USA vs Russia War Scenario

Before I continue, I would like to address the situation with ballistic missiles. While it can be debated, we no longer have space, so I agree to put conventional missiles out of the question. Please pardon me.Helicopters Ahh, I see your point now. However, I would like to once again note that most attack helicopters have very small ranges. For example, one of the most modern US attack helicopters (AH-IZ Viper) only has a rnage of 425 km. This isn't even enough to launch an attack from Poland or Lithuania. http://www.militaryfactory.com...Aircraft CarriersWhile the "Mosquito" missile does have a range of only 100 km, squads of corvettes would be able to get near aircraft carriers. The carrier might send out aircraft to eliminate the corvettes, but even then, there are many more corvettes than there are aircraft carriers. Plus, an extended range missile (the 9M80E) is now available for these Russian corvettes. Also consider the fact that these "Mosquito" missiles are the fastest anti-ship missile in the world, meaning that once launched, they are very difficult to stop. As mentioned previously, they are specifically designed to defeat the Aegis system.http://www.globalsecurity.org...Air- My opponent's source says that the missile is NOT currently equipped with the F-16 or the F-15E, but "will eventually be integrated" and that "B-1 Lancer will be the only plane certified with the new missile for the next few years". Also note that the JASSM-ER currently costs $1.75 million a piece, which is very expensive.http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...- My opponent then mentions airstrikes from Alaska. The distance between Gambell (The Western-most city in Alaska, which I'm sure is not equipped with airfields to support a large attack) and Vladivostok (large city on the Eastern Coast of Russia) is 4,100 km. This is too far for anything but long-range bombers which are few, and easy targets. The US planes will simply not be able to deliver effective or significant damage from Alaska.- Bombing runs (considering their cost and inaccuracy) would not be cost-effective especially with ever-present surface-to-air missile systems.Sea Pacific-My opponent claims that the USN could easily defeat the Russian Pacific Fleet, but I believe this is not so. I was not able to find the ship count of the US Pacific Fleet, so I will compare the Russian Pacific Fleet with USA's entire Navy.The Russian Pacific Fleet alone has 22 submarines, which is about 30% of USA's entire Navy's submarine count. Also, the Russian Pacific Fleet has 41 warships, which is about 45% of USA's entire Navy's warship count. It can be seen that the Russian Pacific Fleet would be a challenge to the US Pacific Fleet consdering that the USA's Pacific Fleet is less than half the size of its entire Navy. Don't forget that the Russian Pacific Fleet could recieve reinforcement from the Russian Northern Fleet, which is even bigger.http://russian-ships.info...http://www.globalfirepower.com...Baltic- While the Baltic Sea Fleet would most likely be defeated, it is not as easy as my opponent makes it out to be because:1) The Fleet can easily receive air support from the nearby coast.2) The Baltic Sea would be very easy to mine considering the chokepoint, meaning that the US ships would NOT be able to progress for a long time until the minefields are effectively cleared, either by minesweepers (which the US has little of) or by ships running into the mines and being destroyed.Even after the US has relative control of the Baltic Sea, a landing must still be made, which would be even more difficult.Ground My opponent states that overrunning the Polish and Baltic bases would be very difficult, but this is an empty claim with no support.My opponent suggests a attacking with a wide front, similar to operation Barbarossa but I believe this to be a very poor strategy for several reasons.1) The attack will not be a surprise. (Unlike operation Barbarossa)2) The US will have to ship and fly in enormous amounts of men and material, where as Germany already had a large military presence in the area.The US simply won't be able to manage to push such a huge front effectively because of the logistical difficulties.My opponent lists several advantages, however does not expand on how they could be "used effectively". Also, the quality of troops can be largely debated. Don't forget that the Russian troops have a very powerful stimulus (defending their people and land), which will make them just as determined (if not more) as they were in WW2. My opponent then addresses the likely war of attrition. I agree that Russia would probably and confidently fall into this war of attrition, however, the US would still be losing