Russian Invasion

[Korbo]

the USA has more firepower then Russia meaning that it,s suicide if Russia were to attack the USA. (as in WMD,s)

You couldn't just nuke the whole of Russia or the US, because the fallout would cause a global nuclear winter. And remember Fallout (the games)? That too.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

Of course not. That's the exact reason we had the Cold War, because everyone involved recognized what a shit idea it would be to have a direct conflict.

 

[wolf thing]

why wouldnt the US invade Russia, there just as evil and probably more powerful. is it because there the russains? is US the only good country in the world?

 

[TorqueConverter]

Invading the US would be a logistical nightmare as your having to protect supply lines across thousands of nautical miles and having to then establish supply lines throughout the mainland US (assuming they made any progress into the interior). Also given the strenght of the US navy and airforce it would be incredibly difficult to successfully maintain the continuous supply of troops and supplies needed to support any sort of beach head.

Logistics is the single most important thing for any military operation and without a closer base of operations and safe supply lines it just wouldn't be viable for a conventional ground force invasion. Never mind the cluster fuck of trying to fight a war on the mainland of the US while also having to deal with NATO forces in Europe as well as any forces attacking from the pacific side of the country (not a lot out there but still area that needs coverage). Again one huge logistical nightmare.

Well said. I have to question this fantasy people have with the US vs Soviet Union. Why would they have invaded the US? What is there to gain by doing so? Europe would have been the battle grounds for a hypothetical cold war turned hot.

 

[Therumancer]

snip

I find it worrying that you use "Muslims" and "terrorists" as interchangeable words.

I find it more worrying that you have an issue with that.

The problem we're dealing with in The Middle East is the entire theocratic nature of the culture though all the nations. While we wanted to believe we're dealing with tiny groups of extremists, that's not the case. It's actuall a case with tiny groups of progressives who want to change, with an overwhelming majority of people who are anti-US/anti-Jewish/anti-western xenophobes.

The situation is one where you have the majority of people raised to follow a xenophobic version of Islam from the very beginning of their lives. You have millions upon of people who run into the town squares and such to pray for the deaths of Americans and Jews daily as their leaders lead them in this fanaticism. You have children's programming intended to teach them they are a master race destined to conquer and rule everyone and to kill Americans and Jews.

Now yes, only a relatively small percentage of the people actually pick up guns and bombs and get involved in violence, but those people are motivated by the entire culture telling them to do these things and lionizing them as heroes. All they have to do is watch children's television for validation that this is a worthy thing to do. Ultimatly I consider the majority of people who are a part of that culture and inspire these acts to be terrorists just as much as the ones that committ them. Given that the root of the problem is religious rather than rational, attempts to deal with the situation with logic have failed.

Now granted there ARE some Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism, and aren't just hiding those sentiments, but they represent the exception rather than the rule.

Before you start screaming about xenophobia, racism, and everything else, understand I did not just pull this out of my arse, it's a realization that's formed slowly over many years (even prior to 9/11). Something made of pure fact rather than opinion, or unreasoning hatred, a simple matter of having my eyes opened.

If your interested do some searches for "muslim children's mascot martyred", "muslim children hate speech", "muslim brain washing", "muslims burn us flag", "muslims chant to kill americans" and other similar things. I have probably posted hundreds of links over the last few years and if you can't find them I suppose I can dig some up for you, but it's usually a chance you don't want to find them. The stuff your going to find though makes it apparent your not dealing with a tiny minority of people because your looking at programming directly from their television, and people heading out to pray when the speakers call them out daily and stuff like that. This is pretty much the average guy on the street down there so to speak, not some wierd terrorist training camp. It's pretty much what that part of the world is like. If you really dig back on the dates you'll find a lot of this started before we even invaded.

