Russia Vs USA who would win?

http://www.howstuffworks.com/invisible-tank.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8247967/Invisible-tanks-could-be-on-battlefield-within-five-years.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgi4g7-PikU


ALSO http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/10/russian_bomb#

hmm interesting.

You see, despite what the media tries to make you believe, we are not a pitful weak nation, and can punch way above our weight. It's a pity many people don't seem to realise this.

I never said Britain is weak. Personally, i think britain is 5th/4th most powerful country on the planet.

No but you were arguing that Britain and France could not collectively win against Russian in a war, which is incorrect.

You cannot say that the outcome of an imaginary event is incorrect, there's now way to know a) Countries actual military capabilities, your just going on what you think you know as a member of the public and b) You have absolutely no idea how a war like this would work, what strategies leaders would use, unforeseen circumstances etc.

Don't be so up your own arse.

No but you were arguing that Britain and France could not collectively win against Russian in a war, which is incorrect.

No, I'm just going on what I have researched and studied, for which I have a very strong background in. To say that Britain and France could not collectively win a war against Russia is incorrect. It is not an opinion, it is a fact, it's an incorrect statement, I have reasoned enough to back my points.

Also I don't think you can call me a member of the public, as I am a member of the UOTC. But there we go.

Is that American?

Think about this logically. A war, no rules. Russia versus France and Britain. Im not even joking, Russia have over 4.5k active nuclear weapons, with 10k overall. They have enough power to destroy this planet over 100 times.

Uk have about 250 nuclear weapons, not sure about France...

Who is more powerful?

A damage of a nuclear weapon will of course depend on size, and power. we both know the russians have very very powerful nuclear weapons, one bomb could probably destroy Birmingham and Manchester together (a big bomb) Thats UK's two largest cities gone...

UK would drop a nuclear bomb (same size, same power) in to Russia, it would destroy same amount as of the land..

What im saying is, Britain and France would be wiped out quicker than Russia, because of the size, which means, at the end, there will be some pieces of land left in Russia....

You cannot possibly say with absolute definition what the outcome of a made up event is though. Say there's really bad flooding where British troops are located, they cant maneuver or attack their opponents and are hit by numerous long range missiles. That's just a silly example but the point is, you can't account for random events and unforeseen circumstances.

Think about this logically. A war, no rules. Russia versus France and Britain. Im not even joking, Russia have over 4.5k active nuclear weapons, with 10k overall. They have enough power to destroy this planet over 100 times.

Uk have about 250 nuclear weapons, not sure about France...

Who is more powerful?

A damage of a nuclear weapon will of course depend on size, and power. we both know the russians have very very powerful nuclear weapons, one bomb could probably destroy Birmingham and Manchester together (a big bomb) Thats UK's two largest cities gone...

UK would drop a nuclear bomb (same size, same power) in to Russia, it would destroy same amount as of the land..

What im saying is, Britain and France would be wiped out quicker than Russia, because of the size, which means, at the end, there will be some pieces of land left in Russia....

What? This is what I have been trying to say! You are just arguing my point from a different direction! You can not therefore say that Britain and France would find it impossible to beat Russia in a war. This is what I'm saying to the other guy if you read it properly!

No I'm not saying that at all, just that when you said it was a fact that Russia would win I couldn't see how you could definitely know that

I didn't say Russia would win?!!!! I'm arguing the opposite, as I believe Britain and France would win, however obviously this is not fact since it has not happened. I'm trying to point out to the other guy that Britain and France have a good (but not certain) chance of winning.

Are you trolling?

Sorry, typo, I meant Britain/France. Yeah I agree with you we would, but it was that you said he was incorrect that Russia could win that I was debating over

France has around 300.

There's no point being ABLE to destroy the Earth a million times over, if there is only ONE Earth, so in reality it doesn't matter if they have 100, or 100 million nuclear weapons, one nuclear bomb is very destructive and enough to make a country surrender if you hit the right strategic points (Capital, Oil fields, heavy industrial centres etc) so that it cannot fight anymore. Moreover, most of Russian is uninhabited such as siberia, so there would not be any value in nuking this area. The areas that are valuable can be easily immobilised if you hit the correct area, as stated before. There's no point saying such and such is more powerful because it has more nukes, because it means relatively little. A few well placed trident missiles at Chelyabinsk, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, the Volga Industrial Region, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg and Novgorod would incapacitate Russia.

Goodnight any country in the world.