Georgia appeals for help over Russian "invasion".

[QUOTE="Cutekitten6_18"]I know this whole thing is goign on, but i dont know.. WHY is this happening?Oleg_Huzwog

Google "South Ossetia".

And what exactly makes the US "uninvadable?"I'm sure it's a mixture of American war movies and Republican propaganda.

Bigg_Boi

No, it's actually an entire ocean and coastal defences.

Russia would actually be much more difficult to invade since you'd have to go through many other nations to reach Russia.

Bigg_Boi

Russia is easily accessible from Hawaii and Alaska, especially since Hawaii is militaraly important.

Attacking Russia through Alaska is probably the dumbest idea ever conceived. If you think the Russian winter is bad in the west, imagine how cold it is on the east! The Russians would simply wait for the Americans to wear themselves out by slogging through the snow and then attack.

Bigg_Boi

That's why it's called being "prepared". Both times that Russia has been attacked, the invaders have been prepared. The US has a vast enough collection of different landscapes to not be caught unprepared.

On the other hand, America has the entire west coast open to attack. All it takes is a few Russian missile submarines and BOOM! There goes the Mid-West!

Bigg_Boi

That's what the Japanese thought. And look where they were then. :|

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

This is were Russia's advantage with the cold weather and environment comes into play again. It would be a logistical nightmare to equip that many troops with sufficent cold weather gear. Especially if they had to supply them in the field.

LJS9502_basic

And what if those soldiers die? You would have to supply their replacments with the same cold weather gear etc. Russia has a Navy and Airforce as well. It would be very difficult for Americans to even get a foothold in Russia let alone capture it.

The Russian SU-47 is just as powerful.

Bigg_Boi

American pilots are amazingly skillful though...

That's what the Japanese thought. And look where they were then. :|

The_Ish

The Japanese airplanes were made of wood :?

[QUOTE="alexmurray"]

They will just buy some the Us has the highest military spending in the world, and the Us would win the T-90 is a okay tank but most Russian tanks are T-72 and look what happened to them in the gulf war

loco145

The Iraq army was one of the most incompetent armies in the world, they couldn't even advance petty meters against the severely ill armed Iranian militias in the 80s. They had to gas the entire border to avoid an invasion in the end :?

The Iraqis are poorly trained but these tanks where operated by the republican guard and they where battle hardened veterans. But the tanks limitations, cant fire on the move, limited range and armor was the thing that killed it

[QUOTE="alexmurray"][QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

No matter how well "prepared" you are the weather will always be a decisive factor here.

Bigg_Boi

Russians are accustomed to it, Americans are NOT even with the appropriate clothing.

You honestly think that the U.S. military doesn't have cold-weather gear?

To equip the hundred of Thousands it would require to invade Russia? yes.

They will just buy some the Us has the highest military spending in the world, and the Us would win the T-90 is a okay tank but most Russian tanks are T-72 and look what happened to them in the gulf war

Do not try to argue with someone that has a very complete knowledge of Russia's miltiary gear. First of all, the T-72 export model (the one usd by Iraq) is missing half (if not more) of the features that a Russian T-72 has. The Iraqies didn't even have reactive armor on their T-72s! Also, Russia has around three times as many tanks as the US has.(23,000 to approximately 6000).

Also, Russia's T-55s (upgraded of course) are considered around the same as most modern MBTs.

Where did you get these numbers from?

Even so, numbers don't mean everything. A T-72 doesn't stand a chance against an M1A2

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

And what exactly makes the US "uninvadable?"I'm sure it's a mixture of American war movies and Republican propaganda.

The_Ish

No, it's actually an entire ocean and coastal defences.

Russia would actually be much more difficult to invade since you'd have to go through many other nations to reach Russia.

Bigg_Boi

Russia is easily accessible from Hawaii and Alaska, especially since Hawaii is militaraly important.

Attacking Russia through Alaska is probably the dumbest idea ever conceived. If you think the Russian winter is bad in the west, imagine how cold it is on the east! The Russians would simply wait for the Americans to wear themselves out by slogging through the snow and then attack.

Bigg_Boi

That's why it's called being "prepared". Both times that Russia has been attacked, the invaders have been prepared. The US has a vast enough collection of different landscapes to not be caught unprepared.