This does NOT mean that there are not Muslims who are perfectly accepting of other people and cultures, pulling out some Muslim who is a really nice guy, or even a group of them, is not all that surprising. I've met a few decent ones myself over the years, but when your dealing with the culture as a whole it's not a positive thing. What's more the people involved are not stupid, one of the first things you learn when doing anti-terrorism training (and I had to when I was working Casino Security, I even had a certificate from Homeland Security which is still around somewhere), is that unlike the movie stereotypes the terrorists and their supporters seem perfectly normal. They have wives (including American), kids, and jobs where they fit in perfectly and don't give any indication of what they support or are up to. They use sophisticated methods to pass along information, and even when things fail they usually put a lot of planning into them. The movie stereotype of some obvious nut with a bad accent is not generally what your dealing with, unless people are being brought into the country fresh for a very specific purpose. One of the big problems is the support network, just as Muslims hid guys like Bin Ladin as he travelled around, even in the US the ones who are terrorists are going to find plenty of help in the term of simple supporters who provide information, alibis, and various kinds of material and emotional support. It's hard for someone in a country like the US, or most of Europe to grasp, but one of the advantages of it being a religious calling is that even among differant Muslim factions that hate each other there is a degree of solidarity against the common enemy.

In short you might not like what I say, or believe me, heck a lot of people don't want to, but there is a LOT to support what I'm saying if you look. The thing is I know my stuff and I have absolutly no problem with calling out the Muslim Culture as a whole. There are exceptions to every rule, but I don't think that needs to be pointed out constantly.

 

[Gr8gam3r]

The USSR had documents relating to how they would have invaded Britain, which included securing main streets in Liverpool that T90 (or maybe T80?) tanks could drive down, and securing the motorways to get around the country. I think their plan was entirely feasible (if the Liverpudlians didn't have the T-90's on bricks by the time they landed (jk)). However, I think the main thing that would have stopped them would be the threat from nuclear attack. Any direct conflict on that scale would probably result in retaliatory attacks.

Much more likely is that the USSR would have funded small rebel organisations in the US/UK, however, I think they would have recognised that neither idea would have worked out well for them. Much better to just keep communism strong (as best they could) and try to win the minds of people.

 

[Bloedhoest]

There is only one way to invade the US successfully and thats to do what the North Koreans do in Homefront, EMP the entire country.

We wouldnt be able to get communications back up in time to mount a coordinated defense against an invader. Not to mention the sheer anarchy that would follow an EMP it would utter chaos.
Millions of people would die from exposure, starvation, dehydration, and lack of basic medical needs.

Just think of the city of Las Vegas without any electricity. A city in the middle of the desert that gets all its supplies from elsewhere and the closet water source is 30 miles away.

All China or Russia needs to do is launch a massive EMP attack and they could pretty much just walk in.

This.

Here in the Netherlands we still have some dams and waterways to flood the country in case the Russians invade.
Sad thing is, during the cold war they had plans made up to nuke Amsterdam should the occasion arise.
Along the defensive line you still find these.

Yes, sherman tanks.

 

[Khanht Cope]

why wouldnt the US invade Russia, there just as evil and probably more powerful. is it because there the russains? is US the only good country in the world?

You're right in that in terms of invasion; it makes far more sense for America to invade Russia than for Russia to invade America. Not only does it have a tonne of commodities that make it well worth invading, but it's one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world and its infrastructure is seriously outdated. Sort out all the corruption in Russia, and it has significant growth prospects for the 21st century, so you might as well make the move while it's weak.

That said; messing with Russia would mean messing with China and its allies aswell, and then you got Russia's nukes to worry about.

Regardless, full scale front door invasion is just not going to happen.

 

[TorqueConverter]

snip

I find it worrying that you use "Muslims" and "terrorists" as interchangeable words.

I find it more worrying that you have an issue with that.

The problem we're dealing with in The Middle East is the entire theocratic nature of the culture though all the nations. While we wanted to believe we're dealing with tiny groups of extremists, that's not the case. It's actuall a case with tiny groups of progressives who want to change, with an overwhelming majority of people who are anti-US/anti-Jewish/anti-western xenophobes.

