World War 3: Poland vs. Russia

America may have allies, but they can turn on them quickly..you think about that. Russia is defending their country and the Georgians started that attack. Now, Poland can easily be conquered by Russia, if Russia wants to do so then let them. U.S. needs to quit involving themselves in all this, because one day it will be too late to regret it. If U.S. creates a war between Russia and themselves, don't expect the rest of Europe to sit there and watch, or at least expect anyone to cheer for you, because they won't. No doubt, more countries have the will to fight, including China, they have a second source of money besides the U.S.

StealthKing93

We are bound by a contract to defend Poland should they come under attack by ANY country. We (the U.S.) would never, under any circumstances, want to go to war with Russia. That's the one country that'd put up a decent fight. However, if Russia were to move troops or any armor into Poland then an escalation is inevitable. Sanctions wouldn't work on Russia either, it's economy is too damn big. The only pressure is on Russia. If they make the wrong decision then we could see the beginning (and I use this term loosely) of another war.

No, they have handed the city over to Georgia..Here is a link:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3563421,00.html

argetlam00

Ok that is good to hear they are moving back to Russia. But really wished they could of kept control of thouse South Ossetian rebels. Having them loot the city isn't going to help the situation bewteen Gerogia and South Ossetia

If it were between these two countries Russia would easily win. Wouldn't be a WWIII.North-North

lol this isnt no 1 vs 1........like someone said ..poland is apart of NATO.....if someone screws with them....practically all of europe..AND most likey the US will help as well.

AND since GROM ( polish speical forces ) trains with the US navy seals....you bet your ass there gonna help.

The US yet again trying to take the strategic high ground and upset the balance of power in regions of the world it should not be interfering in.

1. Read the article, Russia does not say it will nuke Poland, the Russian general says that Poland becomes a target if war happens, which is pretty self evident if there's a defense shield there. Not nearly as controversial as saying we'll nuke you.

2. The missile defence shield is made by, run by and controlled by the US. It is all about protecting US interests and giving the US a strategic advantage. This is not just about protecting Poland, the US could just as easily place the shield in Ukraine or the Czech republic.

3. The people of the very nations the US wants to put the missile defence shields in have been very upset and are against it. (A quick search has showed that Czech citizens have been against it, the same was true for Poland and many other Eastern European nations which the US wanted to use as hosts. Why is this? Simply because these small nations become direct targets in all out war, especially for nuclear strikes. It's ironic that a defence shield designed to protect these nations is actually putting them under more danger, as we've seen with the recent Russian statements.
Quote:
"The missile defence shield is unpopular with voters in both the Czech Republic and in Poland, but the centre-right governments of both countries feel that having the bases, with their US troops, would improve their security." Source. The people of these nations have been against it, but it's the governments who have been trying to strike deals.

4. A defence shield is not a fool proof method of destroying incoming missiles. In fact the success rate is actually quite low. One of the ways you can bypass such shields is to MIRV your missiles with multiple re-entry war heads on a single missile, more bombs raining down means many more targets to destroy.

5. The US knows its own hegemonic power over much of the world has been decreasing over the past few years, in areas like the Middle East, Central Asia etc and this defence shield is a means of maintaining strategic superiority. In effect it is destabilising the balance of power in other regions and this may even end up leading to more war.

6. The US would be the first to object any EU, Chinese or Russian defence shields in Canada, Mexico, Bahamas, Cuba, Venezuela, or frankly anywhere on the continents of North and South America. But yet again, one rule for the US and another for everyone else.

[QUOTE="North-North"]If it were between these two countries Russia would easily win. Wouldn't be a WWIII.ReaperV7

lol this isnt no 1 vs 1........like someone said ..poland is apart of NATO.....if someone screws with them....practically all of europe..AND most likey the US will help as well.

Yeah NATO doesn't automatically help out other countries when they are attacked or go to war. If that was the case then more countries would have helped the US when they went to war. I think that Europe has more loyalty to the European Union than the UN anyway.

[QUOTE="ReaperV7"]

[QUOTE="North-North"]If it were between these two countries Russia would easily win. Wouldn't be a WWIII.Correyov31

lol this isnt no 1 vs 1........like someone said ..poland is apart of NATO.....if someone screws with them....practically all of europe..AND most likey the US will help as well.

