Who would win?

[liberty]

My money would be on the Russians; they have a more capable president and a tougher people. Unless the war ended fast they would win.



Russia And NATO Prepare For Possible War

Tensions continues to ramp up between Russia and the United States, as geopolitical manoeuvers unfold. The uneasy peace between the Eastern and Western superpowers seems to be deteriorating further, with both sides taking action which has resulted in distrust increasing further.

Russia Nuclear Weapons Iskander missile launcher

Putin increases nuclear warhead haul

Just last week, the Russian supremo Vladimir Putin announced that Russia intended to expand its existing nuclear arsenal. This move would see the nation establishing forty new intercontinental ballistic missiles to add to its existing quota. Considering that Russia and the United States collectively have in the region of 15,000 nuclear warheads, one might not unreasonably wonder what is the point of Russia acquiring another forty. There is no doubt that should the United States or Russia ever fire a nuclear weapon at one another, the ultimate result would be unprecedented and unimaginable global devastation.

Unfortunately, both Russia and the United States have engaged in actions in recent months which have resulted in the diplomatic situation between the two nations deteriorating. The latest increase in nuclear weapons announced by Russia seems to have led to a new phase of posturing and military manoeuvres, which is the latest in a phase of rising tensions that began with the Ukraine conflict back in 2013.

Geopolitical conflict

As has been reported previously by ValueWalk, the existing situation must be seen in the slightly geopolitical context. Russia and the US are historical rivals anyway, but the pairing of Russia with China in the new BRICS power bloc places pressure on the traditional US-led hierarchy. The old world order of the Anglo-American and EU / NATO-driven institutions is being challenged by the BRICS, and the powerful organization has already made it a stated goal to play a greater role in existing economic institutions, or if this is not achievable to set up a central bank of its own.

ValueWalk reported sometime ago that the BRICS nations have been scheming to create their own central bank, as the major political and business figures from the Eastern world continue to be frozen out of the existing global economic infrastructure. Whether this is a serious intention, or rather a bargaining chip in an ongoing debate and struggle, remains to be seen. But what is certain is that the existing tension between the United States and Russia should be seen as a symptom of this situation.

Russia’s replacement strategy

According to Adam Mount, a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, the announcement which has recently been made by Putin does not actually signifying a significant change in Russian nuclear policy. Mount suggests that Russia is fully compliant with the New START treaty, which limits strategic launches such as ICBMs.

Russia’s existing nuclear capability is indeed dating owing to its Soviet-Europe vintage. Russia must continue to take delivery of forty new weapons every year simply to replicate the existing capability. This is essentially the explanation for the extra warheads which have been ordered by the Russian president, and doesn't really represent an increase in the nation's nuclear capabilities.



Regardless of the realities of this announcement, it still presents an opportunity for NATO to ramp up the rhetoric against the nation. Indeed, NATO officials have already expressed concern over the announcement made by Putin, with The Guardian newspaper reporting concern within the military organization of the extent to which such weapons are being utilized in Russian military exercises.

US Building Defense System Against Russia Cruise Missile
Image Source: Defense One

NATO responds in kind

NATO has also taken explicitly aggressive steps of its own, by beefing up its Response Force. There are already thousands of soldiers and advanced military technology and weaponry stationed near Russia's borders in response to the Ukrainian situation, and this fighting force has recently been further increased. It already consists of 13,000 troops, but according to reports that emerged this week, NATO may now increase this to as much as 40,000.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has specifically stated that the move isn't intended to increase tensions, and NATO’s official policy is to seek neither confrontation nor a new arms race.

Naturally, Russia has been criticized for its policy in the Ukraine, but it is also notable that the United States and its allies have destabilized this relationship and region by directly supporting the overthrow of the Ukrainian government. The subsequent encircling of the nation with a large quotient of military force was only likely to ramp up tensions further.

And despite what has been stated about NATO's intentions by the organization itself, it seems that the military alliance that it represents is absolutely prepared to implement a more aggressive nuclear weapons strategy. NATO considers this to be a response to Russian aggression rather than a pre-emptive policy, but this will only serve to diminish the diplomatic relations between the Western and Eastern superpowers.