The situation is one where you have the majority of people raised to follow a xenophobic version of Islam from the very beginning of their lives. You have millions upon of people who run into the town squares and such to pray for the deaths of Americans and Jews daily as their leaders lead them in this fanaticism. You have children's programming intended to teach them they are a master race destined to conquer and rule everyone and to kill Americans and Jews.

Now yes, only a relatively small percentage of the people actually pick up guns and bombs and get involved in violence, but those people are motivated by the entire culture telling them to do these things and lionizing them as heroes. All they have to do is watch children's television for validation that this is a worthy thing to do. Ultimatly I consider the majority of people who are a part of that culture and inspire these acts to be terrorists just as much as the ones that committ them. Given that the root of the problem is religious rather than rational, attempts to deal with the situation with logic have failed.

Now granted there ARE some Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism, and aren't just hiding those sentiments, but they represent the exception rather than the rule.

Before you start screaming about xenophobia, racism, and everything else, understand I did not just pull this out of my arse, it's a realization that's formed slowly over many years (even prior to 9/11). Something made of pure fact rather than opinion, or unreasoning hatred, a simple matter of having my eyes opened.

If your interested do some searches for "muslim children's mascot martyred", "muslim children hate speech", "muslim brain washing", "muslims burn us flag", "muslims chant to kill americans" and other similar things. I have probably posted hundreds of links over the last few years and if you can't find them I suppose I can dig some up for you, but it's usually a chance you don't want to find them. The stuff your going to find though makes it apparent your not dealing with a tiny minority of people because your looking at programming directly from their television, and people heading out to pray when the speakers call them out daily and stuff like that. This is pretty much the average guy on the street down there so to speak, not some wierd terrorist training camp. It's pretty much what that part of the world is like. If you really dig back on the dates you'll find a lot of this started before we even invaded.

This does NOT mean that there are not Muslims who are perfectly accepting of other people and cultures, pulling out some Muslim who is a really nice guy, or even a group of them, is not all that surprising. I've met a few decent ones myself over the years, but when your dealing with the culture as a whole it's not a positive thing. What's more the people involved are not stupid, one of the first things you learn when doing anti-terrorism training (and I had to when I was working Casino Security, I even had a certificate from Homeland Security which is still around somewhere), is that unlike the movie stereotypes the terrorists and their supporters seem perfectly normal. They have wives (including American), kids, and jobs where they fit in perfectly and don't give any indication of what they support or are up to. They use sophisticated methods to pass along information, and even when things fail they usually put a lot of planning into them. The movie stereotype of some obvious nut with a bad accent is not generally what your dealing with, unless people are being brought into the country fresh for a very specific purpose. One of the big problems is the support network, just as Muslims hid guys like Bin Ladin as he travelled around, even in the US the ones who are terrorists are going to find plenty of help in the term of simple supporters who provide information, alibis, and various kinds of material and emotional support. It's hard for someone in a country like the US, or most of Europe to grasp, but one of the advantages of it being a religious calling is that even among differant Muslim factions that hate each other there is a degree of solidarity against the common enemy.

In short you might not like what I say, or believe me, heck a lot of people don't want to, but there is a LOT to support what I'm saying if you look. The thing is I know my stuff and I have absolutly no problem with calling out the Muslim Culture as a whole. There are exceptions to every rule, but I don't think that needs to be pointed out constantly.

I don't see it and I don't buy it. My experience in the middle east is very limited, but from what I've seen I find terrorism and actions of violence against the west to be instigated by a minority. Take the Iraq war for example. The majority of Iraqi people taking arms against the US occupation have been paid to do so by a small minority of jihadists. A suicide bomber in a VBIED doesn't kill himself based on some deep seeded hatred of the west. He blows himself up because he was desperate, poverty stricken and payed a large sum of money by these jihadists to do so. Every detained insurgent I've come across has given me the impression that they are indifferent to the west and are in it for the money.