Yeah NATO doesn't automatically help out other countries when they are attacked or go to war. If that was the case then more countries would have helped the US when they went to war. I think that Europe has more loyalty to the European Union than the UN anyway.

NATO would support Poland if they were attacked. There was no reason for NATO to support the Iraqi invasion.

[QUOTE="ReaperV7"]

[QUOTE="North-North"]If it were between these two countries Russia would easily win. Wouldn't be a WWIII.Correyov31

lol this isnt no 1 vs 1........like someone said ..poland is apart of NATO.....if someone screws with them....practically all of europe..AND most likey the US will help as well.

Yeah NATO doesn't automatically help out other countries when they are attacked or go to war. If that was the case then more countries would have helped the US when they went to war. I think that Europe has more loyalty to the European Union than the UN anyway.

There is a huge difference between going to war and being attacked. NATO members did help out in the War in Afghanistan.

If Russia attacked Poland the NATO members will help.

The Russian military would steamroll over the EU and the US if either the SCO or the CIS helps Russia. Russia has plenty of allies in the east and south that would love to attack Europe.Bigg_Boi

I lol'd soooo hard. Thanks for brightening my day.

[QUOTE="ReaperV7"]

[QUOTE="North-North"]If it were between these two countries Russia would easily win. Wouldn't be a WWIII.Correyov31

lol this isnt no 1 vs 1........like someone said ..poland is apart of NATO.....if someone screws with them....practically all of europe..AND most likey the US will help as well.

Yeah NATO doesn't automatically help out other countries when they are attacked or go to war. If that was the case then more countries would have helped the US when they went to war. I think that Europe has more loyalty to the European Union than the UN anyway.

Actually, Nato members ARE meant to act as one in the case of a member state being attacked, although obviously not in the case of a member state being the instigator of an attack.

Hence why they have almost never acted in unison, because America has always been the nation to make the first move.

Also, Russia depends on the EU to exist. Who do you think buys their energy? Russia has almost no industry worth a damn to speak of, it is dependant entirely on exports of a predominantly energy nature. Do you think they would risk their economy collapsing?

Truth is war as we saw it in the early to mid twentieth century does not exist anymore. Economics matter more than anything anymore, and its such a small, small world that 1st world nations can only get away with kicking the crap out of 3rd world nations anymore.

When was the last time you saw a war between two powerful nations? Oh thats right, you didn't. Your grandpa did, back in WWII.

So stop worrying. This just isn't going to happen. No one has the balls or lack of brains to start a real war in this era. Now we just posture and wave our missiles at each other.

Eh what do I care anyway, heh heh, my nation is niiiiice and secluded. Have fun blowing yourselves to ashes over pointless crap. I think I'll stay in my little corner of the south pacific and trade with the victor. I mean, it'd make no difference anyway. They all treat the rest of the world outside of their little pissy-fit blocs exactly the same - like trash.

[QUOTE="Correyov31"][QUOTE="ReaperV7"]

[QUOTE="North-North"]If it were between these two countries Russia would easily win. Wouldn't be a WWIII.Chaos_HL21

lol this isnt no 1 vs 1........like someone said ..poland is apart of NATO.....if someone screws with them....practically all of europe..AND most likey the US will help as well.

Yeah NATO doesn't automatically help out other countries when they are attacked or go to war. If that was the case then more countries would have helped the US when they went to war. I think that Europe has more loyalty to the European Union than the UN anyway.

There is a huge difference between going to war and being attacked. NATO members did help out in the War in Afghanistan.

If Russia attacked Poland the NATO members will help.

All the countries of NATO did not help us in Afganastan. I understand about Iraq though.

Eh what do I care anyway, heh heh, my nation is niiiiice and secluded. Have fun blowing yourselves to ashes over pointless crap. I think I'll stay in my little corner of the south pacific and trade with the victor. I mean, it'd make no difference anyway. They all treat the rest of the world outside of their little pissy-fit blocs exactly the same - like trash. RKfromDownunder

Actually, you should care. Alot. Any war in the world disrupts shipping routes, trade prices, suppy and demand of goods. Just look at the price of gas...it wouldn't be around $4.00/gallon if there weren't so much tension in the middle east. The U.S. economy is down because of a weakened dollar due to numerous aspects of the Iraq war. But, that's right, Australia isn't effected by anything that goes on in other parts of the world. You're COMPLETELY self-sufficient...

