'Eroded' U.S. Military Could Lose War Against Russia Or China

Chief

Former Staff
Nov 2009
31,265
17,833
SoCal
#31
Spending ain't everything. Spending so much, to me, just means that the US military is getting overcharged like crazy for everything by their MIC...

But, as far as winning or losing a war with Russia... I would say it depends what sort of war.

Again, Russia could never effectively fight an offensive campaign against NATO.

But a defensive one, on own land, that would be a very, very different story.

It's not about the technology or the money. It's about the people.

Let me give you an example, a little story.

Look at this girl







Looks like just a regular little girl, right?

What if I told you, that this is Bogdana Nesheret, considered the youngest ever person to have fought on the separatst side in the Donbass, having been involved in the struggle there since the beginmning in 2014, when she was barely 9 (nine!) years old

having followed her father into the ranks of a militia

I recall one of her early photos from the war, on her VKontakte (Russian Facebook). The caption was "I cannot shoot my AK yet, it is too big and heavy for me right now. But I do what I can, I bring ammo to the grown up fighters out there, and I have bandaged the wounded sometimes. I help any way I can. No [slur for pro-Kiev Ukrainians] scum will walk on our Donbass land and remain alive!"

A nine year old girl wrote this. No joke. She's become a popular folk hero over the years, pretty much.

That's her in more recent times, this year, what, 13 now, training to become an officer in the separatist forces when grows up



My point, is this... That, above, that is who the Russians are, as a people.

I recall a conversation with a naive person here, who thought that if NATO manages to invade Russia, there would be adoring crowds waiting for them, thanking them for getting rid of Putin and what not, throwing flowers at their feet and such.

Those who think that know NOTHING of who the Russians are... I recall my own grandma, she was a partizan resistance fighter against the Germans. She wasn't stupid, she knew Stalin was an evil bastard. Hell, plenty of her own relatives were in GULag camps! But, as he told us "He [Stalin] was OURS. This is OUR country. Who the hell are some fucking Germans to come in here and try to change our government for us?"

Many young Russians may hate Putin today, and shout against him at their protests in the streets


But, guess what? If Western troops invade Russia tomorrow? Those kids will take up arms against them, most of them, and fight them to the fucking death. Because that is who the Russians are. They will NOT stand for a foreign occupation on their land. Period...

And American or British troops on Russian soil, in turn, would be giving their lives for... what exactly?

You see what I mean?
It reminds me of when we took Bahgdad, and the people were good with it, until some soldiers raised a US flag there, and suddenly the people started becoming angry. No one likes an occupier.
 

The Man

Former Staff
Jul 2011
43,410
29,813
Toronto
#32
The United States “might struggle to win, or perhaps lose, a war against China or Russia,” concluded a recent report commissioned by the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.

This dire warning about the U.S. “crisis of national security” came as part of a ninety-eight page study from the independent National Defense Strategy Commission. The report identifies a series of strategic and domestic trends that have weakened American global standing over the past decades, and predicts drastic repercussions for American security if immediate steps are not taken to reverse the trajectory of U.S. military decline.

The report maintains that the twin specter of a resurgent Russia and rising China present a geopolitical threat “on a far greater scale than has any adversary since the Cold War’s end.” Another Cold War contrast working against the United States are “aggressive regional challengers.” Regional powers like Kim Jong-un’s North Korea can unilaterally exercise destabilizing effects on American allies, but are especially threatening as strategic proxies of America’s great power competitors.

The authors caution that a formal military alliance between Beijing and Moscow is not a necessary precondition for a war on two or more fronts, where America would fare particularly poorly due to suboptimal military resource distribution. Rather, a war with either Russia or China will cripple America’s deterrent capacity and thus incentivize other hostile powers to exploit American weakness with hybrid if not conventional military action.

The United States retains a fleeting edge in raw military power, but the report notes that modern conflicts are increasingly being waged in the “gray zone” between war and peace where America is being out-innovated by Russia and China in “everything from cyber warfare, everything from strong-arm diplomacy and economic coercion, to media manipulation and cyberattacks, to use of paramilitaries and proxy forces.”