On the other hand, America has the entire west coast open to attack. All it takes is a few Russian missile submarines and BOOM! There goes the Mid-West!

Bigg_Boi

That's what the Japanese thought. And look where they were then. :|

Your are incredibly ignorant if you are comparing the Pearl Harbor assault with Nuclear submarines. Unlike planes and aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines are very difficult to detect and even more difficult to destroy.

I hope they can settle their own affairs without us jumping in to save the day and help dictate what this, that and the other country should do.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

This is were Russia's advantage with the cold weather and environment comes into play again. It would be a logistical nightmare to equip that many troops with sufficent cold weather gear. Especially if they had to supply them in the field.

Bigg_Boi

And what if those soldiers die? You would have to supply their replacments with the same cold weather gear etc. Russia has a Navy and Airforce as well. It would be very difficult for Americans to even get a foothold in Russia let alone capture it.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="alexmurray"][QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

No matter how well "prepared" you are the weather will always be a decisive factor here.

trix5817

Russians are accustomed to it, Americans are NOT even with the appropriate clothing.

You honestly think that the U.S. military doesn't have cold-weather gear?

To equip the hundred of Thousands it would require to invade Russia? yes.

They will just buy some the Us has the highest military spending in the world, and the Us would win the T-90 is a okay tank but most Russian tanks are T-72 and look what happened to them in the gulf war

Do not try to argue with someone that has a very complete knowledge of Russia's miltiary gear. First of all, the T-72 export model (the one usd by Iraq) is missing half (if not more) of the features that a Russian T-72 has. The Iraqies didn't even have reactive armor on their T-72s! Also, Russia has around three times as many tanks as the US has.(23,000 to approximately 6000).

Also, Russia's T-55s (upgraded of course) are considered around the same as most modern MBTs.

Where did you get these numbers from?

Even so, numbers don't mean everything. A T-72 doesn't stand a chance against an M1A2

Overrall, if all of Russia's T-55/54s, T-62s, T-64s, T-72s, T-80s, and T-90s are combined, it accounts for around 23,000.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

This is were Russia's advantage with the cold weather and environment comes into play again. It would be a logistical nightmare to equip that many troops with sufficent cold weather gear. Especially if they had to supply them in the field.

Bigg_Boi

And what if those soldiers die? You would have to supply their replacments with the same cold weather gear etc. Russia has a Navy and Airforce as well. It would be very difficult for Americans to even get a foothold in Russia let alone capture it.

The Russians couldn't push back so it would be a stalemate, where could they go, the Eu and get them into the conflict

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

This is were Russia's advantage with the cold weather and environment comes into play again. It would be a logistical nightmare to equip that many troops with sufficent cold weather gear. Especially if they had to supply them in the field.

Bigg_Boi

And what if those soldiers die? You would have to supply their replacments with the same cold weather gear etc. Russia has a Navy and Airforce as well. It would be very difficult for Americans to even get a foothold in Russia let alone capture it.

They could air bomb russia day and night until they surrender without even risking ground troops until the last stage of the conflict

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

This is were Russia's advantage with the cold weather and environment comes into play again. It would be a logistical nightmare to equip that many troops with sufficent cold weather gear. Especially if they had to supply them in the field.

Bigg_Boi

And what if those soldiers die? You would have to supply their replacments with the same cold weather gear etc. Russia has a Navy and Airforce as well. It would be very difficult for Americans to even get a foothold in Russia let alone capture it.

The US is industrially more capable than any nation in the world, especially Russia. Supply would be no problem. The US also has a population several times larger than Russia, getting soldiers wouldn't be a problem either.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

This is were Russia's advantage with the cold weather and environment comes into play again. It would be a logistical nightmare to equip that many troops with sufficent cold weather gear. Especially if they had to supply them in the field.

Bigg_Boi

And what if those soldiers die? You would have to supply their replacments with the same cold weather gear etc. Russia has a Navy and Airforce as well. It would be very difficult for Americans to even get a foothold in Russia let alone capture it.

Then you make more. They'd mass produce it obviously.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

This is were Russia's advantage with the cold weather and environment comes into play again. It would be a logistical nightmare to equip that many troops with sufficent cold weather gear. Especially if they had to supply them in the field.