Sorry Europeans! This makes me so glad I live in the US,... safely away from enemy missiles.helium_flash

I also live in the U.S. and I have to say that you are sorely mistaken.

Sorry Europeans! This makes me so glad I live in the US,... safely away from enemy missiles.helium_flash

You know what the IC in ICBM stands for... Russian missiles would have no problem reaching the US.

Trust me the last thing that Europe would want is Russia to be doing what it is doing now. If anything Russia at the moment does not have many people taking their side on this situation or any future situation for that matter.xscrapzx

I don't think Russia has any reason to invade Poland right now.UssjTrunks

[QUOTE="Bigg_Boi"]The Russian military would steamroll over the EU and the US if either the SCO or the CIS helps Russia. Russia has plenty of allies in the east and south that would love to attack Europe.dday2121

I lol'd soooo hard. Thanks for brightening my day.

[QUOTE="Correyov31"][QUOTE="ReaperV7"]

[QUOTE="North-North"]If it were between these two countries Russia would easily win. Wouldn't be a WWIII.RKfromDownunder

lol this isnt no 1 vs 1........like someone said ..poland is apart of NATO.....if someone screws with them....practically all of europe..AND most likey the US will help as well.

Yeah NATO doesn't automatically help out other countries when they are attacked or go to war. If that was the case then more countries would have helped the US when they went to war. I think that Europe has more loyalty to the European Union than the UN anyway.

Actually, Nato members ARE meant to act as one in the case of a member state being attacked, although obviously not in the case of a member state being the instigator of an attack.

Hence why they have almost never acted in unison, because America has always been the nation to make the first move.

Also, Russia depends on the EU to exist. Who do you think buys their energy? Russia has almost no industry worth a damn to speak of, it is dependant entirely on exports of a predominantly energy nature. Do you think they would risk their economy collapsing?

Truth is war as we saw it in the early to mid twentieth century does not exist anymore. Economics matter more than anything anymore, and its such a small, small world that 1st world nations can only get away with kicking the crap out of 3rd world nations anymore.

When was the last time you saw a war between two powerful nations? Oh thats right, you didn't. Your grandpa did, back in WWII.

So stop worrying. This just isn't going to happen. No one has the balls or lack of brains to start a real war in this era. Now we just posture and wave our missiles at each other.

Eh what do I care anyway, heh heh, my nation is niiiiice and secluded. Have fun blowing yourselves to ashes over pointless crap. I think I'll stay in my little corner of the south pacific and trade with the victor. I mean, it'd make no difference anyway. They all treat the rest of the world outside of their little pissy-fit blocs exactly the same - like trash.

No industry worth a damn? I suggest you reevaluate you statement carefully. Also the world market is as strongly dependent on Russia as Russia is on the world market. Remember Russia is the world's largest oil producer, imagine it cutting off all of its oil supplies for a week. If you think $4 for gas is high, you'll be pleasantly surprised, and after the oil hits astronomical highs, the US economy will crumble like a house of cards.muscleserge

Question: What product can we embargo to punish Russia? Only one. Vodka. Vodka is the only other export thats worth a darn.

Its part of their problem. They have never been a country that can produce any consumer goods that people would buy.

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]No industry worth a damn? I suggest you reevaluate you statement carefully. Also the world market is as strongly dependent on Russia as Russia is on the world market. Remember Russia is the world's largest oil producer, imagine it cutting off all of its oil supplies for a week. If you think $4 for gas is high, you'll be pleasantly surprised, and after the oil hits astronomical highs, the US economy will crumble like a house of cards.fillini

Question: What product can we embargo to punish Russia? Only one. Vodka. Vodka is the only other export thats worth a darn.

Its part of their problem. They have never been a country that can produce any consumer goods that people would buy.

