Russia would defeat the USA in a war.

"Yes, but the US navy is a very important part of the Millitary" Absolutely. But because Russia is a large piece of land, Navy alone will not be able to accomplish anything. It might help a bit, but will not be a able to win the war. "That and the airforce are probably the most important" Definitely not. The land forces are the most important. A war cannot be won through air attacks alone (as proven by the Luftwaffe when trying to destroy Britain in WW2), or navy and air attacks combined. Land forces are absolutely necessary. "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." Russia is not trying to take over America. As mentioned in the rules of the debate, the US is the aggressor and Russia is defending. Only after Russia defends successfully, the American military will be crippled to a point where Russia can successfully invade the North American continent. "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...cost over runs and under performance. " Not necessarily. The AK-47 was not only 4 times cheaper than its American counterpart (M16) but it was made 10 years earlier and still performed the same, if not better, than the M16 (other than rate of fire). Could my opponent please provide examples of how "time and time again" Soviet weapons were shown to be inferior? http://www.diffen.com... "The F-15 has a zero loss air to air combat record over a period of 25 years" I must admit, that is very impressive, but I will note that: 1. My opponent has provided no source for this. 2. Anti-air guns and missiles exist which have taken F-15s down. http://en.wikipedia.org... "The M-1A2 will engage and destroy a T-90 before the T-90 even knows the battle has begun." Let's start with the gun. The T-90 is an autoloader while the Abrams needs a loader (20th century methods), meaning the Abrams is more prone to error during simply because there is a human instead of a machine. The T-90 is the only tank in the world that can fire a missile through its cannon. It can fire a laser-guided missile which has a range of 5 km. This means, in fact, that the T-90 can destroy an Abrams before the Abrams can even see its opponent because of the enormous range on the missile. Next, let's examine the suspension/engine. While the Abrams only has a max speed of 56 km/h, the T-90's top speed is 65 km/h. The T-90 is also known to have amazing suspension and can travel on virtually any terrain. The T-90 weighs less (almost 20 tons less) than the Abrams. This allows the T-90 to have an operational range of up to 700 km while the operational range of the Abrams is only 425 km. Let's take a look at protection now. The very base armor-thickness of the Abrams is 350 mm to 700 mm (depending on type of ammo being shot at the tank). This is inferior to the T-90s 800-1350 mm armor thickness. The T-90 has the Shtora-1 armor system which protects the tank from RPG shots (which destroyed many Abrams in Iraq) and laser-guided missiles. The T-90 has an anti-mine defense system as well. The T-90 is even protected against weapons of mass destruction. Not only is the M1A2 far inferior to the T-90, but the T-90 ($4.25 million) is less expensive than the Abrams ($6.21 million) http://www.diffen.com... http://www.armyrecognition.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... This further goes to prove my point that the Russian land forces would destroy the US ground forces. "Ships subs and missles are a no contest. We have had our way with the Soviet era Naval forces for decades." Ships? Yes, the US Navy ships outnumber the Russians by far. Subs? The 63 Russian subs would be able to do serious damage to the US Navy. As for missiles, Russia has a much larger arsenal of missiles than the US. These missiles would be used to destroy the US Navy's (as well as USAF's) numerical advantage over the Russian fleet. There are missiles that can destroy entire air-craft carriers. Once again, my opponent mentions "Soviet era". Russian technologies have advanced past the "Soviet era". http://www.globalfirepower.com... http://www.armscontrol.org... "They really don't have any bombers to compare to the B-52H, B-1B, or B-2" Only 65 B-52H planes are on active duty, the numbers of B-1B bombers are drastically being cut by the US and only 21 B-2 bombers were ever built. Although their quality may be superior to that of Russian bombers, they are in such insignificant numbers that no real impact would be made. https://www.stratofortress.org... http://defensetech.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... I would also like to note that for ALL of the arguments that I refuted above, my opponent's only source was Yahoo answers. "That statement was debateable. But this info is going to help my apponents case out a little" Not only did my opponent make two spelling mistakes in the above sentence, but I am in no need of help. "Either way, I think the flat Tundra is something helpful, not hurtfull." I absolutely disagree. Although it might make landing easier, after the US soldiers have landed, they will have no cover and will be at the mercy of the Russian artillery and air force. Also, the plains are tank's main battlefield and Russia already has an advantage over the US in respect to tanks. Placing the US forces in open plains will only make it easier for the Russian tanks to maneuver and eliminate the threat. "Even if those invaders got tired that quickly, it doesnt mean that there won't be more where that came from." 1. They wouldn't be tired, they would be dead. 2. Numbers no longer play a deciding role. Numbers haven't played a deciding role since the invention of the machine-gun. 3. The US would be the first one to exhaust it's resources because the US consumes 19 bbl and only produces 8.5 bbl. Russia, on the other hand, produces 11 bbl and only consumes 2.2 bbl. The US would run out of fuel much faster and after the fuel is gone, the US war machine would be dead. http://www.globalfirepower.com... http://www.globalfirepower.com... "Russia will need to replace all of the explosives quickly after not very long of the explodING." I am not talking about mines, I'm talking about artillery/MLRSs. "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." I allow. Although it really does not change your situation. Because you are landing in Siberia, there is still no closer location to where you are landing than the US. In the end, your situation does not change very much. Supplying your troops would still be almost impossible. "Even if they killed most of them, there would still by a ridiculously large number that they still need to deal with." Having a lot of tiny groups is pointless. As soon as the group does something, they would be located and destroyed. "Exausting the Russian ships. They can not hold these numbers at bay" A combo of Russian sea mines and subs would do heavy damage to US Navy. As mentioned, Russia is a large piece of land and ships can't do much out of water. The Navy would be almost useless after the first stages of the invasion.