88 replies to this topic

[Strategia]

Well, if we're not going for realism anyhow - Hack the Pentagon and nuke the US, Europe and China. Voilà, now you're the only major nuclear power left on the planet.

[Rayburn]

Strategia, on 1 Mar 2008, 21:44, said:

Well, if we're not going for realism anyhow - Hack the Pentagon and nuke the US, Europe and China. Voilà, now you're the only major nuclear power left on the planet.

Not only that, you'll also be the only country that still stands AND the worst mass-murderer in human history.
Seriously though, this thread is bollocks. Waldtroll pretty much summed it up.

What's with everyone talking about hypothetical wars based on weapon-stats they got from some biased website anyway?
People should be glad that there isn't a world war happening right now and I'm pretty sure that those who are all ecstatic whenever they talk about this will actully be the first who start pissing themselves once the bombs are coming down. Strategy games are cool but they don't represent real war in the slightest, so please don't jump to the flawed conclusion that it's all fun.

Edited by Rayburn, 01 March 2008 - 21:36.

[Reaper94]

U.S.S.R., on 1 Mar 2008, 17:57, said:

Volen Metalic, on 1 Mar 2008, 11:00, said:

U.S.S.R., on 1 Mar 2008, 14:37, said:

Red Warlord, on 1 Mar 2008, 6:11, said:

Too bad for you is that you made your plans here with people from Europe and USA, so they know your plans now... so I can only say: FAILURE

That's what you thinks try opening your mouth the Spetnaz will make short work of you before you contact any authority. We are everywhere! HA! HA! HA! :minigunner: :camper:

Is there someone else who will give an idea of how to invade Europe?

no, but I know how destroy your invasion in its birth. When Russia launch their missiles, USA and Europe will know it from the satelites and lauch their missiles agains Russia. China will probably fire their missiles on USA and ECA and congratulation, the End of the Earth is here.

1) Spetznaz are the best spec. units of the RF, but when CIA or FBI see them, USA will declare the war= FAILURE
2)Russia cant üse their nukes because it will start global destruction of the human kind= FAILURE
3)I dont understand it= ???
4)In ROTR Russia destroy many ECA airfields= SUCCESS
5)Russia have brutal ground power, but Europe have experiences about defesnse (look on WWI and WWII) and their ground forces arent strong like ruusian, but they are good= ACCEPTABLY
6)When Russia dont success in these 5 events, u cant complete this last= ABSOLUTLY FAILURE

This is what I mean about your tactic

Let's clearify:
1º-A small bunch of Special Forces units are much harder to detect than a full scale invasion. Maybe I should have mentioned that they aren't going to run amidst the american people like spies but in fact blew radars up in the heck ends of Alaska, North Canada, Finland and the European boarders (they will come through small boats and submarines) to make a breach in the airspace.
Also Russianred made a good point satellites must go down to help prevent detection.
2º-Also to start the nuclear war I would first activate an anti-missile defence and I don't give a s... for the nuclear zones or if I'll be hit back.
3º-Since I've destroyed fixed missile sites I have to go after naval launched ones in the mean time.
4º-Convetional warfare takes place now to destroy less threatening enemy forces without having to haze down the land I will occupy. Also stationary defences can't stand blitzkrieg advance!
5º-Taking over through tanks and helicopters dispatching the remaing enemy ground units will consolidate occupation.
6º-This is victory's comical relief don't compain about it!

Last but not least...
My forces streght and size are based on the Russian/Soviet concept of their developed army with all conceptual futuristic technology in a virtual situation where worlds detruction doesn't matter!

Why do people have to complain about mankind's extinction when we are talking about fictional thing not real world ones! Wake up it's not nowadays Russia it is Super Russian or futuristic me!

ABUSE OF THE SIZE COMMANDS IN THE WAY U HAVE DONE IT IS UNEXCUSABLE (so's my frigging spelling)


america wldnt allow it anyway

Edited by Hyuga Hinata, 01 March 2008 - 21:57.

[Strategia]

Rayburn, on 1 Mar 2008, 22:31, said:

Strategia, on 1 Mar 2008, 21:44, said:

Well, if we're not going for realism anyhow - Hack the Pentagon and nuke the US, Europe and China. Voilà, now you're the only major nuclear power left on the planet.

Not only that, you'll also be the only country that still stands AND the worst mass-murderer in human history.
Seriously though, this thread is bollocks. Waldtroll pretty much summed it up.

