English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Now ho would win between these two armys and what would be the casuakties.
If Amerika figths Russia then Amerika will be gone for sure.

2007-03-03 06:20:19 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

14 answers

It is hard to say without a scenario.

What would each sides goals be? Where would they fight?

2007-03-03 06:29:38 · answer #1 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0 0

Without using nuclear weapons - probably the US. Even though they're outnumbered 2 to one by Russian soldiers the US spends a LOT more than Russia does on its army. Needless to say the casualties in a war would be absolutely monumental.

Using nuclear weapons either side would "win" - if winning a world devoid of almost all life and certainly of civilization is a victory.

If however Russia sided with China, or another large military power such as a potential EU wide army then the US would have trouble beating back the absolute hordes of troops that alliance would bring.

2007-03-03 14:27:09 · answer #2 · answered by Mordent 7 · 1 0

In a nuclear age, the only real enemy is war itself. Unfortunately, WWIII will be global suicide, therefore in answer to your question, as long as there's rational superpowers who believe in MAD, there will be no WW3. By definition, the next world war wil be nuclear, how could it not. In a nuclear war there will be no winner. In a nuclear world, the only true enemy is war itself.

The next World War will involve a nuclear exchange, how could it not if both sides believe no price for victory will be too high. In the first 30 minutes, nearly a billion people will have been vaporised, mostly in the US, Russia, Europe, China and Japan. Another 1.5 billion will die shortly thereafter from radiation poisoning. The northern hemisphere will be plunged into prolonged agony and barbarity.

Eventually the nuclear winter will spread to the southern hemisphere and all plant life will die. You ask what country would be victorious, you are asking when will we commit global suicide. My answer is it won't happen soon because the larger superpowers are more rational than the rump states in the middle east.

While we hear talk of a nuclear-Iran or a confrontation with NorKor, little is said about the 2 bulls in the glass shop. The arsenals of Russia and the US are enough to destroy a million Hiroshimas. But there are fewer than 3000 cities on the Earth with populations of 100,000 or more. You cannot find anything like a million Hiroshimas to obliterate. Prime military and industrial targets that are far from cities are comparatively rare. Our biggest threat is from an accidental launch by the Russians.

At the point of global suicide, it doesn't matter who is on what side.... In a nuclear age like i said before, the only true enemy is war itself.

2007-03-04 04:10:19 · answer #3 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0 0

You must be dreaming to think America and Russia would fight. They two will never fight directly they will fight else where and supporting different army.

It just will not happen. In the case if they did fight directly the 30% of the world will be destroyed because of the fire power they have. And don't ask the silly question if US has so much fire power why can't they win in Iraq. In Iraq America is not fighting an Army but just random people dressed in civilian clothes using gorilla tactics.

By the way the 30% of the world being destroyed is because earth has roughly 30% land mass.:D

2007-03-03 15:27:14 · answer #4 · answered by Xtrax 4 · 0 0

America don't want to mess with Russia. Russia not only makes missiles and bombs, but Putin is nothing to **** with. Russia is twice as big as America and Russia is Iran and North Koreas allies. We have the technology but they have the KGB or KBG whatever that is and America knows that those boys do not play by the rules they are straight mafias and wouldnt hesitate to kill any american soldier execution style or on national television.

2007-03-03 14:53:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

America would use its overwhelming Naval Force in conjunction with its army. It would only take a few Submarines or larger destroyers parked near the arctic circle to bombard russian cities such as St. Petersburg with ADCAP's and other precision GPS guided weapons.

2007-03-03 14:39:18 · answer #6 · answered by Brandon P 2 · 0 0

it would be a draw, M.A.D.
also, without nukes russia would lose an offensive war, and win a defensive. US has NATO to back it up. China would not help russia, they hate each other, and the US would get the Chechens to help fight as well. So Russia would have no chance of an offensive victory, but the US and it's allies would never be able to capture and occupy Russia forever.

2007-03-03 14:27:59 · answer #7 · answered by anonomama 3 · 0 1

Military budget:

522 Billion... United States of America

13 billion... Russia

2007-03-03 14:23:39 · answer #8 · answered by Gottlos 4 · 1 0

I was understanding that from looking at the U.S. budget for the last 15 years. That our money is the only thing keeping your army in boots and vodka. All we would have to do is stop feeding,and clothing you guys and you would freeze to death or starve in 6 months. We win and we didn't have to fire a single shot.

2007-03-03 23:09:26 · answer #9 · answered by Mother 6 · 0 0

America. Russia is too poor to field an effective military. Their best equipment is old and outclassed, and no one is trained to use it anyway.

2007-03-03 14:28:55 · answer #10 · answered by Jolly1 5 · 0 0

America will win for sure! The Russians have NOTHING!!

2007-03-03 14:26:31 · answer #11 · answered by Tom 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers