Russia would defeat the USA in a war.

Yes, but the US navy is a very important part of the Millitary. That and the airforce are probably the most important.And if the land force is a lot stronger, how do would they ever expect to take over America? Americas' population is gigantic, and there aren't many places where Russia can attack unseen. I wouldn't call the Russian weapons superior.'The only advantage the Russian weapons have is COST. I think the battlefields have proven time and again that the Soviet era weapons are inferior, no matter how much the western press prattles on about cost over runs and under performance. The F-15 has a zero loss air to air combat record over a period of 25 years. USAF, Saudi, Israeli The M-1A2 will engage and destroy a T-90 before the T-90 even knows the battle has begun. Ships subs and missles are a no contest. We have had our way with the Soviet era Naval forces for decades. How bad is classified. USAF only feared overwhelming East Block numbers in any planned air engagement, never quality. They really don't have any bombers to compare to the B-52H, B-1B, or B-2 Stick to NATO/ USA if you want to win. But in the Congo or Somalia, cheap is probably better since the opfor will have nothing much either.'-scilink: https://answers.yahoo.com...That statement was debateable. But this info is going to help my apponents case out a little. Russia has always been known for building military equipment that you can hammer into the ground and still work. The Russian weapons are seen as being far simpler in design and with fewer parts on the inside. This means there is less to go wrong and when it does, it is far easier and quicker to fix. Take for example the Kalashnikov rifle – it has very few working parts. This leads to it being a very dependable weapon, even after being immersed in water, mud and so on. It is pretty much soldier-proof! Weapons used by the America, European and other “western” armies tend to be built with lots of moving parts. They look a lot fancier but tend to have a lot more bits that can go wrong.With this in mind, the question needs to be asked is: why are western weapons seen as being so much superior to their Russian counterpart? Could it be that the best Russian weapons are better than the best American counterpart? Both in design and operation? You won’t find mention of such blasphemy in the Western media for obvious reasons. Fed on a steady diet of Pentagon press releases and sometimes working as embedded reporters in war zones, most Western journalists are not able to make informed judgments. 'They also suffer in another way – journalists can’t be seen as biting the hand that feeds them. Employment in corporate America means you can’t afford to write anything that will portray American defence equipment as anything less than exemplary. This leads to objectivity being tossed out the window.Here’s what TIME magazine wrote in 1958, before Western journalists and corporate interests became bedfellows: “Russian weapons are generally simpler in design and more mobile. For too long the West believed that the Soviets made simple weapons because they were too unsophisticated to make complex ones. Now the West realizes that the simplicity bespeaks a high state of engineering skill”.A classic case of Russian superiority is that of the MiG-25 interceptor, known as the Foxbat to NATO. It was designed originally to combat the American Valkyrie bomber, which never materialized off the design page. It became a major scare word among NATO pilots throughout the 1970s chiefly because the Foxbat could fly faster and climb higher, often to the edge of space, than any Western aircraft. It remained a mystery in the West until 1976 when a defector flew a MiG-25 to Japan.When the Americans dismantled the aircraft they found the on-board avionics were based on older vacuum-tube technology rather than modern solid-state electronics. There was much derision in the Pentagon when they discovered the Russians were using outdated technology in their most advanced aircraft.It took them many years to find out that the designer of the Foxbat was not as misguided as he appeared at first. With the vacuum tubes, the MiG-25’s radar had enormous power to burn through. This led to it being invulnerable to any electronic jamming. As well as this, the Pentagon was devastated to discover that the vacuum tubes made the aircraft’s systems resistant to electromagnetic pulses (EMP). Russian scientists knew about EMPs long before the West did. This all meant that in the event of a nuclear war the Foxbat would be the only aircraft left flying on the planet.Even today, over 45 years after its first flight, the Foxbat remains the world’s fastest fighter, easily able to outrun every Western fighter that has been in service.' link- http://vincentcullen.wordpress.com...'Central Siberia has little to no mountains. It is flat tundra' --The flat Tundra will make it even easier for the US millitary to land. Also a lot easier to deploy troops. The surrounding mountians will also provide cover for the American millitary, while possibly making it harder of the US to get past. But still, it is safety. Also they could risk a lot by landing after the mountains have pretty much flattened out by losing their cover and making the faster.Either way, I think the flat Tundra is something helpful, not hurtfull.With allies flying ASAP- I meant American allies. Apologies for the misunderstanding.If America won, they would gain a lot of power and control. You can't argue with that. IF they won, America would show a lot of growth.'Except mobilize it's army'They could very well mobilize the army, but they probably wouldn't be able to do it before more of the milllitary pours in.I would also like to note that our millitary numbers are a lot greater than Russia's. We would tire their millitary before they would tire ours. Thus the invaders would not be so quickly destroyed. Even if those invaders got tired that quickly, it doesnt mean that there won't be more where that came from.They would deploy their troups and vehicles in the plains.Explosives for hours? Russia will need to replace all of the explosives quickly after not very long of the explodING. The American soldiers would push forward. *possibly in a line formation with dogs to search for bombs. The line formation so they don't all get blown up by walking on a single bomb. The Russians can't replace their bombs THAT quickly.Ok, one question with the rules. If I could include allies, I could easily say that the Americans stay in allies territories and supply the troops with oil food,etc. from jets, *which would be very easy* but without including the allies it would be virtually impossible. If there were allies, the US would surely be able to do it because they are camping in allies territories. I would like to ask if that rule could be changed to not having the allies fight for them, but just being in the allie's territory. You coudl do the same. Without the allies in this situation, there is nothing I could possibly say.With the MLRs, how are they going to do that so easily if the Americans are in so many small groups? They can't be occupied with that many at the same time, and it would be just so hard to find every single one before the Americans do damage. It would exaust the Russian Millitary. *I need to say this, those artillary and MLRS are pretty fancy and deadly* There is no way the millitary could keep all of those small spread out groups at bay. Even if they killed most of them, there would still by a ridiculously large number that they still need to deal with. There are a very large number of US ships.*285 active ships, info found http://www.history.navy.mil... Exausting the Russian ships. They can not hold these numbers at bay.Russia simply can not control the amount of small spread out groups. They will soon be exausted.