[QUOTE="fillini"]

[QUOTE="muscleserge"]No industry worth a damn? I suggest you reevaluate you statement carefully. Also the world market is as strongly dependent on Russia as Russia is on the world market. Remember Russia is the world's largest oil producer, imagine it cutting off all of its oil supplies for a week. If you think $4 for gas is high, you'll be pleasantly surprised, and after the oil hits astronomical highs, the US economy will crumble like a house of cards.muscleserge

Question: What product can we embargo to punish Russia? Only one. Vodka. Vodka is the only other export thats worth a darn.

Its part of their problem. They have never been a country that can produce any consumer goods that people would buy.

I thought US got their oil from the Saudi royal family...

The CIA says:

"Oil, natural gas, metals, and timber account for more than 80% of exports and 30% of government revenues, leaving the country vulnerable to swings in world commodity prices. Russia's manufacturing base is dilapidated and must be replaced or modernized if the country is to achieve broad-based economic growth."

Russia faces a lot of challenges with their future.

I thought US got their oil from the Saudi royal family...

-RocBoys9489-

We can't sanction Russia. We aren't even sure how to go about "punishing" Russia. My guess is that we'll do nothing. What CAN we do?

I will take this chance to once again remind everyone who wonders why Poland accepted the defense shield...because, by CONTRACT, we must come to their aid should they be attacked. That's why. Poland would flat-out reject this missile shield if U.S. support in the future didn't come with it.

The propaganda on both sides of this conflict is amusing. Only solution - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kqXqQSagNk

I've got a friend who's a chef on a sub. They'll probably be off tracking Russian subs right now. Interesting thought.

If Russia, China, and all the Arab/Islamic nations were to combing in alliance then it would be a hell of a war. HOWEVER, a war with Russia is a war that nobody wants. We've been trying to avoid that war for 60 years, we don't want to go NEAR that war. That is a war that a nuke will slip.

I just wanted to make sure that everyone is aware that Germany didn't conquer Poland first, they conquered many other nations before poland. NATO must be abolished.

If Russia, China, and all the Arab/Islamic nations were to combing in alliance then it would be a hell of a war. HOWEVER, a war with Russia is a war that nobody wants. We've been trying to avoid that war for 60 years, we don't want to go NEAR that war. That is a war that a nuke will slip.

I just wanted to make sure that everyone is aware that Germany didn't conquer Poland first, they conquered many other nations before poland. NATO must be abolished.

CruxisXIII

And even if you didn't have the nukes at stake you can't forget how bloody even a conventional war would be. The Soviet Union (Russia) lost about 13% of its entire population when Nazi Germany invaded it, and the losses on the German side were also catastrophic. Not to mention that the Soviet Union still won the war after all of that. Joseph Stalin knew what he was doing all along. He might have been a terrible dictator, but at least he defeated a more terrible one.

I'd assume it's start off with Israel vs Iran, or something like that

[QUOTE="CruxisXIII"]

If Russia, China, and all the Arab/Islamic nations were to combing in alliance then it would be a hell of a war. HOWEVER, a war with Russia is a war that nobody wants. We've been trying to avoid that war for 60 years, we don't want to go NEAR that war. That is a war that a nuke will slip.

I just wanted to make sure that everyone is aware that Germany didn't conquer Poland first, they conquered many other nations before poland. NATO must be abolished.

jetpower3

And even if you didn't have the nukes at stake you can't forget how bloody even a conventional war would be. The Soviet Union (Russia) lost about 13% of its entire population when Nazi Germany invaded it, and the losses on the German side were also catastrophic. Not to mention that the Soviet Union still won the war after all of that. Joseph Stalin knew what he was doing all along. He might have been a terrible dictator, but at least he defeated a more terrible one.

