Under the following two circumstances, which country would win?
>USA invades Russia
I don't know what Russians are really like, but if Russian citizens used guerilla warfare, the USA would be fucked because that's when they always get btfo.
>Russia invades USA
Many citizens are armed in the US, but I can't imagine the people in my everyday life fighting. Plus, a militia would get fukt by modern military. idk what would happen.
Also assume no nukes.
In a standard conventional war, the US would most certainly win due to their absolute hegemony over the oceans.
As far as land invasion goes, it's really starting to get more complicated: the US would probably in again, due to their technology being more advanced, but Russia is a real tough nut to crack: the Siberian and Mongol plains in the east are an absolute nightmare to go through, the central asian deserts and mountains are pretty much impossible to traverse with a large army, same goes for the Caucasus. So the only way to attack Russia would be through eastern Europe, where they could have the opportunity to centralize most of their forces. They also possess a larger tank fleet, and will probably have local air superiority, making attacks difficult through that region. not to mention the problem of having to deal with local militias: although they would be no match for an organized military, they could seriously disrupt the US's advance. Good news is that most of what is relevant in Russia is located to the est of the country, so no need to go all the way to siberia.
On the other hand, an invasion of the american continent would be far easier to do: most, if not all of northern america is the perfect battleground for a modern mechanized military, with large open areas, and good infrastructure to keep troops moving. The real difficulty is landing in the first place, and keeping the troops supplied: once again, the US's superiority over the seas would make it impossible.
So, in a conventional war, the US would most certainly win. Of course, some aspect could very well change is other countries joined in the fight as well, but that is another question entirely.
sounds about right. but seriously with a lot of American citizens armed to the teeth i feel there'd be cooperation with irregular militia and the military of the US so it would probably be hard for russia
Probably not. You have to take into consideration the fact that Russia has a long experience of dealing with and against militias: whether you're talking about Afghanistan, Chechnya, Ukraine or Syria, they know how to deal with this shit. And they don't go easy like the americans: it's not just a few drones they're going to send, but entire death squads wiping out whatever looks like a foe to them.
Plus, I doubt an american militia would be very effective: one one hand, there are tons of guns laying around. But it takes a lot more to establish an effectire resistance campaign. American citizens, with their cushy and peaceful lifestyle, don't have that experience.
>On the other hand, an invasion of the american continent would be far easier to do
Good point, though I don't necessarily agree for the same reasons (not that you're wrong). Most of the US's population is on it's coastlines, therefore easier to access, so perhaps it could be easier to topple the US in that sense.
i feel initially the militias will get wiped but honestly from what i've seen about human behavior the later militias will adjust quickly and become more effective, tho you do have a point about them being expierenced anti-guerrilla fighters
It is true that the US's population is largely centralized on the coast.
But problem is: there are two of them, and if Russia wants to win, they have to control both. And they are really far apart. Doing a double invasion at the same time is purely suicidal: splitting forces would make it easier to destroy Russia's forces. So, although the terrain is quite good, an invasion of the american continent would still take a lot of time.
Assuming a very generous 30 mph and no delay, it would still take 90 days for an invasion force to go from east to west and vice versa. On the other hand, an invasion of Russia would take far less time: from the Belarus border to Moscow, it would only take 20 days under similar circumstances.
I wouldn't be so sure you see. Militias take a long time to prepare, even with help from a professional military.
Do you know why the US had such a hard time in Vietnam? The vietcongs had, at the time of the US's involvement, more than a decade of experience fighting french colonial forces.
An invasion of mainland US will not take 10 years: it will be over within a matter of months, maybe a year. You can't turn a civilian population into a useful militia within only one year.
i do not agree with that and you forget its not only the militia opposing the Russians. Besides as a Russian soldier it only takes a disgruntled American with a handgun hidden to get killed. The paranoia that the Russians would feel (or any army for that matter) would be morale breaking
who are you kquoting???
all good points, giving me some good thinks.
russia had very serious problems with chechnya, afghanistan and dagestan. they might have experience fighting guerillas but they weren't very successful at it.
whom
It is true that, in theory, it only takes one bullet to kill a soldier. But consider this: what can an average joe do against an armored column of 20 T-90s and Dozens of soldiers packed in BMPs running around and blowing everything? defeating modern forces take a lot more than just a gun: you need specialized equipment, advanced tactics that do not simply revolve around hiding and waiting for the russkis to come.
Militias would have a greater impact for sure on the rear lines, but then again: looking at history, it is easy to notice how civilian forces take time to organize and fight back. Take resistance movements during WWII for instance: Polish, Yugoslav or french resistance movements took months or even years to form and coagulate into something useful. The problem was not the guns, but rather the lack of practical knowledge. And considering how Russia had to deal with far more organized movements in previous operations, they would most likely not have any significant impact during the relevant time frame (the first couple of months when, in essence, the war would be decided).
But just to be clear: the same would be true of the US invading Russia.
i suppose what you say makes sense, but lots of americans have some family in military and such, so organizing a resistance, in addition to the regular military forces opposing the russians would be quicker than history past.
also you do need infantry to pacify cities. Armor and aircraft isnt enough. so if youre the average russian soldier, and you're sweeping through a town would you want to be the guy that enters an unknown house? literally ever house or apparment is a potential death trap with some guy with nothing to lose with a handgun waiting behind the door. no matter how professional that does affect morale
It most certainly would indeed. But you also have to take into consideration the fact war is fought at a higher speed today: you don't have leg infantry anymore doing all the work, but fast mechanized units quickly moving from objective to objective. unfortunately (or maybe fortunately rather), we have no data on the time it would take for a militia in a 1st world to organize, but I'd be ready to bet one outweighs the other.
You only need to pacify a region if you want it to return back to normal once the war is over. But in a life or death situation like this, they probably wouldn't bother: at best, they'd siege every major city and destroy all the towns they go through, making sure nothing is left behind. At worst: carpet bombing of every major population center, like what we saw during WWII.
Of course, it would be a different story if Russia actually won and then had to pacify the region to assert his dominance, but that would only happen after the war.
whomst douth quotingeth?
even carpet bombing on a developed country has limited success right? like many would die initially but when everyone goes to their bunkers, subways and basements it would have only a limited effect right?
It would ruin the morale of the population and render them incapable to oppose any serious threat. Once again, looking back at history: when the US forces entered germany during WWII, civilians opposed very little resistance where large population centers were demolished. the only real opposition came from the SS and Wehrmacht. And those are the same people that, for many, grew up their entire adult life living under the dictatorial Reich. So even if these people didn't rise up, chances are that no one would.
Bombing is not used to kill people, but to break their spirit and make them less likely to organize. Whether countermeasures are in place or not, the effect would be the same: the only variable would be the number civilian casualties.
to be fair though alot more of the US had firearms and wasn't as devestated by years of war and air raids, while in your theoretical situation the infrastructure would be mostly intact
USA teebh
True. But the scale and the strength of the attack would also be far greater, thanks again to improvements in military technology.
And even beyond that: I'd argue most people owning guns wouldn't think straight away to fight the russians, but would rather think first about saving their lives and their family.
The real opposition would come from the US military, militias would play a fairly marginal role in my opinion.
Anyway, it was nice having a chat with y'all. Maybe next time.
well i know you're gone but that means theres a potential for all those gun owners to eventually rally
U.S. high command are really stubborn when it cones to asymmetrical warfare,just look at their 2002 war games,y i k e s.
In conventional warfare the Russians would get leveled though