F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[westwall]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now. The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.

They know the same thing will happen to them.

Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.

Correct, xiden is weaker than obummer.

Biden will listen and heed what the Military says better than that crap pot know it all Rump.

Xiden will do what his masters tell him to do.

You mean like Rump did for his Masters giving large swaths of Syria to the Russians? Biden has reversed the decrease in troops in Syria. And I guess the troops weren't being removed fast enough so the Russians tried to force them to be removed faster by attacking them. How'd that work out in the short run, over 300 dead Russians and zero dead Americans. Then Rump starts to reduce the troops after that. I guess his Leader told him to do it.

The reason why the election was stolen from we the people was so that the chinese could get their picked puppet in place. What's funny is the clintons have been giving china all of our military secrets for years now. The F-35 is a lame duck because anyone who wants to already has a counter in place for it. Thanks to the clintons, and the chinese pretty much own the top levels of our politicians. The chinese knew they couldn't beat us militarily, so they bought the politicians.

Thus the F-35 is useless.

Ah, the big lie.

Yes, the dems stole the election. The third worldesque inauguration proves it.

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash. It is not worth what we are spending on it.

 

[Dayton3]

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.

You have any evidence to support that claim?

 

[westwall]

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.

You have any evidence to support that claim?

Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled, yet wasn't. Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.

 

[Dayton3]

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.

You have any evidence to support that claim?

Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled, yet wasn't. Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.

The F-35 has never been cancelled because:

1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.

2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.

So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.

 

[Vrenn]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

Just read Russian military doctrine, the part about definitions.

Военная доктрина Российской Федерации

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации

www.kremlin.ru

---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.

No it doesn't. By your definition of "Regional War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country. And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.

By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.

Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear? Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles. They know how to fight. But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting. And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35. But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.

Keep that in mind, Ivan.

And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads. You may not like the response.

lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks

I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.

I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.

newsflash, Ivan. Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine. Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore. You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.

No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves

You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....



as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...

And what does that have to do with the F-35? If you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on. Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them. The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia. And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them. But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X. And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians. There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well. Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air. Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory. Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable. The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.

if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As. And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap. The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V. With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine. Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014. But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots. What they lack are fighters. And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.

lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.

Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.

All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.

The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters. And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians. Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.

and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?

Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war just because a few Russian divisions get wiped out.

easily, if it hapens in Crimea, for example, which is Russian territory and which the US doesn't recognize Russian.
or in isolated Kaliningrad, which would mean occupation and probably loss of that territory, or in Donetsk and Lugabsk republics, ehere already 400 000 people have Russian citizenship, Russisn defeat there means genocide agaibst Russians, so is not an option in any case.
etc.

It's not your property. Get over it. As Ukraine builds, it's going to get more costly to stay there. Already, russia is pulling the regular troops and training "Rebels".

Ukraine gradually slips into economic chaos, its only hope is external help and the only way to increase external help is to start war with Russia, then the US may not limit its aid to a couple of millions.

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

Just read Russian military doctrine, the part about definitions.

Военная доктрина Российской Федерации

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации

www.kremlin.ru

---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.

No it doesn't. By your definition of "Regional War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country. And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.

By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.

Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear? Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles. They know how to fight. But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting. And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35. But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.

Keep that in mind, Ivan.

And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads. You may not like the response.

lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks

I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.

I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.

newsflash, Ivan. Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine. Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore. You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.

No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves

You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....



as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...

And what does that have to do with the F-35? If you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on. Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them. The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia. And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them. But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X. And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians. There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well. Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air. Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory. Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable. The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.

if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As. And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap. The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V. With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine. Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014. But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots. What they lack are fighters. And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.

lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.

Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.

All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.

Word has it that Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden,both non Nato countries. While they are not Nato, they do have US Military there as does Poland and many others. I imagine Ukraine may end up with US military there as well. You can call them "Advisors" if you wish. But they are more like safety valves. Like Korea. We screwed up with Vietnam and won't make that mistake again. Like I said earlier, you Foomanchoo President Rump is gone.