 

[Therumancer]

[
I don't see it and I don't buy it. My experience in the middle east is very limited, but from what I've seen I find terrorism and actions of violence against the west to be instigated by a minority. Take the Iraq war for example. The majority of Iraqi people taking arms against the US occupation have been paid to do so by a small minority of jihadists. A suicide bomber in a VBIED doesn't kill himself based on some deep seeded hatred of the west. He blows himself up because he was desperate, poverty stricken and payed a large sum of money by these jihadists to do so. Every detained insurgent I've come across has given me the impression that they are indifferent to the west and are in it for the money.

Which is the impression they would want to give because they are aware of what the US wants to believe. Your not dealing with morons. Your typical Jihadist does it because he's been raised that way and has the entire culture pretty much screaming for a few heroic people to stand up and do it. Your dealing with fanatics, not mercenaries.

I gave some key words to search for earlier, but let me put this into perspective:

http://newsblaze.com/story/20070506192305nnnn.nb/topstory.html

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=5da64705-13ff-4777-9f58-735cfe71edd6

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111118130403AAdRBva

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/september-11-attacks/8755834/911-anniversary-Muslim-protesters-burn-US-flag-outside-embassy-in-London.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL0C2QvqIlo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT6iKFQDEP4


This is only after a very quick and cursory search. The thing is most people don't bother to even look because they really don't want to know the truth. In the US a lot of people are simply idealistic enough where they do not want to believe that anything but a tiny fringe group could be like this.

The mainstream media down there with their shows, the conditioning of children, the huge public prayer sesssions based around hating Jews and Americans... it's not a radical fringe.

Heck if you remember right after the 9/11 attacks we had the media down there with people pouring into the streets partying in ecstatic joy as their TV stations played patriotic music while showing the planes hitting again and again. People want to shut that out, but it pretty much showed the true face of the nation. I saw that and said I'd never forget, and I didn't. Just because it's disturbing, doesn't mean I'm going to pretend the situation is differant.

 

[Jakub324]

the ENTIRE east bloc still has a shitty economy.
I think it,s more likely that N Korea attack then Russia.
PS
the USA has more firepower then Russia meaning that it,s suicide if Russia were to attack the USA. (as in WMD,s)
PPS
if you really want a Russian invasion just watch Red Dawn.

That wouldn't be accurate no more. That was about communists who are indoctrinated against capitalism, so obviously it wouldn't happen like that. it would probably be surprisingly civilised, with collateral damage being the last thing in the Russians' minds.

 

[TorqueConverter]

snip

I find it worrying that you use "Muslims" and "terrorists" as interchangeable words.

I find it more worrying that you have an issue with that.

The problem we're dealing with in The Middle East is the entire theocratic nature of the culture though all the nations. While we wanted to believe we're dealing with tiny groups of extremists, that's not the case. It's actuall a case with tiny groups of progressives who want to change, with an overwhelming majority of people who are anti-US/anti-Jewish/anti-western xenophobes.

The situation is one where you have the majority of people raised to follow a xenophobic version of Islam from the very beginning of their lives. You have millions upon of people who run into the town squares and such to pray for the deaths of Americans and Jews daily as their leaders lead them in this fanaticism. You have children's programming intended to teach them they are a master race destined to conquer and rule everyone and to kill Americans and Jews.

Now yes, only a relatively small percentage of the people actually pick up guns and bombs and get involved in violence, but those people are motivated by the entire culture telling them to do these things and lionizing them as heroes. All they have to do is watch children's television for validation that this is a worthy thing to do. Ultimatly I consider the majority of people who are a part of that culture and inspire these acts to be terrorists just as much as the ones that committ them. Given that the root of the problem is religious rather than rational, attempts to deal with the situation with logic have failed.

Now granted there ARE some Muslims who have nothing to do with terrorism, and aren't just hiding those sentiments, but they represent the exception rather than the rule.

Before you start screaming about xenophobia, racism, and everything else, understand I did not just pull this out of my arse, it's a realization that's formed slowly over many years (even prior to 9/11). Something made of pure fact rather than opinion, or unreasoning hatred, a simple matter of having my eyes opened.