LJS9502_basic

And what if those soldiers die? You would have to supply their replacments with the same cold weather gear etc. Russia has a Navy and Airforce as well. It would be very difficult for Americans to even get a foothold in Russia let alone capture it.

Do you know how much Russia spends on it's military? It would be a feat unto itself it the Americans even mananaged to touch Russian soil let alone win a war.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"]

That's what the Japanese thought. And look where they were then. :|

loco145

The Japanese airplanes were made of wood :?

The Japanese airplanes were superior to the U.S.'s......

They could air bomb russia day and night until they surrender without even risking ground troops until the last stage of the conflict

AgentA-Mi6

No, they could not.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

This is were Russia's advantage with the cold weather and environment comes into play again. It would be a logistical nightmare to equip that many troops with sufficent cold weather gear. Especially if they had to supply them in the field.

AgentA-Mi6

And what if those soldiers die? You would have to supply their replacments with the same cold weather gear etc. Russia has a Navy and Airforce as well. It would be very difficult for Americans to even get a foothold in Russia let alone capture it.

They could air bomb russia day and night until they surrender without even risking ground troops until the last stage of the conflict

Ever heard of "Fighter aircraft" or "Surfarce to air missiles" before? It would be like flying into a proverbial hornets nest for an American pilot.

Do you know how much Russia spends on it's military? It would be a feat unto itself it the Americans even mananaged to touch Russian soil let alone win a war.

Bigg_Boi

Your are incredibly ignorant if you are comparing the Pearl Harbor assault with Nuclear submarines. Unlike planes and aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines are very difficult to detect and even more difficult to destroy.

Bigg_Boi

And you're being ignorant if you think the US can't mobilize their Navy and their own Nuclear submarines to counter Russia's, especially since so much of it is trained and built in the West Coast, and are far more advanced.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

Do you know how much Russia spends on it's military? It would be a feat unto itself it the Americans even mananaged to touch Russian soil let alone win a war.

LJS9502_basic

All that money apparently can't beat farmers:lol:.

[QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="The_Ish"]

That's what the Japanese thought. And look where they were then. :|

trix5817

The Japanese airplanes were made of wood :?

The Japanese airplanes were superior to the U.S.'s......

Really? They were still made of wood, and docked for most of the war for lack of fuel.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

This is were Russia's advantage with the cold weather and environment comes into play again. It would be a logistical nightmare to equip that many troops with sufficent cold weather gear. Especially if they had to supply them in the field.

LJS9502_basic

And what if those soldiers die? You would have to supply their replacments with the same cold weather gear etc. Russia has a Navy and Airforce as well. It would be very difficult for Americans to even get a foothold in Russia let alone capture it.

Sadly, not even the military can account for 25% of it's own budget

Ever heard of "Fighter aircraft" or "Surfarce to air missiles" before? It would be like flying into a proverbial hornets nest for an American pilot.

Bigg_Boi

Tactical Stealth Fighters and Bombers.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

And what exactly makes the US "uninvadable?"I'm sure it's a mixture of American war movies and Republican propaganda.

Bigg_Boi

No, it's actually an entire ocean and coastal defences.

Russia would actually be much more difficult to invade since you'd have to go through many other nations to reach Russia.

Bigg_Boi

Russia is easily accessible from Hawaii and Alaska, especially since Hawaii is militaraly important.

Attacking Russia through Alaska is probably the dumbest idea ever conceived. If you think the Russian winter is bad in the west, imagine how cold it is on the east! The Russians would simply wait for the Americans to wear themselves out by slogging through the snow and then attack.

Bigg_Boi

That's why it's called being "prepared". Both times that Russia has been attacked, the invaders have been prepared. The US has a vast enough collection of different landscapes to not be caught unprepared.

On the other hand, America has the entire west coast open to attack. All it takes is a few Russian missile submarines and BOOM! There goes the Mid-West!

Bigg_Boi

That's what the Japanese thought. And look where they were then. :|

Your are incredibly ignorant if you are comparing the Pearl Harbor assault with Nuclear submarines. Unlike planes and aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines are very difficult to detect and even more difficult to destroy.