it. Yes, artillery is inaccurate, but in this war, there will be a scale that has never been seen before. The sheer mass of artillery fire will be devastating. Also, my opponent exaggerates the effectiveness of bombing runs. Bombing is not very effective and is actually very expensive. An example is when, over a period of 79 days, NATO dropped "thousands of the most sophisticated – and expensive – bombs on dummy targets erected by Serb forces. They hit just 13 of the Serb army’s 300 battle tanks despite Nato claims of large-scale destruction of the country’s heavy armour"http://www.theguardian.com...Even air raids won't be able to balance out the ground forces between the US and Russia.My opponent points out that it does take a long time to eliminate such large amounts of men and machinery, but they will not be all on the battlefield at the same time. Only in much smaller amounts at a time. The US won't be able to just spawn thousands of tanks and soldiers for an attack, they have to be shipped in from far away. (I would also like to note that while the tank ratio is about 2:1 in favor of Russia, the artillery ratio is more like 3:1 in favor of Russia)http://www.globalfirepower.com...LogisticsOil- While the US only imports 5% of oil from Russia, the main problem lies in the fact that Russia can continue completely supplying itself and selling oil for profit simultaneously, while the US can't. Oil prices would rise along with the already enormous use of it in the US, which would be an economic and logistical strain on America.Merchant ships- A blockade could only be enforced in the Baltic (with heavy losses), but even then, the very large amount of Russian merchant ships would allow Russia to move resources and men easier, cheaper and faster. The US military has to travel very long distances (mainly over water) and the USA's lack of these ships would make it much more difficult to effectively supply the army.EconomyMilitary bases: It is actually considered that the actual spending is closer to $200 billion to maintain military bases, especially during war-time such as the war in Afghanistan. http://www.tomdispatch.com...My opponent mentions that the US debt to GDP ratio is about 1:1, but I believe this to be false. The US is currently at nearly $18 trillion in debt. The US economy is no where near powerful enough to recover this any time soon.http://www.usdebtclock.org...Summary:Air:a. The very long ranged missile my opponent described is NOT equipped with F-16s or F-15Es, and even when it will be (if it will be), they are extremely expensive.b. Bombing runs (as shown by my source) are not very effective, accurate or cost-effective. The US Airforce's losses will greatly outweigh the benefit of performing these runs.c. Helicopters would only serve to support infantry, and even then would take heavy losses from things such as simple RPGs to anti-air missile systems.d. Overall, USA's aerial superiority would only serve a limited function which my opponent has not shown. He has mainly described their function as destroying Russian planes on the ground.Sea:a. The Russian Black Sea Fleet would be defeated, however the US would not be able to (nor has my opponent tried to) advance on land from there.b. The Russian Pacific Fleet (reinforced by Northern Fleet) would be able to stand its ground against any US aggression. In fact, this fleet is powerful enough to dominate the Pacific to the point where any US bases in Japan would be defeated and trade between US and Asia (esp. China) would be limited because of the Russian attacks on US merchant ships in this area.c. The Russia Baltic Fleet would be eventually defeated, but the US would take heavy losses before doing so. As mentioned, mines would play a large role in this situation because of the choke-point and lack of US anti-mine ships.Ground and Logistics:a. The US would have an impossible task ahead of it. To defeat Russia on land. The US logistical chain would NOT be able to bring in sufficient amounts of military in short periods of time. The US has never had to perform such operations, and would not be able to replace losses fast enough. Yes, the US might produce more tanks, for example, but shipping the tanks to the battlefield in time and in significant quantities would be very difficult. b. The very large amount of Russian artillery would play a large role in lowering US morale and destroying military camps and machinery.c. My opponent has suggested a "Barbarossa-like" attack strategy, which would fail. Not only has it failed historically in WW2, but the US does NOT have such a large military presence near Russia as Germany did, and would not be able to muster the numbers needed to push such an enormous front.Thank you for the good debate :)