Russia would defeat the USA in a war.

"I would like to extend my gas argument, because I provided a valid source and my opponent did not." I read the article my opponent provided. No where does it say that Russia is buying gas for such a price. It says: "Gazprom will put the price it charges Ukraine for gas back up from $268.50 per thousand cubic metres to $368.50". It says nothing about Russia buying gas for $100, 000. "My opponent also drops the fact that the Russian dumping of the US currency will hurt Russia and cause hyperinflation." If my opponent would have read my argument more carefully, he would notice that I addressed this in my argument. "US will rain scuds down upon the Russian forces blowing them into oblivion." 1. Missiles are expensive. 2. Russia has anti-missile systems. 3. Russia has missiles as well. 4. This is an exaggeration, a war cannot be won by missiles alone. That is like me saying that: "Well, Russia has more machine-guns so all the US soldiers will just get mowed down." "While the Russian economy fails and crushes the Russians will be forced to surrender and they will fall into depression." The Russian economy would not crash. In fact, many businesses (war based) would prosper because of the sudden extreme need for guns, ammo and explosives. Also, the Russians would not surrender. As seen in WW2, Russians have a tendency to fight until every resource has been exhausted. They are fighting for their motherland's survival. If they lose, they lose all, so they MUST win. US soldiers, on the other hand, may not be so pumped because they are invading a far away land. The overall morale of the Russian soldiers would be higher because they are fighting ON their own land and FOR their own land. "The Invasion in the East (Bering Strait) will be by the US Army" As mentioned above, there will be very heavy forces located there. The US Army will take heavy losses and most likely will not make serious progress. "I purpose a second invasion where the US will invade Russia through the Baltic Sea between Finland and Estonia and this will be administered by the Marine Corps and the US Navy." The area in which my opponent proposes an attack in a choke point. It is a narrow pass in which the US Navy will not have much space to maneuver and use its numerical advantage over the Russians. The Baltic Fleet has 56 warships and 2 submarines. While the submarines are not a very significant force, they will simply support the 56 warships which will be able to hold off the US Navy. Throughout history, it is seen that armies with a numerical disadvantage can use geography (specifically choke points) to hold off their enemy. This can be seen in the story of the Spartan army of 300, it can be seen in the way the Byzantine empire defended Constantinople from Islamic invaders, the way the Germans used this same choke point against the Russian fleet in WW2, and it will prove true once again. The Russian Navy will mine this area and have all of its warships on full battle readiness. The US Navy will not be able to progress. Even upon the complete destruction of the Russian Baltic Fleet, the US Navy would have taken large losses and by then, the land around St. Petersburg and adjacent areas would be battle ready and the US would not be able to set foot on Russian soil. http://en.wikipedia.org... "the farthest the US can shoot is 13,000 km (Minuteman 3) while the farthest the Russians can shoot is 11,000 km (SS-27)" The distance from Moscow to Washington DC is about 7, 800 km. This means that realistically, having a missile with a range much higher than about 8, 000 km is pointless because that only allows you to overshoot your target. That's like if a man is standing 30 feet in front me and I have a pistol while my opponent has a sniper rifle. Yes, he can out-range me but that is not necessary because he doesn't NEED all that range. Therefore, the range advantage of the US Minuteman 3 is pointless. "My opponent also forgets that the US currently has troops stationed all over the world so it will be easy to invade Russia from all different directions." The US has troops stationed all over the place, yes, but: 1. They are in relatively small numbers and would not be able to accomplish much. 2. Most are far away from Russia and would only be able to do anything, realistically, if they all coalesced into a large group. (Unlikely to happen because of how difficult it would be to do.) While the US consumes 19 billion barrels of oil per day and only produces 8.5 billion, Russia consumes only 2.2 billion barrels a day while producing 11 billion. This simply means that the US would run out of resources at least 4 times faster than Russia. Without significant oil supplies, the US army would crumble. http://www.globalfirepower.com... I would like to note that the arguments my opponent provided are very general. I would like to request more specific. For example, give amounts, numbers of tanks/soldiers/ships etc. (Realistic numbers, of course).