My point exactly. Pity text can't convey a sarcastic tone.

Edited by Strategia, 01 March 2008 - 22:57.

[Judgement]

There is no way of taking over the world.
There will always be retaliation even if you have a totalitarian government. The most you can do is to cripple a country economically.
Even than, a country can and will fight back. Much in the same way you corner a cat, it will bite and scratch in fear for its life.
And even if you do manage to cripple a country economically, youll still be crippling yourself as nowadays countries do alot of trade and this can have a backfire effect and in turn cripple you.

Another reason is the fact that an operation of that magnitude would require alot of funds. Which again can have consequences if it backfires.
If Russia were to attempt to invade the US in any way, it would retaliate in a much worse way. Not too much the Nuclear warheads they have laying there.
This is just a no win situation that can only end in the total obliteration of mankind.

But I digress.
I would mainly go for the economy of the nearest superpower.
If I was Russia, Id take over EU. Cut off all supplies it gets so its economy is cut in half.
After which secret police would have to do most of the work, infiltrating the government till a takeover occurs.
After this, a unification of both superpowers would occur with the hopes of uniting the peoples together. How? Supplies from Russia would be sent to provide aid to EU.
That would be the first step. just trying in every way possible to occupy the EU with as little resistence.
After this happens, Russia would have a much better way of taking over the US. Why? Russia would than have easy access to both oceans which would allow for a two sided attack. And with the increased power of Europe, it would be almost impossible for the US to stop the inevitable attack.

[ultimentra]

Two words to describe every plan stated.

EPIC FAIL!!!

Comrades, I will bring the Motherland to victory. This is how-

Sabotage the Middle Easts leadership with bribery and hidden alliances, force them to stop giving to oil to other countries.
If they resist, covertly set fire to every major oil field in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.

With the excess oil that the motherland produces, our armies will be unaffected by the oil shortage while the armies of the west will cripple under an oil shortage. Just like the Nazis in WWII they will be forced to abandon their tanks on the battlefield.

Europe may have excellent defenses but what will run them when they have no oil to burn in their refineries?

The USA may have dominance of the skies but what will keep them in the sky when there is no fuel?

There will be nothing to stop us comrades, the west shall finally fall and mother Russia shall finally rain supreme!

[Prophet of the Pimps]

You will get your ass handed to you ones you hit the Alps. The Swedes and Swiss are no push over and the German Tanks rule. Russia also doesn't have a Good chain of command both people wise and infrastructure wise to have such a co-ordinate attack.

[Rayburn]

On top of that, most of the hardware is just rotting away in their depots. Look at the submarines.

[Waldtroll]

Well stoping the russian export of gas and oil to europe would possible hurt the european economy but it surely would mean total overkill for the russian economy, since it's relative economic stability over the last years is nothing more than a oilprice bubble.

When talking about the year 2050 europe would possible have become independent from russian imports.
And didn't you know that the new generation of Leopards,Crusaders and Leclercs run with rapeseed-oil?

Edited by Waldtroll, 03 March 2008 - 01:30.

[Wizard]

ultimentra, on 2 Mar 2008, 7:02, said:

Sabotage the Middle Easts leadership with bribery and hidden alliances, force them to stop giving to oil to other countries.
If they resist, covertly set fire to every major oil field in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.

With the excess oil that the motherland produces, our armies will be unaffected by the oil shortage while the armies of the west will cripple under an oil shortage. Just like the Nazis in WWII they will be forced to abandon their tanks on the battlefield.

Europe may have excellent defenses but what will run them when they have no oil to burn in their refineries?

The USA may have dominance of the skies but what will keep them in the sky when there is no fuel?

There will be nothing to stop us comrades, the west shall finally fall and mother Russia shall finally rain supreme!

How do you "covertly" set fire to the largest collection of oil production facilities in the world? And how will you be bribing Saudi Arabia? By offering them the worlds largest collection of bling, glammed up, uber riche and decadent hotels available? Oh wait they have those! Oh and by restricting the sale of the precious mother oil to the world you will in effect kill half of your population as you won't have cash to trade with the rest of the world when you food runs out. When it comes down to it the country with the deepest left pocket change is gonna win the fight on this sorta scale.

