SU vs US

[Terror]

Well i don't know all, they just told me that both the US and Russia have enough Nukes to destroy the world (humanity i guess). Allthough i agree i think that is kinda exaggerated (or something like that). Probably at least 1 billion humans will survive, probably more.

In Terminator 3, when Skynet launches all the nuclear missiles on the world, i believe only 3 billion people were killed... that's half the world population, ofcourse all economy and all major cities were wiped out though.

[Mahdi]

Well i don't know all, they just told me that both the US and Russia have enough Nukes to destroy the world (humanity i guess). Allthough i agree i think that is kinda exaggerated (or something like that). Probably at least 1 billion humans will survive, probably more.

I beleive that even after all the disarming they still have enough to kill every single human being on earth 500 times.

[Caid Ivik]

In fact, few litres of concentrated anthrax spores would kill all of us as well, but this is only theoretical. People are spreaded...

[Scrinlord]

Well i don't know all, they just told me that both the US and Russia have enough Nukes to destroy the world (humanity i guess). Allthough i agree i think that is kinda exaggerated (or something like that). Probably at least 1 billion humans will survive, probably more.

I beleive that even after all the disarming they still have enough to kill every single human being on earth 500 times.

Not 500 times, but probably about 10 or 20 times over. The only people who would survive a nuke war would be the people who were in protective shelters that were not directly targeted. But even after the bombs had gone off, and the people came back out, the entire globe would be covered with enough radiation to kill any living thing that was exposed to it, and there would be no way for those people to obtain food and stuff like that afterwords.

In a nuke war, EVERYONE dies.

If nukes were not used on the other hand, it really depends on where the war was fought. If it was like WW2, and was fought in Europe, I dont think that the USA would have been able to organize a defence in time to save Europe, just because of the huge numbers the USSR had. But if the US had a chance to organize a defence, or if they were able to counterattack, I believe that the US would win, because of superior technology and much better training, but a European war is a very iffy prospect.

If, on the other hand the USSR was to try and invade America directly, I think that it is almost certain that the US would have won, because while the soviets had huge numbers of troops, they have no effective way to get them here, and they would not be able to get very much past our navy. And of course, you also have to realize that American citizens owning guns is a huge advantage to the US, especially in places like Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, where half of the citizens are better shots than a marine sniper.

[Caid Ivik]

In fact, whole eastern block had compulsory militia training, so I can't say this wasn't considered. Many Americans have pistols in their houses. Wow. Many Russians, Polish, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians etc had a full armory for everyone on closest National Council.

Naval problem would be easily solved. Problem is that US Navy uses mostly large concentrated fleets with very vulnerable, huge aircraft carriers. Tactical nuclear torpedoes from submarines would solve them quickly. Also there was a big gap in aerospace, Canada. Large arctic areas had virtually no defense, so russian bombers could easily enter it and launch accurate missiles against all northern US.

[Scrinlord]

The US navel fleet is not all that easy of a target. Yes, the US has vulnerabilities, but far less than most people, and lots less that the USSR fleet. And while russian bombers could get into canada, we would almost definatly know that they were there, at least in time to do SOMETHING about it. I am not saying that a US v USSR war would be some little thing, or that it would be an easy victory, I just think that the US would end up winning.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, most of russian surface vessels are only support ships for submarines. But this is just a technical problem. As use of nuclear weaponary (at least tactical) would be inevitable, we don't have to talk about aiming technology...and other such support electronics. In fact, there would be no need for invasions, as both US and Russia are too large for it. But if it would be in just crippling of economy, such raid war would bring more to attacker. Same for red as those blue.

[Scrinlord]

And yes, I know that Russian surface vessels are mostly Submarine support, but quite frankly, Russian submarines really are not that good. And the only way that they can win a navel war is using nuclear weapons, the Russian navy did not have the numbers, technology, or training to defeat the US at sea.

And if we are talking about an economic war, the USSR never had the capability to defeat the US economically. And it would take a large portion of the Russian economy to mount an attack on the US that had any chance of succeding, and it is doubtful that they would actually come out of the war ahead from a monetary standpoint.

