What would a U.S.-Russia or China war look like?

[tangent4ronpaul]

What would a U.S.-Russia war look like?
http://theweek.com/article/index/257...-war-look-like

What would a U.S.-China war look like?
http://theweek.com/article/index/254...-war-look-like

The first article gives a good comparison of military capabilities of various countries, but both have flaws. Primarily about MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). This is a US creation that neither Russia or China signed up for. We put our ICBM's in the middle of the bread belt, ensuring the countries starvation if there was ever a nuclear exchange. They didn't. The US hasn't had a public shelter program for decades, instead we have something called COG (Continuity of Government) meaning protect the politicians and military big wigs, while both Russia and China have robust public shelter programs and distributed populations. Only 5% of the US population is rural.

Russia does things like having blast doors and survival supplies stocked on their subway system.

China is more interesting. Besides a robust shelter program, they have been building small cities that are vacant. They also have hundreds of miles of underground rail and when the country goes on alert they relocate large parts of their urban population to more rural locations.

A war with China would be an economic warfare attack on our own financial system/the dollar.

Completely missing is the cold war ongoing over strategic materials.

Missed is that Russia also has ASAT weapons and hackers.

Where the author is spot on is wars by proxy between the US and Russia and both countries empire building, which has come back to bite us as we trained and equipped the people currently fighting us in a religious war.

Worse yet, there is NATO. What was put together to protect us from the USSR could drag us into another war with Russia if any of the NATO member countries get involved with the Ukraine conflict, which is fairly likely as some are next door to it. The war would probably be confined to the Ukraine.

Anyway, fairly good articles and food for thought. Anyone want to discuss it...

-t

[Constitutional Paulicy]

This would not bode well for any party involved, which is why I for one am not concerned. Hell I live in Taiwan and the cross straight relations are tied into this very scenario. If America interviens, I am a likely POW regardless of whether I'm wearing camouflage or not.

[youngbuck]

I think a war with Russia would be defined by this paragraph:

But classic dogfights are at least as dated as Top Gun, Russian defense analyst Ruslan Pukhov tells FT. "Ever since Soviet days we have been lagging behind the U.S. in military aviation." Because of that gap, he adds, Soviet and Russian military planners have invested heavily in air defense systems, and the S-300 and S-400 systems are the best in the world. "It's like boxing," Pukhov says. "If you have a weak right arm, you need to compensate by a strong left arm. Soviet strategists made up for a weakness in aviation by investing heavily in air defense systems."

In other words, they will fight us asymmetrically. This is their game plan, and they've had quite some time to refine it. I suspect they will be very effective in implementing it.

And just read the Chinese piece. Again, it would mostly be defined by the same thing:

To back up their actions, Chinese strategists have developed a large arsenal of conventional asymmetric weapon systems specifically designed to blunt American might, in effect creating a powerful deterrent that is forcing the U.S. military to walk softly in a region it once ruled supreme.

These asymmetric weapon systems would obviously include various methods of espionage and sabotage.

As China develops asymmetrical weapons to minimize American advantages, the Pentagon is also at work on technologies to overcome those counter-technologies.

And this is part of why we spend so much money on our military. It costs way more to try and stay ahead of these counter measures than it costs to create the counter measures. Even if our tech is better in the end, it cost 6 or 8x more to develop. And in the end, the Chinese just steal it. Sustainable?

[navy-vet]

I would think that surely there are some sort of protective clauses in the NATO obligation that we could employ to negate any obligation on our part to intercede should one of our allies execute an improper action to provoke an engagement with the Russians.

[mad cow]

Like a lotta mushrooms.

[alucard13mm]

China only wants to rule asia. They will only fight a defensive war against usa. They dont have the means aside from icbm to strike usa.

Usa wants to rule the world...

[navy-vet]

China only wants to rule asia. They will only fight a defensive war against usa. They dont have the means aside from icbm to strike usa.

Usa wants to rule the world...

And Hitler only wanted to rule Europe....and the Japanese the Pacific.....
As for the USA, it already pretty much rules the largest part of the free world. And for the most part I think that it is far more benevolent than the communists would be.

[bolil]

And Hitler only wanted to rule Europe....and the Japanese the Pacific.....
As for the USA, it already pretty much rules the largest part of the free world. And for the most part I think that it is far more benevolent than the communists would be.

You really don't get the concept of ruler/ruled relations, do you?

[Ronin Truth]

Well first we get Russia and China to fight each other.

Then second, we come in and kick the butt of the winner.

[navy-vet]

oh great....now I got this boil on my posterior and it don't want to let go....

[navy-vet]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/North_...eaty#Article_5
As I thought, there are a half dozen ways to wiggle our way out of any obligation to go to war. The drafters of this treaty were not at all stupid.

[navy-vet]

I personally don't think that we have to worry about getting into a war with either the Chinese or the Russians. At least not a nuclear one or a serious conventional one. Perhaps some skirmishes here and there. Unless of course we go into Syria any more than we already have, that could be a game changer.

[Natural Citizen]

Could be said that it is already taking place. War in the information age is a silent one. A need to know basis of sorts. True story.

[Occam's Banana]

I would think that surely there are some sort of protective clauses in the NATO obligation that we could employ to negate any obligation on our part to intercede should one of our allies execute an improper action to provoke an engagement with the Russians.

Given US bellicosity towards Russia - in the form of such things as S.2277 (the euphemistically entitled "Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014") - I would think it rather more likely that "our allies" (if they had any sense) might be looking for treaty clauses that they could employ to negate any obligation on their part to intercede should the US "execute an improper action to provoke an engagement with the Russians" ...

In any case: LOL at the notion that anyone but the US is holding the whip hand in NATO. To the chagrin of their master, they might whine and hang back on the hunt (or not), but the pet curs of the US in Europe will heel when and as they are told ...

[Natural Citizen]

Given US bellicosity towards Russia - in the form of such things as S.2277 (the euphemistically entitled "Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014") - I would think it rather more likely that "our allies" (if they had any sense) might be looking for treaty clauses that they could employ to negate any obligation on their part to intercede should the US "execute an improper action to provoke an engagement with the Russians" ...

In any case: LOL at the notion that anyone but the US is holding the whip hand in NATO. To the chagrin of their master, they might whine and hang back on the hunt (or not), but the pet curs of the US in Europe will heel when and as they are told ...

That Bill is benchmarked upon straight propaganda. Can we name one person in congress who has actually asked a critical question with regard to current events with Russia? I can't think of a single one. Every one of them has just jumped on the demonize Russia bandwagon with nothing to support it with other than the fact that "Oh...they're Russians". This bill is the product of a social and mainstream media driven generation and their so called representatives.

Who exactly do we know that is actually advising the President on Russia?

I've added a few points about that bill around the board. I'll try to share them here as I remember them....

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5617997

This is a really good one since it's an actual discussion... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5617997

Actually, there are quite a few points of relevance to the bill scattered all over the board in variuous sub forums where it can be placed into relevance. Probably 50 or so. I'm not searching for all of them, though. But folks should take the time to do that.

Also here with regard to NATO... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5599191

Here is an actual thread on the bill itself. No comments, though. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/content...on-Act-of-2014

* Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault - Published by the Council on Foreign Relations.