Russia vs. USA (War)

"In several hours of battle modern aircraft can destroy the best of ships...damage to any fleet that has no orders to fire back and so the planes." Yes, they can. But battleships aren't just sitting ducks. They have AA guns/rockets as well. What do you mean "no orders to fire back"? They're not just going to sit there and be bombed. They will retaliate. Once again, it seems as though my opponent is trying to base his entire invasion plan on the usage of 21 planes. They would not last long. Once bombs are dropped, Russian warplanes can go into the air and physically locate the bomber. No radar needed. After they are found, the Russian fighters would just form a wolf-pack and hound the B2s to death. My opponent next moves to address my mistake. I apologize for not reading in depth; BUT, I would like to say this: The US RIM-161 system is not considered fully capable of intercepting a DF-21 missile. Although there is a chance, it is highly unlikely that the DF-21 would be stopped. http://www.wantchinatimes.com... This means that, after all, the mining operations continue (and are just about done at this point in time) and the aircraft carriers are destroyed. My opponent then moves to attacking my claim about MLRSs. I think there is a misunderstanding. My opponent seems to think that MLRSs are designed to take down missiles. They are not. MLRS is artillery. My opponent then accuses me of making up numbers. I was not making up any numbers, even WW2 era Katyushas were easily capable of launching 6 missiles in 20 seconds. The modern Russian MLRS "Tornado" can launch 15 rockets in just under 20 seconds. I hope my opponent is satisfied that I've proved my point. http://en.wikipedia.org... I am fully aware of the definition of "thousands". No need to be rude. My point was, that my opponent uses "hundreds" or "thousands" to make his force sound bigger. In reality, since it is such a general argument, while it may be "correct" as my opponent argues, I can easily use this general argument to my advantage. If I said that I sent 5,000 tanks, and my opponent answers with "thousands of tanks", then I can correctly assume that he sent 2,000 tanks, because that is still "thousands". As a result, virtually all of my opponent's forces have been crushed by overwhelming numbers. My opponent claims that the "US alone has over 2,000 bombers". I have no idea where my opponent got this information, as he did not provide a source. The US has about 160 bombers. Could my opponent please provide a source for this aggressive claim? http://en.wikipedia.org... S-400 will, in fact, get shots on F-22s. The S-400 and F22 have almost never faced in battle, but when they did, the F-22 lost. There was an F-22 shot down over Syria by an S-400 missile system. This means that not only can the S-400 see the F-22 on radar, but it can lock onto it and take it down. http://www.liveleak.com... "my opponent only mentioned sending DF21s to Russia but never firing them" This is just...absurd. "Never firing them"? That's like saying "my opponent sent ammo to his soldiers, but never told the soldiers to load their guns and use it". "there are NATO forces present in the black sea have destroyed russian fleets based there." Not so quick. As I mentioned above, DF-21s are still capable of taking down aircraft carriers. Any carriers in the Black Sea have been eliminated. This makes it much easier for the Black Sea Fleet to hold off NATO at the choke-point. Only after a long battle and many losses would NATO finally get through the choke-point and into the Black Sea. At that point, Russian forces have assembled by the shore and NATO wouldn't be able to get their feet on Russian soil because of the heavy defenses. "I was simply saying US has a large defense budget available, in fact more than russia and china combined." 1. The US spends more money on military than the rest of the world combined. Does that mean that the US alone could take on the entire world? Of course not! Money is not a good way of measuring strength. For example, Russia only spends $87 billion on military, but has more tanks than all of NATO combined. 2. At least $170 billion of those $615 billion is spent on maintaining military bases. Not even improving, only maintaining. http://www.laprogressive.com... I would like to note that my opponent failed to respond to an attack I made towards the Middle East. I mentioned this attack in Round 3 but my opponent made no move to reinforce the forces in the Middle East. Most were destroyed, and the Russian forces returned to the homeland. As a result of this move, my opponent lost men, equipment, and oil supplies. NATO is having a very hard time economically trying to supply all of its transoceanic and transcontinental soldiers with food and oil. My opponent plans an attack into Russia from Europe. He makes the force take a long route through Europe before reaching Russia, giving Russia ample time to prepare. I have no idea how my opponent plans to transport and supply this enormous force. That is just such an insanely large amount of military that it would take weeks just to get all of these soldiers and equipment into one place! Even if NATO manages to do this, and finds a way to supply all of that with food and oil, that would be an unbelievable strain on economy and logistics. I would also like to ask, where would the planes and tanks be refueling? Also, I'm quite sure that NATO would not be able to muster 500 bombers. Even my opponent's source shows that NATO would only be able to muster 205 bombers, all of which are US/UK bombers. (This also contradicts my opponent's previous claim that the US has over 2,000 bombers). Granted that NATO would somehow manage to supply this operation, this would be Russia's response: 1. Send virtually all of Russia's remaining tank force to stop this attack, meaning Russia would have 10,500 tanks versus NATO's 12,000. I would also like to note that the Russian T-90 tank is superior to most tanks that can be thrown at it. The T-90 can literally fire a laser-guided missile out of its gun that has a range of 5 km. That means that a single T-90 tank would be able to pick off enemies from a distance at which the enemies can't even see the T-90. http://www.army-technology.com... 2. A total of 313 Russian and Chinese bombers would be repeatedly bombing the NATO force on its way to Russia. (These bombers would be protected with about 500-600 Russian fighter planes) http://www.globalfirepower.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. Send all of Russia's remaining 8,800 towed artillery pieces (versus NATO's 6,000) that would be bombarding the NATO forces day and night. 4. Send 20,000 Russian and Chinese AFVs (versus NATO's 12,000), 4,000 MLRSs (versus NATO's 150) and 4,500 SPGs (versus NATO's 200). The NATO force would crumble under the unbelievable amount of artillery support. Russia would also send about 35 million troops to support this defense. Also, all of Russia's 500 2K12 Kub surface-to-air missile systems would be sent to take out NATO's fighters. http://en.wikipedia.org... This NATO attack force would be crushed by the overwhelming defending forces. My opponent's next paragraph is almost completely refuted because: 1. B2s are down 2. Carriers are down I would like to note that my opponent has failed to counter my attack on the US mainland, and the forces have made to US shores. The enormous tank force is overrunning everything in its path and cities are mauled by Tu-160 bombers. Reinforcements arrive from the Pacific. US mainland is now flooded with Russian/Chinese forces. My opponent's link is not a valid argument, because it's a link, like a source. You can't use a source as part your argument. Thank you