[Jok3r]

Ultimentra, are you serious? Before the Russians could even hit the alps, they would be torn to pieces. "Cut off there oil" Do you honestly think this is possible? "We can produce enough for ourselves" EPIC FAIL. Russia is not capable of that. The aging russian military equipment would be stopped dead in its tracks very quickly by EU and US airpower. Despite former AA dominance inspired by the SA-2, so much of Russia's military equipment is rotting away- I wouldn't trust an old SA-2 not to go off on the launcher and take out a platoon. On top of that, American Subs and carriers in the Med would either
A.) Begin nuclear retaliation within hours
or
B.) Deploy soldiers via air from Iraq, Iran, and Afganistan directly into the heart of russia.

Also, have you ever heard of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)? Thats why none of this is even remotely possible.
~SLG
(Even though I'm the swimmer now, I'll sign like that)

EDIT: Rayburn, I see your earlier point. It's most definitely not fun and games, however, this is merely something along the lines of a simulation. I am seriously wondering how old USSR is. (I also wonder if he's really russian) I don't mean offense by that, I'm just... curious

Edited by The Swimmer, 03 March 2008 - 01:52.

[CommanderJB]

I'm surprised that no-one's mentioned the war scenarios in Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy & Larry Bond or World in Conflict, the story for which was also written by Larry Bond (he did Cold War war-gaming and planning exercises for the Pentagon).
Scenario One: it's the late 1980s. A crazy bunch of terrorists (the surprising thing about this is that it was written well before 2001) blow up a huge key Soviet oil refinery, sending the energy scenario spiralling out of control. Desparate to avoid total collapse into anarchy, the USSR secretly builds up its military readiness levels while running massively-publicised nuclear disarmament deals to throw the enemy analysts off-track. When the time is right, dozens of armoured divisions roll across the border into West Germany in an attempt to cow NATO into giving up its oil claims in Saudi Arabia - the site of another massive invasion attempt. Soviet Spetznaz forces take Iceland in a brilliant camoflauged amphibious assault, creating a hugely important forward airbase for their bombers, fighters and ASW patrols to defeat an American carrier task-force with a huge stand-off missile barrage. However, due to the technological superiority of the American Navy, supported by Royal Navy assets, Soviet submarines hunting Allied supply vessels headed across the Atlantic are gradually destroyed, and a second attempt to destroy the American naval fleet for good fails miserably, resulting in the loss of much of the Soviet bomber fleet thanks to a submarine-launched cruise missile attack on their airfields.
With the flow of reinforcements unhindered, despite intense pressure by Russian armoured divisions, the line in Germany is held and slowly the Soviet forces are whittled down. Clever tactics on the part of German commanders lead enemy tanks into ambushes from camoflauged ATGM launchers, both infantry-carried and APC mounted. Back in Russia, politicians originally opposed to the move take their chance following the recent campaign losses to stage a famous Russian tradition - another revolution - deposing the incumbent Premier and finally ending the war.
If you enjoy this sort of thing read the book. I was kind of annoyed that the Russians lost (not that I wasn't expecting it) simply because I'm tired of seeing their arses getting kicked in every last bit of war fiction to come out of America, not because I think Russia is a better country that can create a better world than the U.S. can. I'd rather see America on top than Russia, but all the same Russia is still needed to balance the U.S. and stop them from getting any ideas too large.
Tune in next week for Part II - World in Conflict...

Edited by CommanderJB, 03 March 2008 - 02:43.

[Ion Cannon!]

A forward base on iceland? Don't make me laugh.

Iceland is a very small country population wise "Just over 300,00"

Because of this I doubt it has many current airbases. The terrain is also unforgiving with much covered by glaciers, volcanoes ect.

Even if there were a few airbases this wouldn't be enough to launch a major air assault. So you would need to build airbases there. Now lets ignore the time taken to get raw materials to the sites ect. Don't you think the world might notice you constructing airfields in a different country?

Another thing about this " Future Russia " Sorry to burst your bubble but your population is declining FAST. By 2050 your population is estimated to be 111million, down from the current 143 million. Even if you can stem this population loss your economically dependent on the EU. If you cut off your gas to cripple us economically all you do is shoot yourselves in the foot.