[Caid Ivik]

You don't need a GOOD submarine to sink a ship. Large surface fleets can't maneuver very much without being sighted, so you just need a few submarines to set a trap and a wolf-group to catch them. And with a tactical nuke (while we can say they were built for them), you need just one-two torpedoes to just explode close to that fleet. And even the oldest attack subs carried nuclear torpedoes. Torpedoes, not air missiles. This fleet of submarines isn't vulnerable to it, only by diverse spionage and never ending attacks on their docks. Ship itself can be found very hardly, surface fleet can be seen even from space. Not only trough light, underwater craft also shows less heat emissions and such. And armament of later submarine classes was nearly same as in american surface cruisers, which had even lower tonnage! Large submarines can become a field command for bombers and other assault forces, in fact they can store many missiles for fire support as well.

And economy is the most vulnerable target. Nuclear war would target its centres at first. You know, nuclear weapon was always a regular part of world conflict scenarios. All units are tried to be fit with it. You see, submarine fleets, STOL aircraft (for field airstrips), warning systems. Such war wouldn't be about conquering, but crippling the other. One side will try to cripple communications, economy, infrastructure and at last military hardware of the opponent. And also pray that defence systems will be effective.

[Warskum]

I think the USSR would have take down the US ground units if they would reach Russia because of the Russian

guerrilla.

[Scrinlord]

True, you dont need a good sub to sink a ship, but often times you need a good sub get close enough to fire, and US carrier battle groups were never at see without at least a few of our own submarines playing defense. Russian submarines were very very loud compared to their American counterparts. the quitest sub they had was the Akula, and that was several years behind the American subs at the time. And torpedo launches are loud, even if a sub got close enough to launch, it would probably never get a second chance, and the Russian economy could not stand loosing very many subs, because they did not have very many working subs(I think 50% of them were in drydock for repairs at a time, Russian subs were extremely inefficiant)

And yes, I know that the economy was the weakest target, but the situation mentioned was saying that nuclear weapons would not be used, and I do not think that the soviets could have crippled our economy without crippling themselves in the process. But when nukes are used(as they would in reality) all bets are off.

[Caid Ivik]

For a torpedo launch, you need not more less 10 mile distance. Enemy destroyer at such distance can fire back only by missiles, vulnerable by SA defence, or a cannon. And both systems are too inaccurate against underwater unit. Only if they were fortunate, a slower bomber can find and sink it with deep bombs. Even if there were fifteen found, sixteenth will be the death. But it was fortunate russian economy declined so much they couldn't deploy very large numbers at once. Socialism is simply unproductive.

Problem is that they simply would be used. Both powers were based on them, tactical as well as strategical.

[Scrinlord]

I dont care about destroyers, the best anti sub units in the world are other subs. And yes, you only need to get to within 10 miles to launch a torp. but we have sonars that can detect a torp launch at 5 times that distance. And the US has plenty of other anti sub weapons. The P-3 Orion is a plane that was designed specifically to hunt out and kill enemy submarines. Same thing with the Sea King(I think its the sea king) Helicopter. We also have missiles whos sole purpose is to carry a guided topedo to a target, so we can have a sonar guided torpedo within 1 or 2 miles of an enemy sub within 2-5 min after a torp launch. We can kill an enemy sub before he torp gets to us, and in the case of most russian weapons, that means that the torp looses guidence, and it either self destructs, or it just keeps on going and going until it runs out of fuel.

The Russians would not be able to win a war at sea.

And yes, nukes would be used in reality, but then NO one would win, and this debate would be pointless, but its more interesting to pretend that they would not be used, so pointless debates are possible. :P :)

[Acriku]

Russian subs are breaking down, most of them already gone.

[Caid Ivik]

Of course. In today's world, naval threat is lowering, so Russia spends much less for her submarine fleet. In close future, they will have a fleet of about 10-20 multipurpose submarines with few surface ships. And Kuznecov, altough I doubt she will sent a fighter to battle once... Do you know how that carrier must carry FOURTEEN Jak-38 fighters? ;D

[Scrinlord]

Only 14?

Then again, Russia really does not have enough money to uphold a large, technologically powered military anymore. But still, only 14 fighters?

[Caid Ivik]

Well, Su-33s and helicopters hold much place on her. But I also thought it isn't enough due to Jak-38's crashability...

[Scrinlord]

yeah, they should just do away with the JAKs anyways. They crash half the time and are not decent planes really even when they do fly. They just dont work very well. They should just buy some old AV-8Bs, they work better and need less maitnence.

The Su-33s are decent planes tho

[SpiceGuid]

If no Atomic Weapons are used: The Soviet Union, with its large numbers, would make huge gains early in the war. The USSR would probably have reached as far as France.

That's precisely why we also have atomics.