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now. The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.

They know the same thing will happen to them.

Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.

red line? whose red line? and what will the US do? fight till the last Ukrainian?
1/3 of Ukrainian army will side with us and fight you, 1/3 will run and the rest will be captured, ninus losses...

That's what another group thought as well and were proved wrong. I would expect Russians to fight just as hard for the Mother Land as the Ukrainians will for their Mother Land. Just pull up your bloomers and go home.

Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden - what does it mean?
and another question - why not Mozambique?

Since the original intent of Stalin was the World, why not the World? Pick up your skirts and Bloomers and just go home.

Stalin?
how old are you?

Obviously a lot older than you are. Stalin is within my lifetime. I also spent time in Poland when it was part of the Warsaw Pact. And Spain under Franco. And came within a second or two in going to Moscow for the Olympics before it was boycotted by Reagan. I had all the briefings, had all the paperwork including the Visas and Passport. The only thing I didn't have was the purchase of the Rubles. Had we gone there, each of us would have had only select places we could go (the Rich Sections of Moscow) and we would have had a Russian Agent assigned to follow each of every step of the way. And we HAD to be in Uniform. IT would have been one of the worst "Vacations" I ever had in my life. I doubt if much has changed after Putin got in power.

so don't you try and con me on how great it is where you live. I'll take the US hands over foot every time.

 

[Vrenn]

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.

You have any evidence to support that claim?

Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled, yet wasn't. Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.

The F-35 has never been cancelled because:

1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.

2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.

So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.

I agree in the AV-8B replacement but I find that it's an interim for all the others. But the F-35 is directly responsible for the creation of the next generation of a fighter for the AF and a separate fighter for the Navy. The last all service Fighter was the F-4.

 

[Vrenn]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now. The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.

They know the same thing will happen to them.

Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.

Correct, xiden is weaker than obummer.

Biden will listen and heed what the Military says better than that crap pot know it all Rump.

Xiden will do what his masters tell him to do.

You mean like Rump did for his Masters giving large swaths of Syria to the Russians? Biden has reversed the decrease in troops in Syria. And I guess the troops weren't being removed fast enough so the Russians tried to force them to be removed faster by attacking them. How'd that work out in the short run, over 300 dead Russians and zero dead Americans. Then Rump starts to reduce the troops after that. I guess his Leader told him to do it.

The reason why the election was stolen from we the people was so that the chinese could get their picked puppet in place. What's funny is the clintons have been giving china all of our military secrets for years now. The F-35 is a lame duck because anyone who wants to already has a counter in place for it. Thanks to the clintons, and the chinese pretty much own the top levels of our politicians. The chinese knew they couldn't beat us militarily, so they bought the politicians.

Thus the F-35 is useless.

Ah, the big lie.

Yes, the dems stole the election. The third worldesque inauguration proves it.

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash. It is not worth what we are spending on it.

Wow, two big lies in a row.

 

[westwall]

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.

You have any evidence to support that claim?

Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled, yet wasn't. Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.

The F-35 has never been cancelled because:

1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.

2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.

So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.

It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming. That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.

 

[Dayton3]

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.

You have any evidence to support that claim?

Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled, yet wasn't. Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.

The F-35 has never been cancelled because:

1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.

2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.

So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.

It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming. That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.

Congress thought it would save money

 

[Vrenn]

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.

You have any evidence to support that claim?

Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled, yet wasn't. Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.

The F-35 has never been cancelled because:

1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.

2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.

So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.

It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming. That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.

And what we got was something that is 10 to 15 years ahead of anything else right now. Yes, I agree, the AF and Navy would have been better off going their own way. But the AV-8B needed to be replaced. And the funds to get that replacement was drained from the other two. The good news is, the new FXX programs are correcting that discrepency. But much of the F-35 is going into the new fighter making it cheaper to build and have even more capability. Mostly, the F-35A is what is lending itself to those improvements. So not all is lost.

