Who has the stronger land forces, US or Russia?

[RedRalph]

If they fought only with each other, the rest of the world would just watch a good fireworks. Life would go on without them.

with a stockpile between them of something like 25,000 nuclear warheads, which I dont think either side would hesitate to use, the ensuing nuclear winter would very probably ensure that life would indeed cease to exist (not to mention the effect the removal of both their industrial base, manufacturing base and raw materials would have on the world economy). Life would not "go on"

 

[plarq]

If they fought only with each other, the rest of the world would just watch a good fireworks. Life would go on without them.

Are you sure that they don't do some collateral damage across the globe??

 

[Marla_Singer]

Well, I guess that the US military body having the smallest advantage compared to other countries is indeed the land army (compared to the air force and navy), but it remains the strongest one in the world by a good margin. Since WW2, Americans invested so massively in air force and navy that actually it's rather useless to judge its land army "alone". The US military strategy consists in bombing everything from the air and the sea and only then to send land soldiers to confirm its all clear. It's not tomorrow that there will be a war where the US doesn't have the sky control anyway.

As for that nuclear winter thing, I've always wondered if it was something scientifically proven or just a hypothesis made by some kind of Dr. Strangelove that we can't proven as true. Does anyone have the answer?

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

The Russian Army is ill-maintained, ill-trained, and ill-equipped. Russian tanks are just moving targets these days. Twenty years ago, the story would be different. Today, the Russian military would be slaughtered and their troops will flee. They have some new stuff that is great, but not in enough numbers to make a difference. They could still win a land war within their own borders, though.

We would dominate them in many instances. Though we are lacking manpower (hence a troop surge of roughly 20k men, when it should have been larger), we own them in technological superiority. Also in that area we also own them in the number of technologically superior weapons. They have some, but we have more.

And look at the economies involved. We can afford tossing literally billions of dollars at our military and still function very effectively. Whereas the Russian economy, while it has improved since the fall of the USSR, is still relatively in shambles.

Basically, the Russians have numbers and lots of territory, which hurts us due to our shortage of manpower. But while numbers account for alot, they are by no means the sole factor in victory.

and everyone likes the Indians

Not when I want my computer problem fixed and I can't understand what the hell they're saying. As their accent is heavier than someone born in Arkansas. Think what you will, but I honestly can't understand them sometimes.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

As for that nuclear winter thing, I've always wondered if it was something scientifically proven or just a hypothesis made by some kind of Dr. Strangelove that we can't proven as true. Does anyone have the answer?

I've heard everything from nuclear winter to an insulating effect, increasing heat. I've also read a book that evaluated things like winds and air currents, water currents, and other stuff, and came to the conclusion that we don't have enough nukes to destroy civilization unless we set out specifically to do so, even then we'd have a fun time doing it.

 

[germanicus12]

with a stockpile between them of something like 25,000 nuclear warheads, which I dont think either side would hesitate to use, the ensuing nuclear winter would very probably ensure that life would indeed cease to exist (not to mention the effect the removal of both their industrial base, manufacturing base and raw materials would have on the world economy). Life would not "go on"

You think they wouldn't hestitate? Think back to the 1960's. President Kennedy and the Russian President... can't remember his name.... threatened to launched nuclear warheads at each other but both hesitated.... yes both.... becuase they knew what would happen if the missles were launched.

 

[Dida]

You think they wouldn't hestitate? Think back to the 1960's. President Kennedy and the Russian President... can't remember his name.... threatened to launched nuclear warheads at each other but both hesitated.... yes both.... becuase they knew what would happen if the missles were launched.

I would have nuked the hell out of the commies. They must be destroyed.

 

[Phlegmak]

I would have nuked the hell out of the commies. They must be destroyed.

Are you ok?

As for that nuclear winter thing, I've always wondered if it was something scientifically proven or just a hypothesis made by some kind of Dr. Strangelove that we can't proven as true. Does anyone have the answer?

I suspect it's the latter.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Not when I want my computer problem fixed and I can't understand what the hell they're saying. As their accent is heavier than someone born in Arkansas.

Was Clinton's accent worse than Bush's?