Nuclear response reported

It was reported again by The World Socialist Website that NATO is even planning to respond to any attempt by Russia to counter the United States with an even more aggressive military strategy. This could even include nuclear weapons.

While this is an extremely alarming prospect, and the continuing tensions between Russia and the United States are worrying, it is also important to understand the historical context of this conflict. While no-one wants to believe that either side is capable of utilizing nuclear weapons, as ValueWalk as reported previously, this in fact came incredibly close to occurring during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As the two big beasts in world geopolitics continue to saber rattle, one can only hope that ultimately a peaceful solution is sort to these inevitable tensions. In the iconic 1997 publication “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives”, Zbigniew Brzezinski outlined a shifting in the world order and power base which is unfolding before our very eyes now. Although Brzezinski is, not unreasonably, a reviled figure to many, it is notable that he didn't predict that it would end with armed conflict between Russia, China, the United States and the Western world.

With both power blocs continuing to behave with intransigence, one can only hope that this verdict turns out to be accurate.

[Econoline]

Who would win? You have to ask yourself: how much of the world would be on our side, and how much of the world would be on theirs? How many billions of people would want to fight for Vladimir Putin, and how many for the people of the United States of America? I, for one, am pretty sure I know the answer.

[liberty]

Who would win? You have to ask yourself: how much of the world would be on our side, and how much of the world would be on theirs? How many billions of people would want to fight for Vladimir Putin, and how many for the people of the United States of America? I, for one, am pretty sure I know the answer.

I have great respect for Econo, but you are wrong, billions of people around the world would not fight for us; they would sit on the side lines and wait for the winner. Which mostly likely would be the Russians. Our true national motto is not “in God we trust“, it is hell no we won’t go. We have the best professional army in the world but it is tiny. How many troops could we put in the field, a couple hundred thousand; even though they are half our population with time they could put a couple million in the field. They have a draft and we don’t . Their people will answer the call and our people won’t. My own grandchildren won’t fight for the country.

If Putin understood how morally weak we are he would launch an incursion into western Alaska. I have been to the Bering straits in the winter; it freezes hard enough one could drive trucks across. So there is no physical barrier to stop him. Without the use of tactical nukes we would be hard pressed to halt the incursion. And he could make the argument that Russia was cheated out of Alaska to justify his actions.

[Econoline]

Yes, billions of people around the world would not fight for us--but neither would they fight for Russia. NATO is strong and two of its other members have nuclear weapons, as does Israel. In the case of actual aggression against US territory, certainly the UK and France would contribute a lot to the US cause. And the US has shown (in WW2) that we can quickly raise a mighty fighting force of our own when we are fighting for a just cause.

Who has Russia got? Belarus? Palestine? North Korea? The only real question is whether China would support Russia, and I think that would very much depend on the specific circumstances of any particular conflict. But yeah, if it was the US, Canada, Europe, Israel, and Australia fighting against Russia and China combined, that would be much tougher and closer to call.

[BoSoxGal]

The U.S. is in no position to quickly raise an army as it was in WWII; the military has been facing grave issues with the young volunteer recruits being too physically unfit to complete boot camp.

That said, I'm quite sure we have the means to stop Russia in her tracks and would employ them if truly necessary. Hopefully Putin isn't that stupid.

[rubato]

Who would win? You have to ask yourself: how much of the world would be on our side, and how much of the world would be on theirs? How many billions of people would want to fight for Vladimir Putin, and how many for the people of the United States of America? I, for one, am pretty sure I know the answer.

I have great respect for Econo, but you are wrong, billions of people around the world would not fight for us; they would sit on the side lines and wait for the winner. Which mostly likely would be the Russians. Our true national motto is not “in God we trust“, it is hell no we won’t go. We have the best professional army in the world but it is tiny. How many troops could we put in the field, a couple hundred thousand; even though they are half our population with time they could put a couple million in the field. They have a draft and we don’t . Their people will answer the call and our people won’t. My own grandchildren won’t fight for the country.

If Putin understood how morally weak we are he would launch an incursion into western Alaska. I have been to the Bering straits in the winter; it freezes hard enough one could drive trucks across. So there is no physical barrier to stop him. Without the use of tactical nukes we would be hard pressed to halt the incursion. And he could make the argument that Russia was cheated out of Alaska to justify his actions.