 

[westwall]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now. The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.

They know the same thing will happen to them.

Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.

Correct, xiden is weaker than obummer.

Biden will listen and heed what the Military says better than that crap pot know it all Rump.

Xiden will do what his masters tell him to do.

You mean like Rump did for his Masters giving large swaths of Syria to the Russians? Biden has reversed the decrease in troops in Syria. And I guess the troops weren't being removed fast enough so the Russians tried to force them to be removed faster by attacking them. How'd that work out in the short run, over 300 dead Russians and zero dead Americans. Then Rump starts to reduce the troops after that. I guess his Leader told him to do it.

The reason why the election was stolen from we the people was so that the chinese could get their picked puppet in place. What's funny is the clintons have been giving china all of our military secrets for years now. The F-35 is a lame duck because anyone who wants to already has a counter in place for it. Thanks to the clintons, and the chinese pretty much own the top levels of our politicians. The chinese knew they couldn't beat us militarily, so they bought the politicians.

Thus the F-35 is useless.

Ah, the big lie.

Yes, the dems stole the election. The third worldesque inauguration proves it.

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash. It is not worth what we are spending on it.

Wow, two big lies in a row.

Oh, you tell far more lies than that drain bamage. The F-35 though, is a boondoggle. Pure and simple.

 

[westwall]

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.

You have any evidence to support that claim?

Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled, yet wasn't. Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.

The F-35 has never been cancelled because:

1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.

2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.

So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.

It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming. That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.

Congress thought it would save money

Congress is made up of some of the stupidest people on the planet too. The decision to use a common airframe makes a lot of sense to bean counters. But, to the people fighting and dying, they want the best that they can get. Common airframes are compromises. Compromises kill in the modern era.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.

You have any evidence to support that claim?

Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled, yet wasn't. Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.

The F-35 has never been cancelled because:

1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.

2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.

So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.

It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming. That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.

Congress thought it would save money

Congress is made up of some of the stupidest people on the planet too. The decision to use a common airframe makes a lot of sense to bean counters. But, to the people fighting and dying, they want the best that they can get. Common airframes are compromises. Compromises kill in the modern era.

The problem with common airframes is that they don't work well at all. The only two exceptions I can think of were the F4 and the A7. Neither of which were designed as common airframes.

 

[westwall]

The F-35 is merely a way for politicians to make shitloads of cash.

You have any evidence to support that claim?

Sure, look how many times it should have been cancelled, yet wasn't. Look who it was that was lobbying to keep the program going, then look at where they went to work after they left government.

The F-35 has never been cancelled because:

1) It is the only game in town to replace five different tactical combat aircraft for three of the U.S. services.

2) It is the only option to replace the AV-8B Harriers flown by several key U.S. allies.

So your claim isn't evidence of any kind and means nothing.

It should have been cancelled numerous times because it is grossly overbudget, and grossly underperforming. That's the inherent weakness when you try and make one airframe do multiple jobs.

Congress thought it would save money

Congress is made up of some of the stupidest people on the planet too. The decision to use a common airframe makes a lot of sense to bean counters. But, to the people fighting and dying, they want the best that they can get. Common airframes are compromises. Compromises kill in the modern era.

The problem with common airframes is that they don't work well at all. The only two exceptions I can think of were the F4 and the A7. Neither of which were designed as common airframes.

The F-4 was modified from a pure air superiority fighter into an attack bomber, an electronic warfare aircraft, and a recon aircraft. It did all of the jobs relatively well, but that was back in the 1960's. The A-7 was a light attack aircraft and that's all I can think of that it did. If you have examples of other jobs it did please educate me. As avionics and air defences improve, the common airframe is not capable of doing all of the jobs assigned to it well. ESPECIALLY when you wish to add a VTOL capability. That is an enormous constraint in airframe design.