If your interested do some searches for "muslim children's mascot martyred", "muslim children hate speech", "muslim brain washing", "muslims burn us flag", "muslims chant to kill americans" and other similar things. I have probably posted hundreds of links over the last few years and if you can't find them I suppose I can dig some up for you, but it's usually a chance you don't want to find them. The stuff your going to find though makes it apparent your not dealing with a tiny minority of people because your looking at programming directly from their television, and people heading out to pray when the speakers call them out daily and stuff like that. This is pretty much the average guy on the street down there so to speak, not some wierd terrorist training camp. It's pretty much what that part of the world is like. If you really dig back on the dates you'll find a lot of this started before we even invaded.

This does NOT mean that there are not Muslims who are perfectly accepting of other people and cultures, pulling out some Muslim who is a really nice guy, or even a group of them, is not all that surprising. I've met a few decent ones myself over the years, but when your dealing with the culture as a whole it's not a positive thing. What's more the people involved are not stupid, one of the first things you learn when doing anti-terrorism training (and I had to when I was working Casino Security, I even had a certificate from Homeland Security which is still around somewhere), is that unlike the movie stereotypes the terrorists and their supporters seem perfectly normal. They have wives (including American), kids, and jobs where they fit in perfectly and don't give any indication of what they support or are up to. They use sophisticated methods to pass along information, and even when things fail they usually put a lot of planning into them. The movie stereotype of some obvious nut with a bad accent is not generally what your dealing with, unless people are being brought into the country fresh for a very specific purpose. One of the big problems is the support network, just as Muslims hid guys like Bin Ladin as he travelled around, even in the US the ones who are terrorists are going to find plenty of help in the term of simple supporters who provide information, alibis, and various kinds of material and emotional support. It's hard for someone in a country like the US, or most of Europe to grasp, but one of the advantages of it being a religious calling is that even among differant Muslim factions that hate each other there is a degree of solidarity against the common enemy.

In short you might not like what I say, or believe me, heck a lot of people don't want to, but there is a LOT to support what I'm saying if you look. The thing is I know my stuff and I have absolutly no problem with calling out the Muslim Culture as a whole. There are exceptions to every rule, but I don't think that needs to be pointed out constantly.

I don't see it and I don't buy it. My experience in the middle east is very limited, but from what I've seen I find terrorism and actions of violence against the west to be instigated by a minority. Take the Iraq war for example. The majority of Iraqi people taking arms against the US occupation have been paid to do so by a small minority of jihadists. A suicide bomber in a VBIED doesn't kill himself based on some deep seeded hatred of the west. He blows himself up because he was desperate, poverty stricken and payed a large sum of money by these jihadists to do so. Every detained insurgent I've come across has given me the impression that they are indifferent to the west and are in it for the money.

I can only speak from my personal experiences. I like to form opinions about entire groups of people based on my personal experiences with the people. The links you have posted, are just that, links to things on the internet. Disturbing, yes and I gald you posted them. I think the link to these childrens shows are worth a thread of their own and would make for a good discussion.

I can't bring myself to make judgments about entire regions of the world based on what I see and hear in digital media. I listen to American conservative talk radio, such as the Savage Nation for his emotion filled alarmist approach to current issues. I don't pretend to think that that is how all conservatives, let alone the people of the United States or all of western civilization, thinks and believes. As an American I am used to extreme views of left and right given our two party political system. I am conditioned to it. I know there is always one extreme to counter the other. I have a very hard time accepting Muslims = bad people without at least hearing the other extreme of Muslims = best people. I can't help it, I'm an American.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You couldn't just nuke the whole of Russia or the US, because the fallout would cause a global nuclear winter. And remember Fallout (the games)? That too.

Nuclear winter is a myth, created by anti-nuclear types using some very weird models. Admittedly, if the Earth suddenly resembled the models they were using it might happen, but if the Earth was to become a featureless sphere with no oceans or mountains, lit not by sunlight falling on a rotating body, but by an all present glow of less intensity all the time...well, that'd cause far more problems in of itself.

