[Bullajami]

If you're going nuclear, I would be more concerned about the ICBM threat from the Strategic Rocket Forces. The Russians have not had 12 subs at sea at the same time in 15 years. Depending on our alert status, we would fare well vs the bombers, too. The ICBMs would def wear us out.

But if its a nuclear battle on their soil, then we win. Its the conventional matchup that makes it more intriguing.

[pavyracer]

All I need to remind is Pearl Harbor. Imagine what will happen if Russia attempts a nuclear "Pearl Harbor" in US Soil. They will go after Washington and Norfolk and Colorado Springs simultaneously with 50 nuclear missiles per side and cut the head of the US command. Without any central command our forces in the Pacific and the Gulf will be easy prey from land based attacks from Russian soil. If they attack first we are toasted. You don't need more than 10 submarines to destroy the US command in the USA.

[Gorzy]

[reno cool]

Originally Posted by Bullajami

I finally got around to reading this thread. Some interesting stuff in here to contemplate. I would like to add one more:

Why is it that when we discuss a war wih Russia or China, we always assume it will be over there? What is preventing them from launching the first wave of attacks over here? Maybe coming in through Mexico or Canada?

I'll answer my own question: because they can't. China can't even get across the Straits of Formosa to retake Taiwan (yet). Russias sealift/airlift capability is even worse.

If there were to be a war, we would have to pack up our armies and take them over there to fight it. We have that capability, they do not. Our invasion of them might not succeed. Their invasion of us isn't even worth contemplating.

Your question is a very good one. But the implications of it may not be what you think. The US has by far the most aggressive, war mongering, meddling, foreign policy in the world. And you as well as the rest of us intuitively know it.

[Bullajami]

Originally Posted by reno cool

Your question is a very good one. But the implications of it may not be what you think. The US has by far the most aggressive, war mongering, meddling, foreign policy in the world. And you as well as the rest of us intuitively know it.

I don't disagree, but I would postulate that its because we can. If others could, they would. When others could (i.e. England, France, Spain, Russia, Germany, etc.), they did. The USA did not invent the policy of assertiveness, we are simply the current incarnation of it.

[Bullajami]

Originally Posted by pavyracer

They will go after Washington and Norfolk and Colorado Springs simultaneously with 50 nuclear missiles per side and cut the head of the US command.

I'm not sure you can launch 50 nukes at us and not launch the other 6000 or so in the inventory. Nuking our capital and then leaving us with the weapons to retaliate seems a risky strategy.

Originally Posted by pavyracer

Without any central command our forces in the Pacific and the Gulf will be easy prey from land based attacks from Russian soil.

Our forces in the gulf are commanded from Tampa, Florida and Doha, Qatar. Our forces in the Pacific are commanded from Honolulu, Hawaii.

Assuming those facilities were added to the target list in your command and control decapitation strategy scenario, I don't think it leaves our deployed forces much more vulnerable to attack from Russian conventional forces. Our forces would still be armed and higly alert. We would still have assets to monitor Russian force movements to provide indications and warning. I don't think our forces become sitting ducks without headquarters.

I had to take a course on military doctrine once - not something I would recommend, btw, very boring - but I recall that we were shown a translated copy of a Soviet strategy document from the early 1980s. It had a great quote in it that went like this: "The major dificulty in preparing for war with the Americans is that they do not have a complete doctrine, and in the areas where they do have doctrine their commanders are not compelled to follow it."

Essentially meaning that tactical commanders in the US military were observed by the Soviets to be imaginitive, intuitive and creative - not "by the book" as the Soviets were trained to be. Such forces typically perform better in the absence of orders from higher HQ, making them less vulnerable to decapitation-style attacks.

A surprise nuclear attack could certainly put the hurt on us, but I don't think the specific scenario you outlined above is an effective option for Russia.

[pavyracer]

Originally Posted by Bullajami

I'm not sure you can launch 50 nukes at us and not launch the other 6000 or so in the inventory. Nuking our capital and then leaving us with the weapons to retaliate seems a risky strategy.

Our forces in the gulf are commanded from Tampa, Florida and Doha, Qatar. Our forces in the Pacific are commanded from Honolulu, Hawaii.