You don't think that, if the U.S. and Russia were at war, the United States the west coast would be lined with patrols of submarines and other navy ships?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

Do you know how much Russia spends on it's military? It would be a feat unto itself it the Americans even mananaged to touch Russian soil let alone win a war.

Bigg_Boi

All that money apparently can't beat farmers:lol:.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

Ever heard of "Fighter aircraft" or "Surfarce to air missiles" before? It would be like flying into a proverbial hornets nest for an American pilot.

AgentA-Mi6

Tactical Stealth Fighters and Bombers.

The Serbians managed to shoot down a stealth fighter with a SAM. It's difficult but certainley not impossible. Also, it would be very hard for a Russian pilot not to notice a giant black wing in the sky with him. Especially since America's stealth fighters are VERY loud.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

Ever heard of "Fighter aircraft" or "Surfarce to air missiles" before? It would be like flying into a proverbial hornets nest for an American pilot.

AgentA-Mi6

Tactical Stealth Fighters and Bombers.

The serbs downed two Tactical stealth fighters in 1999 and let Russian engineer's to reverse engineer their stealth technology. No to mention that Russia AA defence are much tougher than that.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

Do you know how much Russia spends on it's military? It would be a feat unto itself it the Americans even mananaged to touch Russian soil let alone win a war.

LJS9502_basic

All that money apparently can't beat farmers:lol:.

They're farmers from Iran/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/Libya/Somalia etc. It really doesn't matter in the end. And please do not say "Army" personnel are fighting US troops in Iraq.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

This is were Russia's advantage with the cold weather and environment comes into play again. It would be a logistical nightmare to equip that many troops with sufficent cold weather gear. Especially if they had to supply them in the field.

The_Ish

And what if those soldiers die? You would have to supply their replacments with the same cold weather gear etc. Russia has a Navy and Airforce as well. It would be very difficult for Americans to even get a foothold in Russia let alone capture it.

The US is industrially more capable than any nation in the world, especially Russia. Supply would be no problem. The US also has a population several times larger than Russia, getting soldiers wouldn't be a problem either.

Yep. Look what happened in WWII. Our military was a joke before it but once we were drawn in, we were mass producing supplies out the ***.

Do you know how much Russia spends on it's military? It would be a feat unto itself it the Americans even mananaged to touch Russian soil let alone win a war.

Bigg_Boi

So you don't know how much the US spends on it's military.

It spends more than the next ten countries combined. Japan is second, by the way.

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

Ever heard of "Fighter aircraft" or "Surfarce to air missiles" before? It would be like flying into a proverbial hornets nest for an American pilot.

Bigg_Boi

Tactical Stealth Fighters and Bombers.

The Serbians managed to shoot down a stealth fighter with a SAM. It's difficult but certainley not impossible. Also, it would be very hard for a Russian pilot not to notice a giant black wing in the sky with him. Especially since America's stealth fighters are VERY loud.

F-117 aren't exactly what I meant, Those'd be used as well of course. However, I meant B2s and F22s.

[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="The_Ish"]

That's what the Japanese thought. And look where they were then. :|

loco145

The Japanese airplanes were made of wood :?

The Japanese airplanes were superior to the U.S.'s......

Really? They were still made of wood, and docked for most of the war for lack of fuel.

They were still superior. So I don't see your point......

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

Ever heard of "Fighter aircraft" or "Surfarce to air missiles" before? It would be like flying into a proverbial hornets nest for an American pilot.

AgentA-Mi6

Tactical Stealth Fighters and Bombers.

The Serbians managed to shoot down a stealth fighter with a SAM. It's difficult but certainley not impossible. Also, it would be very hard for a Russian pilot not to notice a giant black wing in the sky with him. Especially since America's stealth fighters are VERY loud.

F-117 aren't exactly what I meant, Those'd be used as well of course. However, I meant B2s and F22s.

The B-2 is just as if not more vulnerable then the F-117. F-22s would certainly be more difficult to destroy but not impossible.

All that money apparently can't beat farmers:lol:.

Bigg_Boi

What farmers? Is that your best retort? It defeats your own argument. :?

They're farmers from Iran/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/Libya/Somalia etc. It really doesn't matter in the end. And please do not say "Army" personnel are fighting US troops in Iraq.