Nowadays Russia would get pimp slapped. The bottom line is that MAD made an invasion impossible during the cold war, one of the things that maintained MAD was a treaty that neither side would develop missle interception technologies, this is why things like STAR WARS were so contreversial and never really got online like originally conceived. After the end of The Cold War however when the USSR collapsed the US went on to develop anti-missle technologies, some of which we demonstrated during The War On Terror. Most of our current interception systems being based on ground batteries, using planes, or perhaps most importantly on boats and submarines. While it happened years ago there was some serious crap between the US and Russia because Russia felt the US was in violation of treaties even if the USSR with whom the treaties were signed no longer existed. These kinds of systems were also a key point during the recent incident with Georgia, which spilled over into the EU with Russia cutting off the oil. They threatened poland because the US has a missle interception base there which does a lot to hem Russia's missle projection capability in.

Yes and no. Although anti-missile systems were heavily restricted, there wasn't a ban on anti-aircraft systems. Aircraft are much harder to shoot down than ballistic missiles, so any anti-aircraft system (of any decent range)) is by default an anti-missile system, and both sides had those.

In any case, the new anti-missile system the US has developed wont stop the majority of missiles fired at it. It doesn't have to, because the enemy won't know which missiles will be intercepted. The enemy either has to aim multiple missiles at the same target to ensure it's destruction (more than they would to account for other factors, that is), meaning less missiles for other important things, or content themselves with the target possibly surviving. This makes not going to war an increasingly attractive option.

However, if the US and Russia did go to war, the US would still lose. Whether or not Russia loses more is going to be of little comfort to people in the US at the time.

Right now the most viable group, though still a long shot, to be able to invade the US is China. The current arms race right now is based more around anti-missle technologies and conventional weapons. China has developed these ground based laser systems (do a search for China, Satellite, Lasers) that can track and blind US satellites as far feteched as that sounds, they have been demonstrating them since around 2006. The bottom line is that the US can shoot down missles, but China can blind the orbital systems that the US uses to aim missles at extreme range. This means that any war between the US and China would require WMD to be brought in at relatively close range to be deployed. China has also been building up it's naval forces... at one point they could not project their forces, but they are gaining an increasing abillity to do so. Things like their "Yuan Class" submarine are also pretty impressive and represent a genuine threat to american ships as well as security for any transports they might deploy carrying soldiers.

Inter-continental ballistic missiles are, well, ballistic. They aren't aimed once they are fired (making them easier to shoot down than aircraft or guided missiles). They predate satellite guidance by some time.

And, though I agree that China is probably most likely to become able to invade the US, that's quite different from them being able to right now. There's moves to building up it's blue-water navy, but it'll be some time before they can project strength any great distance.

 

[Mercury1]

speaking of ground special forces you guys are missing JTF2 they will own all of you in seconds

 

[Binnzy]

You are all a bit daft, Generic warfare is pretty much dead in the water. In our world controlled by money and production, and therefore the countries with the largest capabilities to produce i.e China control the world.

The US is in so much debt to China and is so dependent on Chinas manufacturing that all China has to do is beat down America ergonomically and then just wait for the teetering tower that is the US economy to crumble.
The US economy is a dying horse, It is on its last legs and will fall within the next century, It can not hold up its production or development and civil unrest is a stones throw away.

TL;DR:
Wars are not won with weapons, They are won with market control.

China wins all.

 

[TheOddOneOut]

I,m not saying N Korea is strong but from what I read they do brag about their military power.

Are you trying to say North Korea is overconfident in its military? I think they brag just to save face in front of the world. At any rate they wouldn't be stupid enough to attack America or any other country that I can think of. Not when America is keeping it from staving, a slight exaggeration but we do donate a lot of food to North Korea

You are all a bit daft, Generic warfare is pretty much dead in the water. In our world controlled by money and production, and therefore the countries with the largest capabilities to produce i.e China control the world.