Anyway, this user "born in Arkansas" is often mistaken for a "Yankee" , so I suppose that could simultaneously prove and disprove your statement...

 

[nc-1701]

As for that nuclear winter thing, I've always wondered if it was something scientifically proven or just a hypothesis made by some kind of Dr. Strangelove that we can't proven as true. Does anyone have the answer?

Both

It's scientificaly proven that large amounts of dust or polutats etc. would cause a 'winter', and a nuclear war would cause that. Around 1990 a volcano went and caused a half degree drop in global tempatures through this effect. The dinosaurs were wiped outr by this effect.
What we on't know is how bad it would be. We know that the dust kicked up alone wouldn't be bad, but we also know that firestorms would incinerate cities. Releasing all the pollutants caught up in modern building materials (Like asphalt), these would be in far klarger quantities and stick around a lot longer than natural pollutants. So we know a nuclear war (Even a minor one) would be detrimental to the global enviroment and we know that if enough nukes were used a full scale nuclear winter could occur.
In the end though we don't know exactly how much firepower that would take etc. A full scale nuclear could cause a haf degree drop in temp for a year and higher incidence of asthma for awhile... Or it could blot out the sun for a decade. We don't have enough data or good enough models to know exactly. So the only way to find out would be to have us a nuclear war. Whch IMO isn't really worth it

 

[emzie]

Those who say the American Army have never played Risk!

 

[Japanrocks12]

radioactive whales? heretic. *pokes*

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Those who say the American Army have never played Risk!

Australia?

 

[Dida]

Are you ok?

Yeah I was just joking.

 

[Winner]

with a stockpile between them of something like 25,000 nuclear warheads, which I dont think either side would hesitate to use, the ensuing nuclear winter would very probably ensure that life would indeed cease to exist (not to mention the effect the removal of both their industrial base, manufacturing base and raw materials would have on the world economy). Life would not "go on"

Nuclear winter is a myth, get over it, people.

US and Russia would be utterly devastated, the Northern hemisphere would suffer of some fallout and short-term cooling, and the world economy would collapse. But life would go on.

At the end, North America would be turned into a large natural/native reserve.

 

[Winner]

As for that nuclear winter thing, I've always wondered if it was something scientifically proven or just a hypothesis made by some kind of Dr. Strangelove that we can't proven as true. Does anyone have the answer?

It's a theory, Carl Sagan came with it I believe. According to his research, the amount of dust and soot blown into the atmosphere would be sufficient to cause a worldwide cooling.

This principle is logical and nobody disputes it, the problem is we're not sure how much dust and soot would remain in the atmoshpere in the period following the nuclear exchange.

Nowadays, scientists believe that humanity doesn't have enough warheads to cause a real "nuclear winter", comparable to the "asteroid winter" caused by an asteroid impact. The asteroid which killed dinosaurs had energy millions times higher than all nuclear weapons on this planet.

The most likely result would be something called "Nuclear Fall", with some short-term cooling comparable to what large volcanic explosions can cause.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

US dominates every facet of military now. The only thing the Russians have over us is there lack of care for their soldiers in just treating them as numbers that can easily be replaced by more men.

 

[The Yankee]

Anyway, this user "born in Arkansas" is often mistaken for a "Yankee"

One of us! One of us!

Anyway, as far as conventional forces are concerned, I believe the US has the Russian Federation beat. By a fairly good margin.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Nuclear winter is a myth, get over it, people.

US and Russia would be utterly devastated, the Northern hemisphere would suffer of some fallout and short-term cooling, and the world economy would collapse. But life would go on.

Mmm... It is calculated what an attack from a single nuclear submarine armed with 200-300 warheads would cause an amount of fallout equivalent to 300 chernobyls aproximately...

 

[REDY]

I think thats not easy comparision as it looks. Because there is one aspect - USA have never been in total war. Russian goverment is more capable to make central planning military boost at the expense of people and they should make it without their opposition, they have technologies on paper which should be realised in practice production relatively fast by mentioned method. Also in resources is Russia slightly stronger. But I agree that todays is only one superpower in the world with name US.