 

[Silver Cat]

F-35 is almost useless in a large-scale war, because it can't intercept warheads of ballistic missiles at all, and not effective in the interception of CMs and big bombers.
F-35 is not effective in the local conflicts, because it still can't use cheap gravity bombs, it's maintenance is expensive, and it demands expensive "universal" pilots.

 

[Silver Cat]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

Just read Russian military doctrine, the part about definitions.

Военная доктрина Российской Федерации

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации

www.kremlin.ru

---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.

No it doesn't. By your definition of "Regional War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country. And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.

By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.

Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear? Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles. They know how to fight. But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting. And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35. But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.

Keep that in mind, Ivan.

And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads. You may not like the response.

lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks

I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.

I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.

newsflash, Ivan. Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine. Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore. You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.

No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves

You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....



as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...

And what does that have to do with the F-35? If you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on. Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them. The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia. And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them. But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X. And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians. There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well. Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air. Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory. Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable. The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.

if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As. And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap. The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V. With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine. Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014. But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots. What they lack are fighters. And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.

lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.

Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.

All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.

The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters. And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians. Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.

and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?

Easy answer. Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist. WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot. Pull up your bloomers and go home.

Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?

 

[Dayton3]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

Just read Russian military doctrine, the part about definitions.

Военная доктрина Российской Федерации

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации

www.kremlin.ru

---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.

No it doesn't. By your definition of "Regional War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country. And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.

By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.

Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear? Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles. They know how to fight. But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting. And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35. But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.

Keep that in mind, Ivan.

And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads. You may not like the response.

lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks

I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.

I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.

newsflash, Ivan. Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine. Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore. You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.

No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves

You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....



as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...

And what does that have to do with the F-35? If you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on. Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them. The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia. And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them. But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X. And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians. There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well. Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air. Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory. Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable. The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.

if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As. And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap. The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V. With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine. Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014. But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots. What they lack are fighters. And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.

lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.

Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.

All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.

The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters. And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians. Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.

and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?

Easy answer. Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist. WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot. Pull up your bloomers and go home.

Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?

There will be no Russian preemptive strike.

 

[Silver Cat]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

Just read Russian military doctrine, the part about definitions.

Военная доктрина Российской Федерации

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации

www.kremlin.ru

---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.

No it doesn't. By your definition of "Regional War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country. And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.

By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.

Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear? Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles. They know how to fight. But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting. And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35. But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.

Keep that in mind, Ivan.

And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads. You may not like the response.

lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks

I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.

I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.

newsflash, Ivan. Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine. Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore. You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.

No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves

You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....



as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...

And what does that have to do with the F-35? If you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on. Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them. The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia. And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them. But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X. And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians. There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well. Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air. Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory. Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable. The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.

if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As. And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap. The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V. With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine. Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014. But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots. What they lack are fighters. And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.

lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.

Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.

All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.

Word has it that Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden,both non Nato countries. While they are not Nato, they do have US Military there as does Poland and many others. I imagine Ukraine may end up with US military there as well. You can call them "Advisors" if you wish. But they are more like safety valves. Like Korea. We screwed up with Vietnam and won't make that mistake again. Like I said earlier, you Foomanchoo President Rump is gone.

Both Russian and Swedens take this "possibility" as a stupid joke.



And yes, joining NATO will bring them more instability than stability.

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now. The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.

They know the same thing will happen to them.

Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.

red line? whose red line? and what will the US do? fight till the last Ukrainian?
1/3 of Ukrainian army will side with us and fight you, 1/3 will run and the rest will be captured, ninus losses...

That's what another group thought as well and were proved wrong. I would expect Russians to fight just as hard for the Mother Land as the Ukrainians will for their Mother Land. Just pull up your bloomers and go home.

There is only one "problem". Many Russians and Ukrainians believe that they have one common Mother Land. They believe that Ukraine (Borderland) is a part of Russia (or Russia is a part of Ukraine), and most of them don't recognize each other as "foreigners".

