cases, the Germans had two (or more) fronts to support.
Vietnam was lost politically, the United States withdrew because the American people were no longer interested in fighting the war, not because the enemy forced them out. There's a distinction between a military loss and a political one.
How one can call Iraq a loss I can't fathom, the Iraqi government is composed of democratically elected leaders and Iraqi security is largely maintained by the Iraqi people.
In either case, the US itself was in little danger in both wars, Vietnam was fought on behalf of US allies, and once the war began there was no chance that Iraq would be capable of retaliating against the US directly.
Finally, I think that Canadians everywhere would resent being called a "third world country." Perhaps you should check the definition of the word.
"Spetsnaz!"- are you implying that one group of special forces could destroy the entire US army?
"coming from country who was defeated by Canada in 1812."- you obviously don't know your history. Canada wasn't even a country in 1812. It was a part of the British Empire, therefore we were fighting the British Empire.
"goes to war with Russia always ends up losing"- what about the Japanese?
"who can't defeat third world nations like Vietnam, North Korea, Iraq or even Canada."- the President was unauthorized to send us to Vietnam and therefore it was an unjust war. We were never trying to destroy North Korea. The Iraq war obviously hasn't ended yet, and we aren't even fighting Iraq. I already explained Canada.
The US is the strongest military power in the world.
Durak! (And since you're Russian I know you know what that means.)
Your special forces wouldn't do anything against us. Before the breakup of the Soviet Union things would have been intresting but now... it's a no brainer.
A wonderful little factor that would determine who'd win is a little something called N.A.T.O attack the US and you have about 27 very pissed off countries that could kick mucho butt. Sort of a "one for all and all for one" kind of thing. Amoung our allies:
Even if we went one on one without any allies the US soldiers have advanced weapons and training. Sure Russian soldiers have better durability i'll give you that but we have the more advanced guns. If we won the war i don't think it would take long for the Russian crowd to come to our side i mean take what we offer and compare it to what Russia currently has. Americanziation, Google it dude, it's happening all over the world without war.
And as I recall Canada wasn't even a country back then so we were really fighting the British Empire which we eventually DID beat. Oh, BTW the US has about the same amount of soldiers in ONE state (Texas) than what Canada has in about their WHOLE military. I don't mean any disrespect i'm just pointing out the facts.
"The debate should be, can america defeat Canada? Russia is obviously way out of their league!!!"- LMFAO darling i think it's the other way around :)
Side: United States
The defeat of America within Vietnam, North Korea and Iraq stems not from military prowess but from social discrepancies. History has proven that invaders cannot colonise a land permanently without thoroughly cleansing it of its native inhabitants. Surely this is evident from the British colonisation of Australia, New Zealand, North America, as well as the Spanish and Portuguese colonisation of what is now known as Latin America. No people encourage foreign rule. That is why the puppet state appears, to give the illusion of the government by the people. The sovereign rules like a boat floats on water, turbulence at any moment may sink the boat. For this reason, it is unlikely that either Russia or America can 'win' against each other, they may increase their diplomatic clout with respect to each other, but both countries have and will continue to exist for centuries yet.
Their technology is about equall but as much as i'd like to say america will win I can't but they won't lose. America has a population of nearly 3 times russia's but the usa only has an army of 250,000 right now russia has an army of 1,100,000 already to go. The reason russia would'nt win is america would keep churning out troops. Training takes about 2 years but in a draft only 1 ,and people who finish at different times would always be joining the war the reason russia couldn't use the time and troop shortage against us is we have a ocean in between and we'd have enough to hold off russia just not to counter russia. but eventually russia would run out of troops first because of their smally population. fYI todays treatys strictly are against the usage of nukes to prevent civilian deaths.
Side: eventally america
Americans, as much as I like to believe otherwise, are a bunch of pussies. What happens when a nation succeeds and people get what they want and live happy lives? They get soft.
If Russia were to invade the U.S. I would immediately collect all of my important things, hunting supplies/fire arms/etc, and leave the city. Head to the highest mountain covered densely in foliage, and make sure that I'm at least over 100 miles away from any city... and I would wait for people to collect like this. These people will be the fighters, everyone left in the cities will be wiped out. At any rate, the people in the cities would probably hold back any sort of resistance anyway.
I would be part of a resistance, and I would probably die, but oh well... I agree with the original concept of America, as it's own nation, more than I agree with Russia at all.
Russia would never be able to invade the United States. They couldn't do it by water since the US has the strongest navy in the world and they definitely couldn't do it by air since the US also has the strongest air force in the world.
