USA vs Russia War Scenario

I sincerely apologize for my forfeit. It was an accident and I hope this debate will still be judged on our arguments, because I’m curious to see who will win :) Helicopters I believe you have misunderstood my strategy for the helicopters. The majority of helicopters would be based in Europe at airbases, not on helicopter carriers. You mentioned the difficulty of transporting helicopters from the US, “These will have to be transported solely through aircraft carriers to the Russian shores" and I was refuting this by saying that aircraft carriers would not be used. Aircraft Carriers Yes my source does say “The most significant threats to carriers are cruise missiles.” However, the source is just saying that cruise missiles are more dangerous than any of the other methods because the other methods are extremely difficult. Additionally, the range of the Moskit missile is 100km, http://www.globalsecurity.org... while aircraft carriers can perform operations from more than 1,000 km. Air -The F-15E can carry the JASSM-ER http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com.... The current US inventory of AGM-158 plus new ones made between now and the onset of war (April) would be more than enough to equip all of the planes. -The response of the Russian air force would be severely limited after the stealth strikes on their airbases and as a result would be unable to “take to the skies and be able to clear the Russian airspace of any remaining US aircraft.” -The attack on the Eastern coast is coming mostly from carriers and Alaska. There is not that much distance between Alaska and Russia, and the carriers can attack from even closer. This attack would have the same effect as the one in the West. -The mine warfare force will not be able to set up a minefield that keeps the carriers over 1000km from the entire Eastern coast. (There would literally have to be mines on the shores of Alaska). -The bombing runs throughout the war may take losses from remaining air defense systems and aircraft, but these losses are easily replaced by US industry and the numerous trainer aircraft, while Russia could not replace their losses so easily. Sea I believe that the USN in the Pacific could pretty easily defeat the Russian navy there, but in my overall strategy, control of this area is not very important. The USN in the Pacific withdraw and aegis systems focus on shooting down ballistic missiles coming from Russia. However, the ships will still enforce a blockade. Aerial bombardment of the land is toned down, but this will be coupled with continued bombardment of the Russian navy by all 5 carriers. The Russian navy in the Baltic Sea, heavily damaged by submarines and cruise missile bombardment, is crushed as the blockading fleet moves in and finishes the job, albeit with losses. There are now two carriers in the Black Sea and two in the Baltic Sea, adding their firepower to the land-based aircraft. Ground “The military bases in Poland and Baltic states would be overrun by Russian ground forces early on in the war” “There is virtually no reason for the Russians to make any advances.” Two contradicting points, but I’m going to go with Russia not making any major advances because that was said in the actual ground category, and also because overrunning the Polish and Baltic bases would actually be very difficult. The US ground attack would come from Eastern Europe along a wide front similar to Barbarossa. I agree that this would not be a surprise, especially considering that it will come about a week after the aerial bombardment has begun. The attack will use the major US advantages effectively, these being: Air superiority, better trained and more numerous troops, helicopters, and more industrial capacity. The US would bait the Russian army into a war of attrition, which the Russian army would gladly enter into, thinking that their superior tank and artillery numbers would allow them to win. The US ground forces would selectively choose their battles, making sure that any battle would be cost effective. Both sides would have to weather artillery bombardment, which damages morale more than it actually causes significant damage. (Not saying that it doesn’t kill soldiers and destroy equipment, it simply is inaccurate and so isn’t extremely effective at this job as compared to a tank). Some aircraft would continue bombing targets such as airbases and any remaining air defense systems, but many would be reassigned to aiding the ground war. The Russian army may have more artillery, but the extremely accurate and deadly bombing runs of aircraft would easily negate this advantage. While this is going on, back in the US the military-industrial complex would begin pumping out thousands of tanks and other military equipment, all of which would be sent to the warfront. The US would out-produce Russia, and in the end would win the war of attrition through this. As the gap between tank and artillery numbers few smaller and eventually reversed, the US could make major advances into Russian territory. At this point, it would only be a matter of time before Moscow sued for peace. You may say that the US ground forces would be overrun before this industrial strategy could come into effect, but it takes a really long time to destroy 8,000+ tanks, and kill millions of soldiers, even with a 2:1 tank and artillery ratio. Logistics Oil: The fact that the US imports oil isn’t that important. The US imports barely any oil from Russia, so would not lose any imports from this war. Additionally, if necessary the US could simply increase oil imports. Merchant Ships: Blockade from the USN negates the effectiveness of Russian merchant ships, they simply would be target practice. The US has 300 merchant ships, but it can also use the ships of other countries. These ships travel with goods both ways. For example, the US imports a ship full of steel from Europe. This ship is then sent back to Europe full of oil. The international trading system allows the US to easily ship military supplies to Europe. Once in Europe, these supplies can be transported through large numbers of easily produced trucks to the front lines. Also, the USN is more than capable of protecting ships from submarines, and Russia wouldn’t dare adopt unrestricted submarine warfare and sink the ships of other countries. Other: The US could buy goods from European countries and just have them shipped to the military bases in Europe instead of the American homeland. Ballistic Missile I understand the strategy here, but I have refrained from using ballistic missiles loaded with conventional explosives in my previous arguments for a specific reason. A launch like this coming from Russia would look exactly the same as a nuclear strike (radar can’t tell the difference between a missile loaded with explosives and one loaded with a nuclear warhead). We agreed that nuclear weapons would not be used in this debate, but they still exist, and I think that this strike is taking advantage of that rule, because the reason for the rule is so that the two countries don’t simply annihilate each other. In my opinion, I believe that this strike should not be allowed by this debate, but I will leave the final decision up to you in your next argument. If the strike does happen, some will be shot down by aegis systems in the Pacific, as well as ballistic missile defenses located in California, but many will hit their targets. The US will respond with its significant nuclear forces, but loaded with conventional explosives. These would target Russian industrial centers. Aircraft that had previously been attacking Russian industry would instead locate and destroy Russian ballistic missile launch sites to prevent follow up attacks of the same sort. The US industry will take some damage from the initial bombardment, but without significant follow up attacks will rebuild. This attack will also harden the population and turn public sentiment even more against Russia, causing a wave of new military recruits. Economy “The majority of the defense budget goes to just maintaining foreign military bases.” only $22.1B by a Pentagon estimate http://www.rand.org... “Considering USA's debt and already enormous military spendings, I doubt it could increase much more.” The US does not have enormous military spendings as compared to its economy. US military spending is only 3.5% of GDP, same as Russia’s, and historically very low. The US debt to GDP ratio is about 1:1, this could go higher, and has in the past. Also, an increase in government spending would add to GDP growth, increasing the size of the economy and bringing this ratio down, acting as a counterbalance to increasing debt. http://research.stlouisfed.org... WWII production: I did not mention the WWII production of the USSR because much of the USSR’s major industry was located in the eastern regions that broke off in the 90’s. Instead I used the national geographic data about the amount of industry in the two economies. This showed that the US today has much more industry than Russia, with ~$3.5 trillion worth of industry in the US and ~$0.6 trillion worth of industry in Russia. Even if the US homeland is under attack, this huge gap would not close by nearly enough.