 

[Siberian]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

Just read Russian military doctrine, the part about definitions.

Военная доктрина Российской Федерации

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации

www.kremlin.ru

---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.

No it doesn't. By your definition of "Regional War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country. And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.

By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.

Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear? Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles. They know how to fight. But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting. And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35. But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.

Keep that in mind, Ivan.

And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads. You may not like the response.

lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks

I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.

I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.

newsflash, Ivan. Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine. Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore. You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.

No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves

You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....



as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...

And what does that have to do with the F-35? If you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on. Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them. The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia. And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them. But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X. And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians. There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well. Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air. Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory. Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable. The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.

if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As. And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap. The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V. With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine. Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014. But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots. What they lack are fighters. And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.

lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.

Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.

All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.

The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters. And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians. Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.

and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?

Russia isn't going to start a nuclear war just because a few Russian divisions get wiped out.

easily, if it hapens in Crimea, for example, which is Russian territory and which the US doesn't recognize Russian.
or in isolated Kaliningrad, which would mean occupation and probably loss of that territory, or in Donetsk and Lugabsk republics, ehere already 400 000 people have Russian citizenship, Russisn defeat there means genocide agaibst Russians, so is not an option in any case.
etc.

It's not your property. Get over it. As Ukraine builds, it's going to get more costly to stay there. Already, russia is pulling the regular troops and training "Rebels".

Ukraine gradually slips into economic chaos, its only hope is external help and the only way to increase external help is to start war with Russia, then the US may not limit its aid to a couple of millions.

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

Just read Russian military doctrine, the part about definitions.

Военная доктрина Российской Федерации

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации

www.kremlin.ru

---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.

No it doesn't. By your definition of "Regional War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country. And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.

By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.

Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear? Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles. They know how to fight. But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting. And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35. But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.

Keep that in mind, Ivan.

And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads. You may not like the response.

lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks

I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.

I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.

newsflash, Ivan. Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine. Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore. You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.

No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves

You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....



as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...

And what does that have to do with the F-35? If you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on. Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them. The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia. And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them. But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X. And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians. There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well. Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air. Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory. Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable. The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.

if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As. And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap. The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V. With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine. Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014. But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots. What they lack are fighters. And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.

lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.

Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.

All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.

Word has it that Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden,both non Nato countries. While they are not Nato, they do have US Military there as does Poland and many others. I imagine Ukraine may end up with US military there as well. You can call them "Advisors" if you wish. But they are more like safety valves. Like Korea. We screwed up with Vietnam and won't make that mistake again. Like I said earlier, you Foomanchoo President Rump is gone.

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

The Estonians, and Latvians are scared to death right now. The last time pootin invaded a country The obummer/xiden administration whistled Dixie.

They know the same thing will happen to them.

Biden ain't Obama and Ukraine is the line.

red line? whose red line? and what will the US do? fight till the last Ukrainian?
1/3 of Ukrainian army will side with us and fight you, 1/3 will run and the rest will be captured, ninus losses...

That's what another group thought as well and were proved wrong. I would expect Russians to fight just as hard for the Mother Land as the Ukrainians will for their Mother Land. Just pull up your bloomers and go home.

Putin has his eye on Finland and Sweden - what does it mean?
and another question - why not Mozambique?

Since the original intent of Stalin was the World, why not the World? Pick up your skirts and Bloomers and just go home.

Stalin?
how old are you?

