 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
GePap,
Regarding your population numbers, you're quite right in theory, but you miss the point that if China were to lose 90% of it's urban population, it would also be losing all of its skilled workers, it's command and control centers, transportation hubs, industry, etc.
800 million peasants don't really mean much in a modern war, unless it's WW1 replayed (which means it isn't a modern war).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
GePap,
Regarding your population numbers, you're quite right in theory, but you miss the point that if China were to lose 90% of it's urban population, it would also be losing all of its skilled workers, it's command and control centers, transportation hubs, industry, etc.
800 million peasants don't really mean much in a modern war, unless it's WW1 replayed (which means it isn't a modern war). |
What Modern War? 800 Million peasants beat 50 million hungry people living in the ruins of their old suburbs, by a long shot. That is the point- simply by being more backwards a place like China or India would survive the devastation of a full nuclear exchange. Europe, Russia, and the US would not be so lucky.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patroklos
Not only could we destroy their navies in a few days time, we would destory every major power plant, military base, government building and transportation/bridge node too.
Then the Airforce would get you.
Then the Marine Corps.
Then the Army.
It is not simply the scale of our military that deserves comparison, it is the class too. India and China are easily 50 years behind us in capablity. Russia 10-15, and Brazil doesn't even register. Of course if we are talking about full scale ground wars of conquest, which would not happen, then it will be grunt to grunt. What we are really talking about is strategic positioning wars, where one side makes the others as miserable as possible until the other gives up. US/EU wins hands down. Hell, US wins hands down. |
Bullshit.
First will be our nukes.
Then there will be a radiactive wasteland where remains of your fancy Airforce, Marine and Army will play Fallout.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:19
|
|
Since 1949.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:19
|
|
Actually, my understanding is that Soviet missiles were designed to be maintained by peasant conscripts, rather than professional soldiers (like US missiles are designed), and as such they require less, or at least less complicated, maintenance.
But discussing any potential conflict by comparing nuclear arsenals is stupid - Russia and the US both have enough to **** the world over on their own. The Russians might resort to nuclear weapons if US forces were marching on Moscow (which I concede is virtually impossible), while the US might resort to nukes if the Russians were landing on the East Coast (also laughably impossible).
As has been pointed out, the only war likely (if you can call it that) to be fought between major powers or power blocs is exactly the type of war that the US would win - an air/naval war, with limited ground fighting in areas easily isolated by air and naval power.
On the other hand, if it's a hypothetical US/EU vs. Russia/China/India/Brazil, and Russia has the cajones to actually invade Europe, there's little doubt in my mind that the Russian army, such as it is, would get it's ass handed to it, even without US ground troops landing in Europe.
Of course, Russia/China/etc., alliance would realize the gig was up pretty quick when they found themselves with no navy, few remaining modern aircraft (at least when and where the US chose to fight), and were being bombed with impunity (at least in the case of Brazil, India, and China), AND suddenly found their Middle Eastern oil cut off - if you think such an alliance could just march in and occupy the Middle East, you haven't paid much attention to the geography and accompanying logistics of the area, nor are you likely aware of where the bulk of the US army is likely to be deployed for some time. Besides, India would have to go through Pakistan, and that's just a nasty little war waiting to happen - even if India won, they'd be useless anywhere else (more so than they would be at the outset, that is).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Actually, my understanding is that Soviet missiles were designed to be maintained by peasant conscripts, rather than professional soldiers (like US missiles are designed), and as such they require less, or at least less complicated, maintenance.
|
David, maintenance of intercontinental ballistic missile and especially the one with nuclear device (or devices) inside cannot be easy and cheap by definition.
In USSR/Russia conscripts drafted to missile forces already have good technical education. Conscrips drafted to missile forces are people who just finished some kind of technical university, they are engineers and specialists in feild of physic and electronics. Also they already have military rank of junior leutenant. I don't know how in US, but in many Russian universities and institutes (mostly the ones that related to military somehow- physic, chemistry, electronics, etc) students learn military skills and disciplines during all five years of their education and when they finish their university they also recieve rank of junior leutenant. So they are not just a bunch of peasants. My father was drafted as junior leutenant to missile forces after he finished his education in university.
I have no idea about concripts/professionals ratio in Russian missile forces, but suspect that precentage of conscripts is way lesser, esp. in comparison with other brunches of our forces.
quote:
But discussing any potential conflict by comparing nuclear arsenals is stupid - Russia and the US both have enough to **** the world over on their own. The Russians might resort to nuclear weapons if US forces were marching on Moscow (which I concede is virtually impossible), while the US might resort to nukes if the Russians were landing on the East Coast (also laughably impossible).
As has been pointed out, the only war likely (if you can call it that) to be fought between major powers or power blocs is exactly the type of war that the US would win - an air/naval war, with limited ground fighting in areas easily isolated by air and naval power.
On the other hand, if it's a hypothetical US/EU vs. Russia/China/India/Brazil, and Russia has the cajones to actually invade Europe, there's little doubt in my mind that the Russian army, such as it is, would get it's ass handed to it, even without US ground troops landing in Europe.
Of course, Russia/China/etc., alliance would realize the gig was up pretty quick when they found themselves with no navy, few remaining modern aircraft (at least when and where the US chose to fight), and were being bombed with impunity (at least in the case of Brazil, India, and China), AND suddenly found their Middle Eastern oil cut off - if you think such an alliance could just march in and occupy the Middle East, you haven't paid much attention to the geography and accompanying logistics of the area, nor are you likely aware of where the bulk of the US army is likely to be deployed for some time. Besides, India would have to go through Pakistan, and that's just a nasty little war waiting to happen - even if India won, they'd be useless anywhere else (more so than they would be at the outset, that is). |
Blah...blah...blah...
Good old myth about American supremacy.
You can't even deal with buch of ragheads in Iraq, and still whine you can easily beat us... 
Indian Airforce equipped with our old planes absolutely f*cked your pathetic USAF during their last joint manoeuvres.
Beat Indians first, then we will talk.
Last edited by Serb on 15-11-2004 at 15:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:19
|
|
Add terrible Russian winter which saved our butts in WW2 and it will be a 100% Floyd's troll.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-11-2004 23:39
|