The US is in so much debt to China and is so dependent on Chinas manufacturing that all China has to do is beat down America ergonomically and then just wait for the teetering tower that is the US economy to crumble.
The US economy is a dying horse, It is on its last legs and will fall within the next century, It can not hold up its production or development and civil unrest is a stones throw away.

TL;DR:
Wars are not won with weapons, They are won with market control.

China wins all.

In a nuclear firestorm there are no winners. If the US falls we will take the rest with us

 

[Thaluikhain]

I,m not saying N Korea is strong but from what I read they do brag about their military power.

Are you trying to say North Korea is overconfident in its military? I think they brag just to save face in front of the world. At any rate they wouldn't be stupid enough to attack America or any other country that I can think of. Not when America is keeping it from staving, a slight exaggeration but we do donate a lot of food to North Korea

Well, the leaders of NK aren't concerned with their people starving.

But, in any case, the US is a long way from NK, it'd take a massive effort just to get them to a place where they could be defeated (barring being defeated by the US in SK, of course).

In a nuclear firestorm there are no winners. If the US falls we will take the rest with us

Not entirely true, the effects of nuclear warfare have been exagerated.

On the other hand, the US caused the GFC, they could take everyone down that way, which would happen in the event of a nuclear war...though it's a much lesser disaster.

 

[Therumancer]

You couldn't just nuke the whole of Russia or the US, because the fallout would cause a global nuclear winter. And remember Fallout (the games)? That too.

Nuclear winter is a myth, created by anti-nuclear types using some very weird models. Admittedly, if the Earth suddenly resembled the models they were using it might happen, but if the Earth was to become a featureless sphere with no oceans or mountains, lit not by sunlight falling on a rotating body, but by an all present glow of less intensity all the time...well, that'd cause far more problems in of itself.

Nowadays Russia would get pimp slapped. The bottom line is that MAD made an invasion impossible during the cold war, one of the things that maintained MAD was a treaty that neither side would develop missle interception technologies, this is why things like STAR WARS were so contreversial and never really got online like originally conceived. After the end of The Cold War however when the USSR collapsed the US went on to develop anti-missle technologies, some of which we demonstrated during The War On Terror. Most of our current interception systems being based on ground batteries, using planes, or perhaps most importantly on boats and submarines. While it happened years ago there was some serious crap between the US and Russia because Russia felt the US was in violation of treaties even if the USSR with whom the treaties were signed no longer existed. These kinds of systems were also a key point during the recent incident with Georgia, which spilled over into the EU with Russia cutting off the oil. They threatened poland because the US has a missle interception base there which does a lot to hem Russia's missle projection capability in.

Yes and no. Although anti-missile systems were heavily restricted, there wasn't a ban on anti-aircraft systems. Aircraft are much harder to shoot down than ballistic missiles, so any anti-aircraft system (of any decent range)) is by default an anti-missile system, and both sides had those.

In any case, the new anti-missile system the US has developed wont stop the majority of missiles fired at it. It doesn't have to, because the enemy won't know which missiles will be intercepted. The enemy either has to aim multiple missiles at the same target to ensure it's destruction (more than they would to account for other factors, that is), meaning less missiles for other important things, or content themselves with the target possibly surviving. This makes not going to war an increasingly attractive option.

However, if the US and Russia did go to war, the US would still lose. Whether or not Russia loses more is going to be of little comfort to people in the US at the time.

Right now the most viable group, though still a long shot, to be able to invade the US is China. The current arms race right now is based more around anti-missle technologies and conventional weapons. China has developed these ground based laser systems (do a search for China, Satellite, Lasers) that can track and blind US satellites as far feteched as that sounds, they have been demonstrating them since around 2006. The bottom line is that the US can shoot down missles, but China can blind the orbital systems that the US uses to aim missles at extreme range. This means that any war between the US and China would require WMD to be brought in at relatively close range to be deployed. China has also been building up it's naval forces... at one point they could not project their forces, but they are gaining an increasing abillity to do so. Things like their "Yuan Class" submarine are also pretty impressive and represent a genuine threat to american ships as well as security for any transports they might deploy carrying soldiers.

