USA vs Russia….Who Ya Got???

March 11, 2014 | 26 Comments » | Topics: main

With Putin annexing Crimea and trying to reestablish the former glory of the Soviet Union, talks of World War 3 have sprung up from the ashes of the Cold War. Who do you guys think would win an all our war??? Consider these stats:

Russia – USA

1. Total Population: 142,517,670 – 313,847,465
2. Manpower available: 69,117,271 – 142,212,012 
3. Military reserve: 20,035,000 – 1,458,000 
4. Total aircraft strength: 4,500 – 15,2936
5. Navy ship strength: 224 – 2907
6. Submarines: 58 – 71 
7. Total aircraft strength: 4,500 – 15,29310.
8. Total helicopter strength: 1,635 – 6,665

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on StumbleUpon0Email this to someone

  • Heathen

    Considering Russian Military doctrine is so heavily dependent on nuclear weapons, once the US dealt with the elite of the Russian forces, it would be a one sided bloodbath.

    Also few realize the US has a larger military who is heavily experienced in combat. The vast majority of Russian troops even the elite units have not see combat. Experience is often a decisive factor in the early stages of a war.

    In the air and on the sea, it would be one sided, but on the land, it would be a closer battle, but yet again the Russians would be wore down by their heavy reliance on elite forces and weaker air power.

    • ND52

      When do you ship out for war?

  • RustyKuntz

    The US in a conventional war. Most of the Russian equipment being used is pre 1990’s vintage and their superior numbers and firepower is allowing them to win in Georgia.

    With nukes neither side would win, we would destroy each other.

  • DDilbert

    From a tactical stand point, the US has the upper hand in a conventional war fare. We could easily command the sea and sky. The ground war would be a lot harder, especially given the harsh Russian winters and how long they last.

    On the nuclear front, given that each party has a significant stock pile of weapons, no one would win. Russia has the capability of striking any target within the US with pin point precision. The same goes with the US. The missiles would fly and we would annihilate each other and everyone else in the world would pay the price. Just in case you are thinking I am an anti-nuke nut, I am not. I just know the power of our national weaponry.

  • iwinagin

    The US is dominant in nearly every category. Russia does have more tanks and basic artillery but many of those are older equipment that wouldn’t last long against a modern military. Consider what the US did to Saddam Hussein in Desert Storm for a look at T72 vs Abrams. Russia would put up a fight but they don’t even have the naval capability to invade the US. Russia would do some damage to our allies in Europe but once The US started rolling we would return Russia to the stone age pretty fast.

    Russia does have nuclear weapons and the ability to deploy them against the US. On the other hand the US has the ability to create a missile defense system capable of stopping the Russians within a matter of months. We have the technology but have not produced the necessary number of missiles and radar installations because of nonproliferation treaties with Russia. If Russia wants to go nuclear they have to do it in the first 2-3 months of the war to truly be effective. Casualties would be incredibly high but probably not the end of the world scenario that most people assume.

  • IvanDrago

    Russian would fuck USA badly….the Russians are resilient as fuck and the american public would turn on the war a few months into it.

    • bobcollum

      Wrong, wrong, wrong.

      • IvanDrago

        Besides Iraq, America has lost every single war they fought in the last 50 years, how do you expect them to win this one??

        • pwcog83

          Because the Russians have faired so much better over the same time period. Inferior equipment, shown in every conflict of US/NATO equiped countries against Soviet/Russian equipment. Inferior trained solders against well trained and combat tested frontline troops. Wouldn’t want to see it, but still wouldn’t end well for Russia …

        • Russiasox

          Militarily we (US) has never lost a war. We have kicked the shit out of everyone we ever fought but POLITICALLY we failed (Viet Nam and Korea) because of people like Obama and stinky, long hairs! FACT!

  • FuckYeahMurica!

    Nuff Said

  • BigBadBootyMacDaddy

    Is this a fucking joke?!?! America would whoops Russia ass with a hefty dose of FREEDOM!

    • Fractal Vortices

      The US joined late, like substitutes coming on late in a game after everyone else was beaten up. How proud you must be.

      • Ron

        proud yes, taking out the japanese that the all mighty chinese couldn’t do, freeing western europe which oh yeah all of europe couldn’t do. fighting the italians out of north africa, taking pressure off russia by starting a western front and supplying them with supplies and aid so a joint effort was made to decimate germany. we got the major allies BACK INTO THE WAR to actually win. sounds like a perfect player and leadership

    • Fractal Vortices

      The US joined late, like substitutes coming on late in a game after everyone else was beaten up. How proud you must be.

  • dadamama

    Actually, BigBadBootyMacDaddy, Russia is the reason why the allies won the second world war. more soldiers died in the battle Stalingrad than in the whole western front and it was the Red Army that took Berlin. If they had rolled over for Hitler, I would be typing this in German

    • Nozzle

      Wrong! Hitler’s over-reach is the reason why Germany was ultimately defeated. Hitler had millions of troops disbursed from Norway to North Africa…Had he gone east in the beginning, Russia would have been soundly beaten and communism would not have survived another fifty years.

  • Juanichi

    This is the most stupid post i’ve ever seen here. Read about the cold war? Wondered why they never went out full blown out war? Nukes. M.A.D. Mutual Assured Destruction.

  • aerodawg

    You left out the one thing Russia has that the US does not, namely a strong competent leader vs feckless incompetent boob. An army of supermen is useless with a leader lacking the brains and willpower to use it….

  • panno

    what about the nuclear arsenal?

  • panno

    I can’t wait for the end of the world 😉

  • Dank Donkerson

    to quote Gen. ‘Buck’ Turgidson

    ” I mean, you take your average Russkie, we all know how much guts he’s got. Hell, look at all ons them Nazis killed off and they still wouldn’t quit.”

  • Dank Donkerson

    the person who wrote this article is an idiot

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell.

    William Tecumseh Sherman

  • Nozzle

    We don’t have 2907 Naval vessels…I don’t know what the number is but I believe we have about 300…

  • Nozzle

    Conventional warfare against the Russians would be bloody, but given the results of the last quarter century, American armor, and aircraft have proven to be far superior to former Soviet export equipment…I believe the F-15 to Mig kill ratio is about 100-1 in favor of the Eagle. I think the F-22 is the best fighter in the world so not too concerned about the latest Migs and Sukhois. There really is no winning this argument however…I think Puteen would fire Nukes before he allowed Russians to be defeated on the battlefield.

  • Perico

    Which number is 15,29310 ? An special USA number?