The report stresses that America’s military advantage will, in fact, prove alarmingly fleeting if current trends hold. Not only is the global proliferation of advanced military hardware from WMDs to cruise missiles easier now than at any other time since WWII, but America’s technological supremacy is itself under assault. The United States trails “China and perhaps Russia as well” in hypersonic delivery vehicles and nuclear weapons research, even as its aging AIM-120 AMRAAM Missile system struggles to keep pace with new competitors , including the Russian K-37M and Chinese PL-15.

These trends are enabled by what the report condemns as “disinvestment in defense,” as a result of “decisions made by both major parties.” But the authors go on to stress that what is needed isn’t just more spending, but more effective spending on key security concerns. In particular, the report suggests a long-term investment plan to modernize America’s aging nuclear arsenal to at least match if not exceed the rapid pace of Russian and Chinese innovation.

The report recommends that the Department of Defense recommit to a military that is sized and structured to effectively wage two simultaneous wars. This “two-war force sizing construct” is vital not so much to win a prospective two-front war, as to deter one with a secondary force capable of imposing unacceptable costs on hostile actors seeking to intervene in a major ongoing U.S. conflict with Russia or China.

Against the backdrop of seemingly long-term policy gridlock in Washington, the NDSC report concludes on a stark note of urgency: “The costs of failing to meet America’s crisis of national defense and national security will not be measured in abstract concepts like ‘international stability’ and ‘global order.’ They will be measured in American lives, American treasure, and American security and prosperity lost.”
Report: America Must Be Able to Wage and Win Two Wars at Once (Think Russia or China)
 
Jan 2007
32,861
6,841
#34
Spending ain't everything. Spending so much, to me, just means that the US military is getting overcharged like crazy for everything by their MIC...

But, as far as winning or losing a war with Russia... I would say it depends what sort of war.

Again, Russia could never effectively fight an offensive campaign against NATO.

But a defensive one, on own land, that would be a very, very different story.

It's not about the technology or the money. It's about the people.

Let me give you an example, a little story.

Look at this girl







Looks like just a regular little girl, right?

What if I told you, that this is Bogdana Nesheret, considered the youngest ever person to have fought on the separatst side in the Donbass, having been involved in the struggle there since the beginmning in 2014, when she was barely 9 (nine!) years old

having followed her father into the ranks of a militia

I recall one of her early photos from the war, on her VKontakte (Russian Facebook). The caption was "I cannot shoot my AK yet, it is too big and heavy for me right now. But I do what I can, I bring ammo to the grown up fighters out there, and I have bandaged the wounded sometimes. I help any way I can. No [slur for pro-Kiev Ukrainians] scum will walk on our Donbass land and remain alive!"

A nine year old girl wrote this. No joke. She's become a popular folk hero over the years, pretty much.

That's her in more recent times, this year, what, 13 now, training to become an officer in the separatist forces when grows up



My point, is this... That, above, that is who the Russians are, as a people.

I recall a conversation with a naive person here, who thought that if NATO manages to invade Russia, there would be adoring crowds waiting for them, thanking them for getting rid of Putin and what not, throwing flowers at their feet and such.

Those who think that know NOTHING of who the Russians are... I recall my own grandma, she was a partizan resistance fighter against the Germans. She wasn't stupid, she knew Stalin was an evil bastard. Hell, plenty of her own relatives were in GULag camps! But, as he told us "He [Stalin] was OURS. This is OUR country. Who the hell are some fucking Germans to come in here and try to change our government for us?"

Many young Russians may hate Putin today, and shout against him at their protests in the streets


But, guess what? If Western troops invade Russia tomorrow? Those kids will take up arms against them, most of them, and fight them to the fucking death. Because that is who the Russians are. They will NOT stand for a foreign occupation on their land. Period...

And American or British troops on Russian soil, in turn, would be giving their lives for... what exactly?

You see what I mean?
But they tolerate an internal occupation. Since 1917 the communists made slaves of all of them. They had to build a great wall to keep them from escaping. Keep the propaganda on full to divert their rage outward, failing to look at their own leaders enslaving them and keeping them 40 years back behind everyone else.
 