Inter-continental ballistic missiles are, well, ballistic. They aren't aimed once they are fired (making them easier to shoot down than aircraft or guided missiles). They predate satellite guidance by some time.

And, though I agree that China is probably most likely to become able to invade the US, that's quite different from them being able to right now. There's moves to building up it's blue-water navy, but it'll be some time before they can project strength any great distance.

Well, I disagree on the anti-missle systems, Russia at this point would be smacked down like a little kid, which is one of the reasons why they were so concerned over the developement of such systems in violation of treaty with the USSR, and about the interception base in Poland.

Right now we're looking at a situation where future warfare is increasingly likely to go back to conventional means, with the threat of WMDs delivering by ICBMs is minimal since hitting a super power with them, even attempts to saturate defenses, are going to fail.

In Russia's case the big problem with them is that they have a lot of hardware, and it's better than say a third world country, but most of it is fundementally junk. One of the things that caused the collapse of the USSR (but by no means the only factor) was how they backed and trained Iraq during Desert Storm, and had their training and hardware going up against that of the US, and they lost badly because they were lying about what they could do, and we understated things as usual. With everything else going on, a people going with nothing under the pretension that they were the best and were going to rule the world were kind of shattered by this.

While Russia has not remained entirely static despite the problems, the bottom line is that they don't have the technology to be effective in a conventional war against a globals super power like the US. Against many world powers like various nations in Europe... yes, really the UK and France are the only ones capable of fighting them, and there have been plenty of comments about their overall military prepardness (ie they have good tech, and very well trained troops, but their numbers of them and overall military infrastructure and readiness are something else entirely, but that's another debate. Basically being involved as much as they were overseas meant they weren't really able to do much when Russia moved into Georgia and cut off the EU pipeline and that was kind of the point. Especially seeing as the US was also engaged and chances are they could have rolled over anything there if they really wanted to, but their intent was to largely pressure hte border and perhaps place missles and the base(s) in Poland kind of ruined that so they were put in a position of invading or going hom and stopping their behavior, and they chose not to start a world war right then and there because they knew they would get squahsed in the long run after they caused the inevitable pull out).

China on the other hand has the advantage of having stolen and developed US military technology (thank you Bill Clinton) and has been putting it into production. Hence their abillity to blind satellites, and develop things like that "Yuan" class Submarine which is supposed to be on a similar level to our Seawolf class. One thing China did as part of their saber rattling was "tag" The Kitty Hawke (look it up) basically getting close to it, and then revealing their prescence, proving they could have killed it despite it's escorts. Being able to take down a US carrier like that is pretty much unheard of (which is why it was a big deal), Russia pretty much wishes it could do things like that the same way.

China is much further along in developing a blue water navy than a lot of people want to give it credit for.

-

Also, I'll pretty much say that the current shooter scenario of Russia invading Europe... all at once, is based on projections of what would likely have happened had Russia decided
to simply push into the EU after taking Georgia.... and it's pretty accurate. Groups like NATO aren't what a lot of people want to think they are without the direct backing of the
US, and if the US is otherwise occupied... yeah, it gets bad.

Of course the previous scenario with Russia invading the US was a bit more ridiculous, intended to invoke more of an emotional response, and memories of movies like "Red Dawn" (similar to what Homeland tried). Overall Russia (on the other side of the planet) would likely have to take Europe first, and then fight naval battles with the US throughout all the little islands and bases from there to here to get into position to even consider supporting an invasion if it was even practical. I don't play many shooters, but another point frequently forgotten in such situations is that we occupy Japan (whatever we might call it diplomatically) and have so much naval power stationed there that it's scary specifically because of Russia, China, and other eastern powers. Anything happens and there was going to be a ridiculously huge battle/counterattack from there which is the point. Most viable scenarios of east/west warfare basically start with them having to invade Japan and take out the US military there... which is why it's a great tripwire, because that means we're going to know what's coming.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

It wouldn't happen in the first place becasue of MAD

/thread