Obviously a lot older than you are. Stalin is within my lifetime. I also spent time in Poland when it was part of the Warsaw Pact. And Spain under Franco. And came within a second or two in going to Moscow for the Olympics before it was boycotted by Reagan. I had all the briefings, had all the paperwork including the Visas and Passport. The only thing I didn't have was the purchase of the Rubles. Had we gone there, each of us would have had only select places we could go (the Rich Sections of Moscow) and we would have had a Russian Agent assigned to follow each of every step of the way. And we HAD to be in Uniform. IT would have been one of the worst "Vacations" I ever had in my life. I doubt if much has changed after Putin got in power.

so don't you try and con me on how great it is where you live. I'll take the US hands over foot every time.

lol, you are really a museum artefact, and judging on your beliefs and convictions - rather from the Middle Ages section

 

[Silver Cat]

If the Russians (as some of thr

End results; US losses in Conus of about 85%, Russian losses at almost 95%. We go back to the 1800s while you go back to the stone age. Our factories are scattered across the nation while yours are in primary large clumps of population.

You forgot about China, India or even EU. All-out war between the USA and Russia will make them happy heirs of the whole world.

There will be NO Nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. It's doomsday scenario. And if you are trying to scare the sheep of the Party of the Rumpers, us old Military People know better. You fear it more than we do. If you don't, you should.

Sure, there will be nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. Especially if Administration don't believe it, too. It's how the detterence works.
And no, it's not doomsday scenario. First of all - a counter force strike. When more than 80% of the defenders nuclear forces are destroyed - postattack blackmail. Then - negotiations, or protracted war, or total annihilation of the unlucky defender. Yes, it will be a catastrophe, but, definitely not a doomsday.

I've seen the programmed results of the first strike from both sides and then the second attack (there is no 3rd attack possible). Both sides use the Triad where you have zero chance of taking all sides of the Triad out during the initial attack. And what good does it do attacking sites already launched? But you have no choice since the failure rate will leave some missiles in the silos that couldn't initially be fired but can be repaired very quickly. So that requires both sides to have reserve ICMBs. Sometimes by design sometimes by faults.

The damage won't be from just the blast areas. The Fallout will make you wished you were in the blast area. But think of this, the after affects cures the Global Warming since instead of the gradual temp increase, you get a very fast temp decrease. In the United States, it renders the Grain Belt to what the Canadian Farm Lands are today. But the southern regions get more rain and cooler temps and in a couple of years become the new Grain Belt. Mexico actually benefits from it. But Brazil and Argentina gets murdered by it.

But Russia doesn't have a northern Grain Belt. It has a southern grain belt, a small one and it loses the high production there while China gets one hell of a boost.

AS for Factories, China doesn't get that affected but their population will die from the crap in the air. So they will have to take measures for that. But the factory may be taken out just by not having enough resources and people to keep it open. The US will lose probably around 25% of our Factories but the rest will be left unharmed since our factories and industries are spread. Russia has their industries, like their population centers, clustered so they will lost closer to 85% of their Factories and Manufacturing ability and have almost a 95% civilian loss rate versus the US loss rate of less than 85%.

You think it's cold in Siberian now?

Only an insane Sillyvillian believes anyone can win a nuclear exchange between Russia and the US. The Entire world loses. Of course, it helps if you are already in the Stone Age, but move over, you are going to get a lot of visitors.

First of all, there is no choice between war and peace (from the Russian point of view) in your scenario. There is the choice between "uncontrolled escalation" (leading to a regional war and then to all-out nuclear war, may be at the moment choosen by the Americans), and "preemptive strike" (at the moment choosen by the Russians).
There are three main goals of any government in a war:
1) protect its citizens;
2) punish the enemy;
3) to win the war and the further peace.

Most important, of course, is the first goal. Therefore, the first strike must be counterforce one. And there are rather reliable ways to kill near 80% of the nuclear arsenal by the first sudden strike.
Also, there are ways to intercept warheads, cruise missiles and planes with bombs.
Then, there are ways to decrease consequences of the nuclear exchange. For example, Russia has Ukraine and the whole Europe to take food from.
Nobody cares about the world. Actually, there is no any working climate models, both "Global warming" and "Nuclear winter" are nothing but poor pseudoscientic speculations. Anyway, winner will have resources of the whole world to deal with any problems, and loser will be dead.
Fallouts may be a problem but not catastrophic. Both Russia and the USA have more than enough lands to evacuate people.