Jul 2013
50,953
54,058
Nashville, TN
#36
Russia invaded and occupied eastern Europe. Kept it backwards for decades.
At the time, Eastern Europe was allied with and occupied by the Nazis. The Russians "liberated" those countries and installed their own puppet governments. Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania were all allied with the Axis and Romania and Hungary had divisions involved in the invasion of Russia in 1941.

On 22 June 1941, German armies with Romanian support attacked the Soviet Union. ... In a morbid competition with Hungary to curry Hitler's favor and hoping to regain northern Transylvania, Romania mustered more combat troops for the Nazi war effort than all of Germany's other allies combined.
 

The Man

Former Staff
Jul 2011
43,410
29,813
Toronto
#37
But they tolerate an internal occupation. Since 1917 the communists made slaves of all of them. They had to build a great wall to keep them from escaping. Keep the propaganda on full to divert their rage outward, failing to look at their own leaders enslaving them and keeping them 40 years back behind everyone else.
They've always rallied around dictators and tyrants over there, yes... The Tsars. Lenin, Stalin, etc. Now - Putin.

Submitted to horrific abuse by own rulers, while fanatically resisting any foreign intervention.

A paradox, I agree. I cannot really understand it myself.

At the time, Eastern Europe was allied with and occupied by the Nazis. The Russians "liberated" those countries and installed their own puppet governments. Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania were all allied with the Axis and Romania and Hungary had divisions involved in the invasion of Russia in 1941.
Hungarians brutally occupied Russian city of Voronezh and surrounding areas, during WWII; among other things, they stripped civilians naked and made them dig own graves, before executing them (for allegedly aiding partizan resistance fighters and such)

This is why so few Hungarian POWs were taken by Red Army, compared to the numbers of captured Germans, Romanians, even Italians. After learning about what they had been doing to people in Voronezh, Red Army commanders ordered their troops to simply kill any Hungarians they found, whether he tries to surrender or not...

I used to sympathize with the Hungarians who got crushed by Soviet tanks in the 50s. But since reading about the shit they did in Voronezh, not so much... And now, under Orban, they are moving back to that time too...
 
Feb 2011
15,375
9,826
The formerly great golden state
#38
'Eroded' U.S. Military Could Lose War Against Russia Or China, Report Finds

Weird... US spends what, like three times as much of its military as Russia and China combined. And still, they are now matching you guys...?

Probably part of it is the lower wages in both those countries. They are able to get more stuff produced cheaper than in America, because of that ;)

The result is that China now has MORE warships and subs, overall, than the US: With Ships and Missiles, China Is Ready to Challenge U.S. Navy in Pacific

And Russia is actually building warships FASTER than the US too, albeit smaller ones: Vladimir Putin’s Fast-Growing Navy is Meant to Fight his Kind of War, Not Washington’s

The Russians have been expanding and modernizing their submarine fleet, including ICBM "boomers", the new "Borei" class


And, they are also starting preliminary work on a new aircraft carrier too:


Russia Kicks Off Work on Engine for Nuclear-Powered Supercarrier

I am not sure whether or not that one will be completed, it is very expensive (most expensive thing they ever built over there, frankly) and highly controversial, if for no other reason than that many, including noted Admirals, don't even see why Russia NEEDS a carrier anyway...

It's not really a part of their Naval warfare strategy, certainly with regards to a confrontation with the US/NATO. Unlike the US Navy, they do not intend to fight far away from their own shores. Rather, they will be defending their own territorial waters, basically. They have plenty of land-based airfields perfectly sufficient for that.

As I remember reading one Admiral over there say in an interview: "We already have an unsinkable aircraft carrier on the shores of Europe, which we took back in 2014. It is called Crimea."