Bigg_Boi

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

Do you know how much Russia spends on it's military? It would be a feat unto itself it the Americans even mananaged to touch Russian soil let alone win a war.

Bigg_Boi

All that money apparently can't beat farmers:lol:.

Guerilla warfare is a whole different animal. We're talking about conventional warfare.

[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="alexmurray"][QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

No matter how well "prepared" you are the weather will always be a decisive factor here.

Bigg_Boi

Russians are accustomed to it, Americans are NOT even with the appropriate clothing.

You honestly think that the U.S. military doesn't have cold-weather gear?

To equip the hundred of Thousands it would require to invade Russia? yes.

They will just buy some the Us has the highest military spending in the world, and the Us would win the T-90 is a okay tank but most Russian tanks are T-72 and look what happened to them in the gulf war

Do not try to argue with someone that has a very complete knowledge of Russia's miltiary gear. First of all, the T-72 export model (the one usd by Iraq) is missing half (if not more) of the features that a Russian T-72 has. The Iraqies didn't even have reactive armor on their T-72s! Also, Russia has around three times as many tanks as the US has.(23,000 to approximately 6000).

Also, Russia's T-55s (upgraded of course) are considered around the same as most modern MBTs.

Reactive armor gets crushed by chobham on the Challenger and the Abrams, you cant compair a T-55 and I dont care how upgraded it is to a Western MBT. The only good tank that stands a chance is the T-90 and the modernized T-72s that are at T-90 standard

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

They're farmers from Iran/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/Libya/Somalia etc. It really doesn't matter in the end. And please do not say "Army" personnel are fighting US troops in Iraq.

LJS9502_basic

Insurgents is a catch all term for someone who engages in Unconventional Warfare. They still just are Arab farmers regardless of intricate names.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

Ever heard of "Fighter aircraft" or "Surfarce to air missiles" before? It would be like flying into a proverbial hornets nest for an American pilot.

AgentA-Mi6

Tactical Stealth Fighters and Bombers.

The Serbians managed to shoot down a stealth fighter with a SAM. It's difficult but certainley not impossible. Also, it would be very hard for a Russian pilot not to notice a giant black wing in the sky with him. Especially since America's stealth fighters are VERY loud.

F-117 aren't exactly what I meant, Those'd be used as well of course. However, I meant B2s and F22s.

Many of you people seem to think that attacking Russia is like attacking Iraq or Panama. Bush didn't even had the balls to attack North korea :?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

They're farmers from Iran/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/Libya/Somalia etc. It really doesn't matter in the end. And please do not say "Army" personnel are fighting US troops in Iraq.

Bigg_Boi

Insurgents is a catch all term for someone who engages in Unconventional Warfare. They still just are Arab farmers regardless of intricate names.

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="alexmurray"][QUOTE="loco145"][QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

No matter how well "prepared" you are the weather will always be a decisive factor here.

alexmurray

Russians are accustomed to it, Americans are NOT even with the appropriate clothing.

You honestly think that the U.S. military doesn't have cold-weather gear?

To equip the hundred of Thousands it would require to invade Russia? yes.

They will just buy some the Us has the highest military spending in the world, and the Us would win the T-90 is a okay tank but most Russian tanks are T-72 and look what happened to them in the gulf war

Do not try to argue with someone that has a very complete knowledge of Russia's miltiary gear. First of all, the T-72 export model (the one usd by Iraq) is missing half (if not more) of the features that a Russian T-72 has. The Iraqies didn't even have reactive armor on their T-72s! Also, Russia has around three times as many tanks as the US has.(23,000 to approximately 6000).

Also, Russia's T-55s (upgraded of course) are considered around the same as most modern MBTs.

Reactive armor gets crushed by chobham on the Challenger and the Abrams, you cant compair a T-55 and I dont care how upgraded it is to a Western MBT. The only good tank that stands a chance is the T-90 and the modernized T-72s that are at T-90 standard

You people talk as if the T-90 is a god weapon. It really is jus an improved T-80. You also severly underestimate the effectiveness of a tank. A single shell from an upgraded T-55 in the rear armor of an M1A1 would almost be a guaranteed kill.