How many factories will survive in Russia and the USA depends on their ability to prevent "free raids" by strategic (and medium) bombers with nuclear CMs and bombs. And for this ability (returning to discussion about F-35) sides need big amount of relatively cheap fighters and interceptors with long range air-to-air missiles. China will sell to Russians J-16 (or, may be, J-20) with PL-21, and may be, will help them to restore production of Su-35, MiG-31, Su-57 with a number of different types of AAMs, and what will sell the EU to the USA? Eurofighters with "MBDA Meteor"?

in Russia-US direct nuclear war both will be losers, China will be a winner.
Thus the only realistic scenario is a war in 3d countries, most probably in Europe.
Ukraine, Eastern Europe as battleground with nuckear stikes against Western Europe, except France and UK.

I don't believe the US is eager to be nuked so no obligations to its NATO allies will be fulfilled.

Just invade a NATO country and find out. Putin is much more cautious on that one.

As I said, forces of NATO:Russia are 4,5-6-9 (I met different estimates) : 1

Obviously Russia is not going to invade NATO, it would be insane. Such fearmongering is nothing but Western propaganda to justify own agression.

everything is opposite, the US is building bases on Russian borders and it is NATO which is going to invade Russia if or when, as Washington hopes, Western sanctions lead to destabilisation of domestic situation in Russia or if/when US puppets like Georgia or Ukraine succeed in dragging Russia into a regional war.

in this case, if NATO prevails in the field with conventional weapons - Russia may use nukes first against Western forces, then against US bases in Eastern Europe, then against NATO European cities, and only the last phase is direct nuclear exchange with the US, if nothing of previous measures stops you.

And it's the policy of the US, if Russia or any other country uses even one Nuke, let the Nukes start flying. It ends up being the first and last option. And both sides know it. NO NUKES will be used by either side. Yah, I know, the 1980s plan by the Soviets were to nuke select targets in Europe but that plan is no longer sane. Ignite one Nuke on ANY Nato country and the big one happens.

Just read Russian military doctrine, the part about definitions.

Военная доктрина Российской Федерации

Новости, стенограммы, фото и видеозаписи, документы, подписанные Президентом России, информация о деятельности Администрации

www.kremlin.ru

---------------------
f) local war – a war between two or more states, pursuing limited military and political goals, in which military operations are conducted within the borders of the opposing states and which mainly affects the interests of only these states (territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war – a war involving two or more States of the same region, waged by national or coalition armed forces using both conventional and nuclear weapons, on the territory of the region with its adjacent waters and in the air (space) space above it, during which the parties will pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war – a war between coalitions of states or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties will pursue radical military and political goals. A large-scale war can be the result of an escalation of an armed conflict, a local or regional war involving a significant number of States from different regions of the world. It will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the participating States;
---------------------------------
The very definition of the term "Regional war" means limited usage of the nuclear weapon.

No it doesn't. By your definition of "Regional War" you would use Nukes against Ukraine when the start to kick your butts out of their country. And I give the Russian Military Leaders more credit than that.

By the Russian definition, Russia is not a side of the "Ukrainian Civil War" at all. But even when Russia will join this conflict, and, say, retake Kiev, it will be a "local war". It will be a "regional war" if other European (but not American) countries join this conflict, and then, Russia, highly likely, will use nukes.

Are you trying to make us all askeered of the teddy bear? Like I said, we don't have to fight Ukraines battles. They know how to fight. But we are obligated to get first line equipment into their hands along with training to do the fighting. And there are only two birds we won't send them and that will be the F-22 and F-35. But nothing stops us from sending in the latest F-18/16 and F-15EX which are more than a match for anything in quantity that Russia has to offer.

Keep that in mind, Ivan.

