Russia vs. USA (War)

In answer to my opponent's first paragraph: Yes, there will be initial damage, but the defenders quickly adapt. When they look on their radar, and see 21 "birds" of identical size, all coming in perfectly for the base, they are not stupid and will be battle-ready. They would have planes patrolling the skies, meaning that when the bombers are spotted, more fighters/interceptors will be sent into the sky to eliminate the target. Yes, the Germans had the advantage, but who won the war? Soviets/Allies. Also don't forget that while the Germans had several hundred bombers, your forces have 21. "My opponent speaks of attacking the aircraft carriers themselves in round 3 rather than the aircraft I already deployed into the air round 2, so therefore my opponent made no move to defend his fleets and ports from the aircraft already in the air so if no attempts are made by my opponent to shoot down the aircraft, they simply reach their targets and drop bombs without any casualties. The aircraft remain in the air" This is a silly argument. With the aircraft carrier down, there is no place for your aircraft to refuel and resupply on ammo. They would be helpless after several hours of battle. They can't "continually slaughter" the Russian forces if they have no carrier to get more ammunition and fuel. Therefore, I don't see how my opponent counts on destroying the entire fleet, when his planes (the ones that were already in the air before the carrier was destroyed) have only enough supplies to wage battle an hour at the most. "The Us navy has antimissile attached to many of its ships including all its aircraft carriers." My opponent has failed to correctly read his source. His source speaks of new "anti-torpedo technology", not "anti-missile". Therefore, the NATO aircraft carriers were still devastated by the usage of the DF-21. "Therefore the mining ships are destroyed and mining operations have failed." Since the DF-21 still have found no counter, the mining operations continue, and the level of risk for aerial attack has significantly fallen because of the lack of usable aircraft carriers. "More reinforcements arrive, more than enough of the newest technology resources needed to counter the reinforcements my opponent sent." This is a very general argument. I gave specific numbers of how many artillery, MLRSs and tanks were located there, while my opponent said "more than enough". That is an invalid argument. As mentioned, all reinforcements are under the risk of being taken out of the sky because Russian fighters are on the hunt and the planes have a long distance to cover. "The tactical aircraft consisting of thousands of bombers and fighters attack the artillery pieces after NATO's own artillery pieces have destroyed many anti-air artilleries." Another general, and invalid statement. NATO does not have "thousands of bombers", nor does it have "thousands of fighters". NATO only has a total of 3,000 fighters, and no where near as many bombers. All of these would not be concentrated in one area to simultaneously attack. http://www.globalfirepower.com... "This force will include hundreds of mobile rocket launchers from which rockets can be launched many km away to strike the Russian army and it will include thousands of howitzers,C-RAM, AN/TWQ-1, just to name a few of it's reinforcement artilleries sent" Mobile rocket launchers are not able to shooting very far. Once again, this is a very general statement and my opponent provided no numbers. Nothing to indicate quantity except "hundreds" or "thousands"' which makes the force sound big. NATO would have to send all of its artillery to one spot to have "thousands of howitzers". C-RAM is not even artillery. It is Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortar. The AN/TWQ-1 my opponent mentions is a "mobile, short-range air defense protection". So not only would it not be capable of firing "many km away" as my opponent claimed, but it is not even artillery. It is anti-air defense. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.msl.army.mil... My opponent heavily relies on aerial assaults to damage the tank force. The Russian force would take casualties, but as mentioned, S-400s and S-300s would take their toll. I mean, 3 or 4 S-400s are capable of destroying USA's entire force of F-22s. "The Black Sea fleet did not fire back on the aircraft i sent earlier and has already been destroyed without a single loss. With the black Sea fleet eliminated," This is also invalid. My opponent said nothing about attacking the Black Fleet in Round 2. He said that he would use aircraft carriers to eliminate targets behind the chokepoints. Well, now since the aircraft carriers are destroyed, I don't see what he expects of the few, base-less aircraft flying around that have no ammo left. The Black Sea fleet is damaged, but functional. "Fleet in Finland again has been destroyed by aircraft which did not get fired upon." Once again, the aircraft have no carrier to return to. They fly around for an hour and are useless. It seems as though a very large portion of my opponent's plan relied on aircraft carriers transporting planes to destroy Russian/Chinese forces. His misunderstanding about the DF-21 has cost him. Now, my opponent says that "no doubt Hawaii has been preparing for such strikes". 1. He provided no source to support this, merely made an assumption. 2. The planes are not attacking Hawaii, they are going for the West coast of mainland US. Since the Russian/Chinese attack force was NOT destroyed by NATO aircraft, the attack continues and the fleet successfully makes it to the USA shores. They take some losses, but there is little resistance after the heavy bombing done by the Tu-160s. Once again, because of my opponent's reliance on aircraft carriers (which were destroyed), the Black Sea Fleet can continue to move Russian forces through the Black Sea to take over the Middle-Eastern oil supplies and flank the NATO forces stuck in the Caucasus mountains. "The US spends about as much funding as the rest of the world so the US alone could easily provide enough funding for resources." This is absurd logic. That's just like saying "Well, I spend ton of money already, which means that I can spend a ton more". "The planned invasion of my opponent has been stopped short" As mentioned, my opponent made a mistake and his carriers were destroyed after all. The invasion continues and makes it to USA's shores. As a response to cyber attacks, Russia/China shut down most media systems, not allowing for NATO propaganda. "An increase in pro-NATO rebels will appear" This is a false assumption. Especially right now, there are more pro-Russian patriots than ever before. Just like in WW2, they will be prepared to fight till the last breath. There will be little to no "pro-NATO" going on inside of Russia. "Newer invasion from Scandinavian peninsula, east china sea, Romania and Hungary, and east coast of Siberia occur with millions of soldiers, hundreds of thousand equipment pieces." Once again, my opponent uses general terms. He seems to think he has an endless supply of people and equipment. Scandinavia? When did NATO forces get there? E. China Sea is heavily mined. E. Coast of Siberia? NATO forces will literally have to march 12,000 km or so to get to Moscow. That is not a realistic plan and the poor, freezing soldiers would be slaughtered in the open by artillery and tanks. To sum things up: 1. My opponent misread (or didn't read) his source, and his aircraft carriers have been destroyed. 2. Russian/Chinese fleets are still functional. 3. My opponent never specifies quantity, only saying "thousands" or "hundreds", not even knowing the amount of fighters, bombers etc. that NATO has. 4. The invasive force has made it to the USA. I await my opponent's answer.