They have lots of advanced air superiority fighters there

including Su-35

It is defended with all sorts shore-based anti-aircraft and anti-ship missile complexes

including batteries of S400s


It also now hosts a base of the new Varshavyanka (improved Kilo) attack subs

armed with torpedoes

and Kalibr cruise missiles, Russia's answer to Tomahawk, which they been using extensively on Syria in recent times

Crimea also has the new Admiral Grigorovich-class frigates, which also carry Kalibrs



There are other might vessels there too, including the flagship of the Black Sea Fleet, RFS "Moscow"

It is referred to as a "carrier killer", because it is armed with special powerful missiles designed back in the Cold War specifically to take out American aircraft carriers... Russia has several of these ships, in Black, Northern, and Pacific Fleets.

Their other "carrier", on the Baltic Sea, is, of course, Kaliningrad


That one now hosts, among other things, "Iskander" tactical missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads

Russia deploys Iskander nuclear-capable missiles to Kaliningrad: RIA | Reuters

Ukraine claims that Russia now has the Iskanders in Crimea also: Russia amasses 32,000 troops, Iskander and S400 systems in Crimea – Ukraine

I remember a show on BBC, I believe, in recent years, hypothesizing about WWIII, where they showed Russian forces defending Kaliningrad blowing away a US carrier with one nuclear armed Iskander...

Russia also has combat jets in Belarus

as well:
Russia Deploys First Fighter Jets to Belarus

Belarus' own military would likely also back Russia in any conflict. They are not that big, but not to be underestimated, they could inflict some damage of their own on small neighboring countries, like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia.

Anyway, that's just a brief coverage by me of their capabilities on the Western front. Or Eastern, from our point of view, I suppose lol

The Pacific would be more complicated. They'd be working with the Chinese there. Probably with North Korea also.

In any case, again, their plan for any confrontation with the West is more or less purely defensive. Because that is the only scenario where they can hold their own. Their offensive capabilities are much lower than NATO's. Defensive ones, especially anti-aircraft and anti-missile, are in some ways even more powerful than ours...

Russia and China are both developing ways also to destroy US military satellites in orbit: Russia and China are testing missiles that could blast U.S. satellites out of space

Obviously, one hopes this shit would never actually go down... But, yeah, interesting to research and kinda scary to know about...
In an all out war between the US and China and/or Russia, there would be no winners. Civilization would be set back 10,000 years at least, and most of the Earth would be uninhabitable for the next several millennia. Humanity might make a comeback and make another try at civilization, but it would take a very long time and the outcome would be uncertain.

Anthropologists tell us that the human race was once down to about 2,000 individuals around 70,000 years ago due to climate change, and we made a comeback. Should 99.9% of humanity perish in the nuclear cataclysm, and another 99.9% of the remainder perish in the resulting famine and pandemics, there still would be more humans on Earth than there were back then.

That's my optimistic take on such a war: Humanity might have a second chance.
 

The Man

Former Staff
Jul 2011
43,410
29,813
Toronto
#39
In an all out war between the US and China and/or Russia, there would be no winners. Civilization would be set back 10,000 years at least, and most of the Earth would be uninhabitable for the next several millennia. Humanity might make a comeback and make another try at civilization, but it would take a very long time and the outcome would be uncertain.

Anthropologists tell us that the human race was once down to about 2,000 individuals around 70,000 years ago due to climate change, and we made a comeback. Should 99.9% of humanity perish in the nuclear cataclysm, and another 99.9% of the remainder perish in the resulting famine and pandemics, there still would be more humans on Earth than there were back then.

That's my optimistic take on such a war: Humanity might have a second chance.
I agree. Such a war would be a global cataclysm. Nobody wants that.

Therefore, I wish all the leaders would stop pushing the respective nations towards it... US and Russia provoking each other around Ukraine, Venezuela, Syria, etc... It's just stupid...
 
Feb 2011
15,375
9,826
The formerly great golden state
#40
I agree. Such a war would be a global cataclysm. Nobody wants that.

Therefore, I wish all the leaders would stop pushing the respective nations towards it... US and Russia provoking each other around Ukraine, Venezuela, Syria, etc... It's just stupid...
Exactly. And instead of carrying on an arms race, why not negotiate down the size of all of the big militaries? If Russia and China were to have 1/10 of the army they have now, so could the USA. Why must we play games with ending civilization as we know it? There can be no winners in such a game.
 
Likes: BigLeRoy