Aircraft carriers= 12
Aircraft carriers= 1
USA= 18,169 air-based weapons
Russia= 3,888 air-based weapons
So I'm guessing you're Russian...
Read a history book, or watch a documentary. Russia was on the cusp of losing. Hitler made some dumb mistakes do to his addiction to Methanphetamines, and being in the late stages of Parkinsons. At one point he slept 24 hours while there was a standing order not to wake him, he lost key strategic positions and battles because the generals on the field were not allowed to change their tactics w/out Hitler's orders.
Where do you get this idea that anyone wants to discredit the Russian army?
What I stated is historical fact, agreed upon by nearly every historian. Russia, for that brief moment in histoy was one of the good guys, and if it was not for the fact that Hitler had to concentrate his forces there, it would have been a much longer and bloodier war. But the reasons for their involvement were not altruistic, they watched, as the Americans did, ethnic cleansing, and a dictator who was not even elected, but wrestled power from his predecessor after death, nearly take over a continent. You seem to be confused. Saying one loses or nearly loses a war, does not mean they were somehow wrong, or should not be paid respect. The fact is that Russia did not believe Germany would actually attack, and so were taken by suprise. They were not ready, and Germany nearly made it to Moscow.
As for praising Hitler, I must have missed something. I've mentioned Hitler in probably a half dozen debates, never have I in any way praised him, or supported his ideology. Quite the opposite, as an American, I deplore him, everything he stood for, and anyone like him.
You demand all you want, but Russia has not earned anyone's respect. You're confusing respect with fear. And Russia isn't really even worthy of fear anymore, except by tiny impoverished States like Georgia.
Watched? Only out of a necessity, because your country is one of cowards, Russia alone did not posses the power to defeat hitler, not yet. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
This link, these declassified documents, rebuke your uninformed opinion that stalin didn't know hitler was coming, and shines a new light to reveal the evil innaction was the fault of you western "good guys".
You are right americow, to gain respect, russia has to follow america's example http://www.commondreams.org/headline/
DO NOT MAKE ME LAUGH.
First of all Russia's contribution to the war was vary important to defeating Germany. Even if you deny the military contribution of Russia, you can't possibly deny that Russia didn't force Germany to fight on two flanks. Because Germany split its forces it was not able to conquer all of Western Europe, but nonetheless it came close. As with with orders i think you will find that at first Stalin called the shots as well, so it wasn't just Germany that didn't have command and communication problems.
Largely because Russia once was "communist" America for the longest time and currently in some areas hates and distrusts Russia. That is obvious just from the media bias against Russia in the last few years plus the entire cold war period. And your point that "Russia, for that brief moment in history was one of the good guys" is further proof that many still don't like Russia. Russia has been demonized because it was "communist". If you look at America's involvement throughout the world you sill see that majority of the time America is perfectly fine with allowing a dictatorship exist.
While i don't think you were praising Hitler you were belittling the sacrifices of Russians by saying that the reason Germany lost was because of Hitler's mistakes. In just the battle of Stalingrad Russia lost a million Russians, whereas america lost no more than 600,000 during all of world war 2.
As an american means nothing to the degree you deplore Hitler since compared to Russia, or any Western European nation America suffered little under Hitler's cruelty. You should deplore Hitler as a human being, being american has nothing to do with it as history has proven america has also recklessly killed innocence people, but behind the name of democracy and spreading capitalism.
No nation demands respect but when a people of that nation fight for their lives and to destroy an enemy such as hitler they demand respect. Russians, Americans, Britons and others demand respect for their fight against Hitler's war machine. Put aside your anti-Russian bias and think of them as just human beings and then realize that they were human beings just like you and me but the majority of them lived through a fate they could not prevent and far worse than most if any american has experienced.
By Not respecting russia, for their insurmountably important contribution, by not acknowledging that Russia, who marched on berlin, who even if had lost moscow, would have fought willfully, or against their will, to the death to stop hitler, under Stalin's oppressive regime, you discredit 20 million russian soldiers, and belittle their massive achievements and their great sacrifice. You spit on the graves of my ancestors, my great grandfather, his friends, their families, their suffering is reduced to "respectless border defence" dispite having marched and taken berlin? How does that work? I suppose that when you invaded Iraq it was only border defense? Such strange american logic?
I will tell you americow, that Normandy was succesful only through hitler's mistake. His general wanted to stop them at the beach, hitler let them establish a beach head foolishly, and held his panzer divisions back >:)
And who are you, mr. My country will drop bombs on civilians, to say who is feared and respected?