[Waldtroll]

Well Reykjavik has an international airport, and the US had an Airforce Base on Iceland till 2006

[Medve]

Well most of the tactics are FAIL because: if russia moves an aircraft=3000 nuke on it. It's plain and easy. If russia opens a silo=5000 nukes in it. If russia begins war= 50000 nukes in it. Vice versa too.
Other is: there is resistance. I don't care that russia has the most soldiers, it couldn't take down the whole world. Unexperienced soldiers for instance. I love russia, but don't tell me that russia has the best economy and the best TECHNOLOGY. IT'S AN EPIC FAIL. PEOPLE ONLY SAY THAT, BECAUSE AMERICANS ARE OVERUSED. They can shoot and roll and move, but a high tech thingy takes down 300 of these "super techs". (new carpet bomb vs T90) Other than that, russia is so watched, that if it does anything suspicious, they'll set the armageddon clock to midnight(end of the world). The whole world would make russia a place, that syberia compared to the new russia was a paradise. In the reality it's NOT russia FTW. It can do alot of damage, but without their nukes they could be swept away. (bad economy, and low quality). All that russia gave us during their reign is a number of ruinous industries.
So those who think that russia should win a war of this kind, I can understand you. I'm sure that books only make america the winner because it's more popular, but in the reality, russia wouldn't win. You all expect that russia has inpenetrable economy, or tactics, or infinite army, or there's no resistance. Summary REALITY OWNS RUSSIA.
Oh and nuking wouldn't make a good invasion plan (destroyed ground would be captured only).

Medve

Edited by Medve, 03 March 2008 - 20:18.

[Jok3r]

Precisely. And CommanderJB, that was a great book.
~SLG

[Crazykenny]

Hmm, some of you Russians really dont understand the concept of nuclear warfare. Dude the only way to win a damned nuclear war is not to start one at all.

No matter what you do, the country you use such devices on will retaliate in a similair matter, thus creating fallout on your soil.

Also, Europe is hard to invade by Russia since it has a significant force to be dealt with, far to much for Russia to handle. Before you talk about tactical Nuke Strike, look to the first piece of this post. The only thing Russia might be better in versus Europe is air superiority, but then again wars arnt won by planes.

[CommanderJB]

Russia, while not a true top world power any more, is by far the most important regional (Eurasian) power thanks not only to its massive armed forces but more to the point thanks to the influence it exerts on other countries. Very few European powers have quite that pull with surrounding nations - after all, Russia controls their energy supplies, built most of their infrastructure and used to govern most of them anyway. The problem is that they've lost their ability to project force in the manner of America - their strategic forces are in dire straits right now (not that they or anyone else needs more than 50 devices to make the planet unliveable anyway), their Navy is practically non-existent, and it's only really their army that could go toe-to-toe with NATO with any hope of success. Their Air Force, while large, is technologically inferior, as despite the recent introduction of excellent new aircraft such as MiG-31s and Su-30/31/35s they're still flying many of their squadrons equipped with older aircraft such as MiG-27s and Su-24s.

Having said that, it's extremely wrong and highly naive to write off Russia either militarily or economically. Their defence budget is increasing almost exponentially and they are quite stable at the moment, though it could be very well argued that stability under Putin has come at the cost of democratic freedoms. Their economy has also been steadily increasing in size (thanks mainly to their oil supplies) and conditions have been, generally at least, improving. It'll be a long time before they can approach their previous Cold War-era strength, but they are getting back on their feet. And for their being watched - they managed to sneak an entire ballistic missile program (the RS-24) past us without so much as a passing reference on any of the defence sites I visit until it was launched. I'm not saying that intelligence agencies didn't pick it up, but the fact is that there's nothing like the surveillance focused on Russia these days that there used to be simply because people don't see the need.

[Jok3r]

I don't think your right about the surveilance CommanderJB. The main reason you don't hear about it anymore is that other nations peoples don't care anymore. The intelligence agencies, and even perhaps those running some of those sights, could very well have known these things without telling us.
~SLG

[Dr. Strangelove]

On Thermo Nuclear War:

Most people forget that there is a second day to a thermonuclear conflict. On that day the country that was most prepared for this kind of thing would be the victor, regardless of prievous economic/military strength. Believe me, I've read a 500 page book on 1960's nuclear strategy.

While each country would be massively devastated, there is a good chance that they may be able to carry out a war.They're chance of winning this next week(I say week because it would probably be a few days before the nuclear portion was done with) war would be greatly enhanced by how much they prepared.