Assuming those facilities were added to the target list in your command and control decapitation strategy scenario, I don't think it leaves our deployed forces much more vulnerable to attack from Russian conventional forces. Our forces would still be armed and higly alert. We would still have assets to monitor Russian force movements to provide indications and warning. I don't think our forces become sitting ducks without headquarters.

I had to take a course on military doctrine once - not something I would recommend, btw, very boring - but I recall that we were shown a translated copy of a Soviet strategy document from the early 1980s. It had a great quote in it that went like this: "The major dificulty in preparing for war with the Americans is that they do not have a complete doctrine, and in the areas where they do have doctrine their commanders are not compelled to follow it."

Essentially meaning that tactical commanders in the US military were observed by the Soviets to be imaginitive, intuitive and creative - not "by the book" as the Soviets were trained to be. Such forces typically perform better in the absence of orders from higher HQ, making them less vulnerable to decapitation-style attacks.

A surprise nuclear attack could certainly put the hurt on us, but I don't think the specific scenario you outlined above is an effective option for Russia.

Do you actually believe that our overseas forces can win the war against Russia once the country loses the President, Vice-President and Congress in the Washington sneak nuclear attack? Do you think that when the naval command is destroyed in Norfolk we can effectively rage war against Russia that we can win?

When terrorists attacked us with civilian planes we couldn't scramble fighter jets to intercept them soon enough, hell no we couldn't find them on radar. When New Orleans was cut off from hurricane Katrina we couldn't transport the National Guard for 3 days and we think without a central command we can defend the country from a superior foe like mighty Russia?

Think again.

[fiveteamer]

this thread = genius convention

[Bullajami]

Originally Posted by pavyracer

Do you actually believe that our overseas forces can win the war against Russia once the country loses the President, Vice-President and Congress in the Washington sneak nuclear attack? Do you think that when the naval command is destroyed in Norfolk we can effectively rage war against Russia that we can win?

I am in the Navy and I live in Norfolk (well, in Virginia Beach, but its close). There is no Navy operational command infrastructure here. Certainly none that would run a naval war with Russia. There's quite a lot of non-deployed assets, training infrastructure and bureaucracy, but not much in the way of operational commands.

Your initial assertion was:

Originally Posted by pavyracer

Without any central command our forces in the Pacific and the Gulf will be easy prey from land based attacks from Russian soil.

I do not consider this the same as

Originally Posted by pavyracer

Do you think that when the naval command is destroyed in Norfolk we can effectively rage war against Russia that we can win?

My point above is that deployed US forces would not be "easy prey". Not the same as winning a war.

However, I think it possible that we could win in the limited scenario you describe. Even assuming that the Russians would attack actual operational command and control HQs for the forces you specify. If they did it immediately becomes a NATO issue and there are entirely separate command and control elements for that.

The escalation would likely be too rapid to determine a winner, though. We'd probably all be losers when the dust settled.

Originally Posted by pavyracer

When terrorists attacked us with civilian planes we couldn't scramble fighter jets to intercept them soon enough, hell no we couldn't find them on radar. When New Orleans was cut off from hurricane Katrina we couldn't transport the National Guard for 3 days

None of these scenarios involved loss of command and control, so I am not sure how they contribute to your argument.

Originally Posted by pavyracer

...and we think without a central command we can defend the country from a superior foe like mighty Russia?

This is also different from "easy prey" and "winning a war". Defending this country from a Russian invasion force is child's play. Given our geographic advantages and their inadequate lift capability even the French could defend this territory from a Russian invasion.

[topgame85]

Haha Russia is weak pavy get it right I wish they would step foot on US soil

[pavyracer]

Originally Posted by topgame85

Haha Russia is weak pavy get it right I wish they would step foot on US soil

I wouldn't bother to answer this. Is this the best arguement you can have?

[pavyracer]

Bullajami,

Thanks for the nice information. You do know that I am russian spy according to most of the forumites here so giving me the US naval capabilities in the hypothetical war games we discuss is not for the best national interest of our country.

[topgame85]

There is no argument here there are few countries where the majority of its citizens would take up arms and fight in the streets to the death, the majority of Americans would, Americans all over the US would be taking out Russians at an astonishing rate we don't play games, sure there are some rich pansies but most inner city Americans as well as the entire midwest would never allow a Russian invasion to be succesful

[Bullajami]