[QUOTE="11Marcel"]All Russia is trying to do is defend themselves. It's up to the west if they really want that war. Russia is right now making clear it really doesn't want the missile system there, and that it'll go to great lengths to prevent it from being built. I personally don't think it should be built either. This will just mean a new arms race will begin. Next up china is going to build these installations. LJS9502_basic

its the same thign with us not wanting Iran and other countries to have nuclear power....no one wants anyone to have more than they do military wise...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="11Marcel"]All Russia is trying to do is defend themselves. It's up to the west if they really want that war. Russia is right now making clear it really doesn't want the missile system there, and that it'll go to great lengths to prevent it from being built. I personally don't think it should be built either. This will just mean a new arms race will begin. Next up china is going to build these installations. ArmoredAshes

its the same thign with us not wanting Iran and other countries to have nuclear power....no one wants anyone to have more than they do military wise...

that is a terrible comparison. we don't want iran to have nuclear weapons because they said they would wipe isreal off the map and support a terrorist organization. how is that even remotely related to putting the missle defense shield on a key NATO ally's soil? they agreed to it and the US has stated they would let russia have partial access to it.

if anything these two are complete opposites. one is for attacking, one for defending.

Why would any country in the world sign an agreement with another country stating that if they were attacked, we would immediately come to their aid?? Especially in this certain scenerio. This sounds absurd...LikeHaterade

this is just a wild guess but i would think such an agreement would take place so another wwII type scenario doesn't happen again because of the deterrent of facing many well armed nations instead of just one. again, just a guess.

This is going to fizzle over.

Stuff like this happens all the time.

Read:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080820/ap_on_re_eu/poland_us_missile_defense

I called it. Is this proof enough to all of you skeptics?

This is going to fizzle over.

Stuff like this happens all the time.

im_really_rich

It...does? Do you get your information from the National Inquirer or what...

Sta[QUOTE="jetpower3"][QUOTE="CruxisXIII"]

If Russia, China, and all the Arab/Islamic nations were to combing in alliance then it would be a hell of a war. HOWEVER, a war with Russia is a war that nobody wants. We've been trying to avoid that war for 60 years, we don't want to go NEAR that war. That is a war that a nuke will slip.

I just wanted to make sure that everyone is aware that Germany didn't conquer Poland first, they conquered many other nations before poland. NATO must be abolished.

fillini

And even if you didn't have the nukes at stake you can't forget how bloody even a conventional war would be. The Soviet Union (Russia) lost about 13% of its entire population when Nazi Germany invaded it, and the losses on the German side were also catastrophic. Not to mention that the Soviet Union still won the war after all of that. Joseph Stalin knew what he was doing all along. He might have been a terrible dictator, but at least he defeated a more terrible one.

What else could he have done? They were short of guns, and they needed the man power. You know what else he used to do? He used to force them to charge minefields, killing hundreds or thousands of men just to clear them, presumably because they had no other way to do it. But what other choice did he have? One way or another, Stalin was determined to win. Whether or not he was justified is just for the historians to decide. But history is written by victors, and the Soviets won.

[QUOTE="fillini"]Sta[QUOTE="jetpower3"][QUOTE="CruxisXIII"]

If Russia, China, and all the Arab/Islamic nations were to combing in alliance then it would be a hell of a war. HOWEVER, a war with Russia is a war that nobody wants. We've been trying to avoid that war for 60 years, we don't want to go NEAR that war. That is a war that a nuke will slip.

I just wanted to make sure that everyone is aware that Germany didn't conquer Poland first, they conquered many other nations before poland. NATO must be abolished.

jetpower3

And even if you didn't have the nukes at stake you can't forget how bloody even a conventional war would be. The Soviet Union (Russia) lost about 13% of its entire population when Nazi Germany invaded it, and the losses on the German side were also catastrophic. Not to mention that the Soviet Union still won the war after all of that. Joseph Stalin knew what he was doing all along. He might have been a terrible dictator, but at least he defeated a more terrible one.

What else could he have done? They were short of guns, and they needed the man power. You know what else he used to do? He used to force them to charge minefields, killing hundreds or thousands of men just to clear them, presumably because they had no other way to do it. But what other choice did he have? One way or another, Stalin was determined to win. Whether or not he was justified is just for the historians to decide. But history is written by victors, and the Soviets won.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"][QUOTE="fillini"]Sta[QUOTE="jetpower3"][QUOTE="CruxisXIII"]

If Russia, China, and all the Arab/Islamic nations were to combing in alliance then it would be a hell of a war. HOWEVER, a war with Russia is a war that nobody wants. We've been trying to avoid that war for 60 years, we don't want to go NEAR that war. That is a war that a nuke will slip.