This entire incident has highlighted the outrageous hypocrisy and double standards of the Bush administration. Quite frankly, Russia has a greater right to invade Georgia than the U.S. had to invade Iraq.

Georgia is a former Soviet state that was wrested away from Russia by a CIA-financed coup masquerading as a democratic election, and President Suck-***-Willy (Saakashvili) is just another American puppet.

Heck, while I'm about it I may as well begin a comprehensive list:

• Russia has a greater right to invade Georgia than America had to invade Iraq.
• Saddam Hussein had a greater right to invade Kuwait than America had to invade Iraq. (Google "Kuwait Iraq slant drilling" if you dispute this.)
• Hitler had a greater right to invade Poland than America had to invade Iraq. (The Treaty of Versailles stole West Prussia from Germany and gave it to Poland.)

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

They're farmers from Iran/Saudi Arabia/Turkey/Libya/Somalia etc. It really doesn't matter in the end. And please do not say "Army" personnel are fighting US troops in Iraq.

LJS9502_basic

Insurgents is a catch all term for someone who engages in Unconventional Warfare. They still just are Arab farmers regardless of intricate names.

They are still FARMERS equipped with 60-80 year old equipment.

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

Ever heard of "Fighter aircraft" or "Surfarce to air missiles" before? It would be like flying into a proverbial hornets nest for an American pilot.

loco145

Tactical Stealth Fighters and Bombers.

The Serbians managed to shoot down a stealth fighter with a SAM. It's difficult but certainley not impossible. Also, it would be very hard for a Russian pilot not to notice a giant black wing in the sky with him. Especially since America's stealth fighters are VERY loud.

F-117 aren't exactly what I meant, Those'd be used as well of course. However, I meant B2s and F22s.

Many of you people seem to think that attacking Russia is like attacking Iraq or Panama. Bush didn't even had the balls to attack North korea :?

no one has said it wouldn't be hard of-course it would be alot easier if the EU joined in. It would be a big fight but I dont think Nukes would ever be used too many contries have ICBMS for it to be a nuclear war

This entire incident has highlighted the outrageous hypocrisy and double standards of the Bush administration. Quite frankly, Russia has a greater right to invade Georgia than the U.S. had to invade Iraq.

Georgia is a former Soviet state that was wrested away from Russia by a CIA-financed coup masquerading as a democratic election, and President Suck-***-Willy (Saakashvili) is just another American puppet.

Heck, while I'm about it I may as well begin a comprehensive list:

• Russia has a greater right to invade Georgia than America had to invade Iraq.
• Saddam Hussein had a greater right to invade Kuwait than America had to invade Iraq. (Google "Kuwait Iraq slant drilling" if you dispute this.)
• Hitler had a greater right to invade Poland than America had to invade Iraq. (The Treaty of Versailles stole West Prussia from Germany and gave it to Poland.)

Stesilaus

This.

Insurgents is a catch all term for someone who engages in Unconventional Warfare. They still just are Arab farmers regardless of intricate names.

Bigg_Boi

*sigh*

Then the Russian military is really just a militia made up of farmers too.

Insurgents are trained. Not only are they trained, they are fanatical, and most of them are not Arab. Fanaticism + training + guerrilla warfare is an entirely different beast when compared to conventional warfare. It's the reason the US decided to pull out of Vietnam, and it's the reason the Soviet Union lost Afghanistan.

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"][QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"][QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]

Ever heard of "Fighter aircraft" or "Surfarce to air missiles" before? It would be like flying into a proverbial hornets nest for an American pilot.

Bigg_Boi

Tactical Stealth Fighters and Bombers.

The Serbians managed to shoot down a stealth fighter with a SAM. It's difficult but certainley not impossible. Also, it would be very hard for a Russian pilot not to notice a giant black wing in the sky with him. Especially since America's stealth fighters are VERY loud.

F-117 aren't exactly what I meant, Those'd be used as well of course. However, I meant B2s and F22s.

The B-2 is just as if not more vulnerable then the F-117. F-22s would certainly be more difficult to destroy but not impossible.

Thats Incorrect.

The B-2 bomber is a far more advanced stealth aircraft than the F117 and it has been improved since it's introduction in 1997.

There is no discussion about F22 raptor.