Such precautions include:

Military:

Reinforcement of "hard" airbases and silos to a "superhard" status:This would increase the chance that retaliatory war heads get there because they would be much less vulnerable to a surprise attack.

Deployment of SDI and ABM systems:If you are willing to throw a quarter of a trillion dollars at one of these projects, they probably would stop 99% of incoming warheads, which would be an unbeatable advantage.

Deployment of comprehensive AA systems: Nuclear Bombers would play a huge role in such a "next week war" because they could be used to eliminate the largest groups of survivors, due to the fact that they get to the target slower and can be redirected.

Equipment of trops with NBC systems:NBC-nuclear, biological, and chemical protection gear- would enhance the survivavbility of fighting ground force.

Civilian/Economic:

Mandatory Instruction of Civilians on the best ways to survive a nuclear attack: Most cost effective measure compared to expensive public shelter, can be used by people in the open and/or rural ares that may be key.

Construction of "hard-superhard" public fallout shelters: These large shelters provide the most imporatant resource in restoring the economy after an attack-humans.

Emergancy Food storage: Food will be very to obtain after an attack since civilian stores will be irradiated and it may take weeks to scrub the farming topsoil of radiation and the half a year to get an actual harvest.

"hard" communication lines:It would be impossible to coordinate economic recovery or a military resistance if all communication is shot.These days we have the internet, which was actually based on DARPA net, which was developed with the pentagon for use in a nuclear attack. It was a communication system that was designed to automoatically reroute itself if the usual line was destroyed. The internet still can be cut of, so it would be important to have buried emergancy lines invulnerable to attack.

[CommanderJB]

Look, I suppose I'm probably sounding a bit too authoritative. These are all my thoughts, formed from whatever information I have come across over the past four or five years that I've become interested in world and military affairs. I am not an authority on almost any of the pet subjects I enjoy giving spiels about, but I do base what I say on what I consider to be well-educated guesses.
In relation to the surveillance, like I said, I actually imagine that the RS-24's development was watched by intelligence agencies. What I was trying to convey, however, is that whereas before any new program coming out of Russia was the subject of intense scrutiny from every angle, these days it seems to be just viewed as a routine part of the job that intelligence agencies have of keeping tabs on the opposition, not of paramount, overriding performance. Thus I do not expect that a report of a Russian force build-up or increase in readiness levels would be met by a nuclear or even conventional first-strike from Western powers.

[Waldtroll]

Duck and Cover!
Well, the russians might have a problem cause they read less newspapers to cover with.

[Kris]

MYLO, on 2 Mar 2008, 3:04, said:

I cant help myself... But this Thread totaly fails...
Chris we really need your "fail-ship"here...

Russia isnt able to take over Eu....

MYLO

You called?
This thread deserves the:

[Dr. Strangelove]

-THIS POST WAS BLOCKED BY FLOOD CONTROL-

Gee I've always wanted to say that honestly.

Anyway-I shouldn't have bothered posting a short exposition on Global Total Thermonuclear War seeing how this thread is worse than:

[CommanderJB]

I have to agree with you, Herr Murkwurdigliebe...
As a side note, some good words from President Merkin Muffley on the start of World War III:
"Hello Dmitri?... I'm afraid one of our pilots has gone a bit funny in the head, and he's, well, he's gone and done a silly thing. What's he done?
Well, I'll tell you what he's done.. he's... he's ordered his planes to bomb your country..."

That (from the incomparable Dr Strangelove (Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb)) aside, there's really no such thing as thermonuclear war as war implies a victor of some kind. About 40 1 or 2 megaton bombs detonated in a wide pattern has been calculated to be enough to create sufficient fallout to destroy food supplies, population centres and subsequently civilisation as we know it, thus making 'victory' impossible. Virtually nothing will protect you from a high-yield device detonating on top of you - even Cheyenne Mountain, home of NORAD and buried in the centre of a mountain, was only designed to withstand direct hit from a less-than-1-megaton-yield blast.
I also think you overestimate the chances of ABM systems, as well - not only has nobody succeeded in creating a remotely viable interceptor (if you try shooting at a 3-metre-long black cone emitting no signals to home in on, on a difficult-to-calculate ballistic path, travelling at something like 8 times the speed of sound and filled with countermeasures and you haven't got very good chances, after all) there just aren't anything like the numbers, and at this rate never will be, needed to counter a full-scale first strike.

Edited by CommanderJB, 04 March 2008 - 11:20.