I just wanted to make sure that everyone is aware that Germany didn't conquer Poland first, they conquered many other nations before poland. NATO must be abolished.

fillini

And even if you didn't have the nukes at stake you can't forget how bloody even a conventional war would be. The Soviet Union (Russia) lost about 13% of its entire population when Nazi Germany invaded it, and the losses on the German side were also catastrophic. Not to mention that the Soviet Union still won the war after all of that. Joseph Stalin knew what he was doing all along. He might have been a terrible dictator, but at least he defeated a more terrible one.

What else could he have done? They were short of guns, and they needed the man power. You know what else he used to do? He used to force them to charge minefields, killing hundreds or thousands of men just to clear them, presumably because they had no other way to do it. But what other choice did he have? One way or another, Stalin was determined to win. Whether or not he was justified is just for the historians to decide. But history is written by victors, and the Soviets won.

He could've had his soldiers throw rocks or maybe dead Germans...you have to think outside the box sometimes.

[QUOTE="jetpower3"][QUOTE="fillini"]Sta[QUOTE="jetpower3"][QUOTE="CruxisXIII"]

If Russia, China, and all the Arab/Islamic nations were to combing in alliance then it would be a hell of a war. HOWEVER, a war with Russia is a war that nobody wants. We've been trying to avoid that war for 60 years, we don't want to go NEAR that war. That is a war that a nuke will slip.

I just wanted to make sure that everyone is aware that Germany didn't conquer Poland first, they conquered many other nations before poland. NATO must be abolished.

fillini

And even if you didn't have the nukes at stake you can't forget how bloody even a conventional war would be. The Soviet Union (Russia) lost about 13% of its entire population when Nazi Germany invaded it, and the losses on the German side were also catastrophic. Not to mention that the Soviet Union still won the war after all of that. Joseph Stalin knew what he was doing all along. He might have been a terrible dictator, but at least he defeated a more terrible one.

What else could he have done? They were short of guns, and they needed the man power. You know what else he used to do? He used to force them to charge minefields, killing hundreds or thousands of men just to clear them, presumably because they had no other way to do it. But what other choice did he have? One way or another, Stalin was determined to win. Whether or not he was justified is just for the historians to decide. But history is written by victors, and the Soviets won.

Maybe in the beginning. But by the time that human reserves ran low (out of 34 million, approximately 24 million Soviet soldiers became casualties), he knew enough to use actual war technologies instead of just using human wave attacks. By the time the Soviets counterattacked at Stalingrad for example, they had about 2x as many tanks and 3x as many planes. That made all the difference.

[QUOTE="fillini"][QUOTE="jetpower3"][QUOTE="fillini"]Sta[QUOTE="jetpower3"][QUOTE="CruxisXIII"]

If Russia, China, and all the Arab/Islamic nations were to combing in alliance then it would be a hell of a war. HOWEVER, a war with Russia is a war that nobody wants. We've been trying to avoid that war for 60 years, we don't want to go NEAR that war. That is a war that a nuke will slip.

I just wanted to make sure that everyone is aware that Germany didn't conquer Poland first, they conquered many other nations before poland. NATO must be abolished.

jetpower3

And even if you didn't have the nukes at stake you can't forget how bloody even a conventional war would be. The Soviet Union (Russia) lost about 13% of its entire population when Nazi Germany invaded it, and the losses on the German side were also catastrophic. Not to mention that the Soviet Union still won the war after all of that. Joseph Stalin knew what he was doing all along. He might have been a terrible dictator, but at least he defeated a more terrible one.

What else could he have done? They were short of guns, and they needed the man power. You know what else he used to do? He used to force them to charge minefields, killing hundreds or thousands of men just to clear them, presumably because they had no other way to do it. But what other choice did he have? One way or another, Stalin was determined to win. Whether or not he was justified is just for the historians to decide. But history is written by victors, and the Soviets won.

Maybe in the beginning. But by the time that human reserves ran low (out of 34 million, approximately 24 million Soviet soldiers became casualties), he knew enough to use actual war technologies instead of just using human wave attacks. By the time the Soviets counterattacked at Stalingrad for example, they had about 2x as many tanks and 3x as many planes. That made all the difference.

That and the fact that Germany was also spending tons of resources fighting the U.S.