You really do live in a bizarre fantasy land.


yrs,
rubato

[Long Run]

Flash is super fast, and speed usually wins. But Aquaman controls the water and that still counts for a lot. Batman, like the Green Hornet, has some nice martial arts skills and a bag full of nifty tricks and equipment, but overall pretty limited. Spiderman has some awesome skills, and he has that spider creepiness that can catch people off guard. Wonder Woman is a wonder and she gets dudes thinking with the wrong organ. But, the money has always got to be on Superman because he is da man!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Given the geographical complexity, my guess is Miss South Carolina - hands down

[liberty]

Who would win? You have to ask yourself: how much of the world would be on our side, and how much of the world would be on theirs? How many billions of people would want to fight for Vladimir Putin, and how many for the people of the United States of America? I, for one, am pretty sure I know the answer.

I have great respect for Econo, but you are wrong, billions of people around the world would not fight for us; they would sit on the side lines and wait for the winner. Which mostly likely would be the Russians. Our true national motto is not “in God we trust“, it is hell no we won’t go. We have the best professional army in the world but it is tiny. How many troops could we put in the field, a couple hundred thousand; even though they are half our population with time they could put a couple million in the field. They have a draft and we don’t . Their people will answer the call and our people won’t. My own grandchildren won’t fight for the country.

If Putin understood how morally weak we are he would launch an incursion into western Alaska. I have been to the Bering straits in the winter; it freezes hard enough one could drive trucks across. So there is no physical barrier to stop him. Without the use of tactical nukes we would be hard pressed to halt the incursion. And he could make the argument that Russia was cheated out of Alaska to justify his actions.

You really do live in a bizarre fantasy land.


yrs,
rubato

It is the fool that says it could never happen. Prior to WW II no one could Visualize the possibility of a holocaust in which millions would be murdered in an industrial process. The world can change and it can be for the worse and it happen in ways few at the time can see. In 1492 the world changed and it was only one of many.

Just because something is beyond your vision doesn’t mean it is a fantasy; perhaps you lack the imagination see that a far. I am not saying it will happen; I am saying it is a possibility given the character and history of Putin.

[Crackpot]

We would lose because of Puerto Rico.

[TPFKA@W]

You know our obesity epidemic might have come about decades earlier had it been thought of to avoid the draft.

[Big RR]

Well that's when we recruit all the undocumented aliens (most of whom work in manual labor jobs and are in pretty good shape with promises of citizenship.

BSG--any cite the recruits flunking out of boot camp and the numbers?

[MajGenl.Meade]

We would loose because of Puerto Rico.

FTFY

[liberty]

Well that's when we recruit all the undocumented aliens (most of whom work in manual labor jobs and are in pretty good shape with promises of citizenship.

BSG--any cite the recruits flunking out of boot camp and the numbers?

It appears to me that Latinos immigrants make better soldiers than most spoiled Americans ( Yankees). I did a check once and found that about half of the combat deaths in Iraq where from the nine southern states, so we still hold a lead over you Yankees in willingness to fight, but we going to pot too it is just a matter of time.

Why should immigrants fight for the country when they can get the benefits of citizenship free.

[liberty]

We would lose because of Puerto Rico.

Not so, but when it comes to Puerto Rico I don’t like being screwed without a ring and a commitment; I don’t want my country to be anyone’s hoe.

[liberty]

Has anyone here ever experienced the artic in deep winter? You would have to experience it for yourself to really understand. War in such an environment would truly be hell on earth; it would by comparison make a tropical war feel like a paradise. Considering the low possibility of victory I don’t think that I advise my grandson to fight.

[liberty]

Has anyone here ever experienced the artic in deep winter? You would have to experience it for yourself to really understand. War in such an environment would truly be hell on earth; it would by comparison make a tropical war feel like a paradise. Considering the low possibility of victory I don’t think that would I advise my grandson to fight.

[Crackpot]

7 hours between double posts. Alt least now it has something to make it notable.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Has anyone here ever experienced the artic in deep winter?

I went snowmobiling in Canada when it was -30F. Machines were cranky that morning.

[Gob]

Slept out just below the summit of Mt Blanc.