And if we do send in advisors and trainer make damn sure you don't harm a hair on their heads. You may not like the response.

lol, you Americans are too greedy to send anything to Ukraine which costs more than a hundred bucks

I don't want to get you scared, it is just my concern speaks in me that when you get your ass kicked you may start behaving even more inadequate than you do now
Nuclear war is a real possibility, Russia invests in nuclear weapons not to allow our defeat, one must think with his ass not to understand it and after discussions here I tend to think there is no such understanding in America.

I foresee your future screams when we take Kiev as a result of Ukrainian military adventures which the US encourages. Ukraine is moving heavy weapons to Donbass, without US direct approval or order they would not dare to start a war with Russia.

newsflash, Ivan. Ukraine doesn't need the USes permission to kick your sorry butts out of Ukraine. Sorry, but your buddy Rump ain't in office anymore. You'll have to groom another one and that takes years and decades.

No, sleepy Joe is absolutely fine
he can do more for collapse of the US than Brezhnev did for collapse of USSR
as aproverb says - every country has that leader which it deserves

You have 5-10 years till collapse of the US....



as for Ukraine, if left without 7/24 Russian governance if fails in everything. It's a failed state, and will disintegrate into becoming a Russian province...

And what does that have to do with the F-35? If you see F-35s over Ukraine, the game is on. Maybe Poland may bring theirs when they get them. The Balkan Nations can't afford for the Ukraine to fall to Russia. And it's pretty well known that some of the EU fighters will stack up against everything you Russians can throw at them. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the EU were to equip Ukraine with some of them. But if Poland does a defense agreement with Ukraine, they are next in procuring the F-35A along with the Aim120D and Aim9X. And Ukraine has at least one AWACs equal to the Russians. There are also NATO AWACs patroling the Ukrainian border as well. Sorry, no sneaky, sneaky attacks in the air. Remember, Russia only has 50 SU-35s in the inventory. Do if they wish to field a decent force, about 30 SU-35s are going to be usable. The bulk are going to be SU-30/33/27, Mig29s.

if Poland get's involved, it may include a few F-35As. And the US has a ton of F-15C/16Cs in storage that they would sell on the cheap. The US is taking many of the F-16Cs our of service that are perfectly good birds with the newest upgrades just short of the V. With the F-15EX coming online, there are going to be a bunch of F-15Cs and Es that could be had for a song and a dance for Ukraine. Ukraine has already stated they are switching to Western Fighters as quickly as they can.

Unfortunately, Ukraine has a dismal Military Air since 2014. But they have battle hardened and experienced pilots. What they lack are fighters. And that can be corrected in a matter of a year by the EU and the Balkan Nations and US Surplus.

lol, Ukrainian battle hardened and experienced pilots
One of the biggest problems of America, of its people and even ruling elite is that all they believe in dumb American propaganda.

Ukraine has money neither for new fighters nor even for fuel, their pilots fly 10 hours a year, bombers were used a couple of times in the very beginning of the conflict against civilian targets, but after a Ukrainian pilot Voloshin allegedly shot down a Malaisian civilian Boeing Ukraine stopped using military aicraft at all. Voloshin later committed suicide, or was asked to commit suicide by Ukrainian regime, but now we don't have a witness and the West blames Russia.

All planes the US gives to Ukraine in case of Ukraine-Russia war will be immediately shot down by S-300-350-400 or destroyed on the ground by Iskander. No Russian fighters will be even needed.

The Russians vaunted SAM systems are not world beaters. And using nuclear weapons would be suicide by the Russians. Something they dare not contemplate if they really want to save the Rodina.

and what will the US do if you destroy, let's day a Russian division in Ukraine and Russians retaliate with whiping out your military bases in Qatar, Saudia etc. with nuclear weapons?
start nuclear exchange between Russian and American territories?

Easy answer. Every Military and Industrial target in Russia ceases to exist. WWIII would have just begun and Russia would have fired the first shot but won't have fired the last shot by a long shot. Pull up your bloomers and go home.

Funny. And how exactly do you plan to "cease the existence" of more than 1000 of Russian industrial targets and roughly 5000 military targets, already evacuated and covered with ABD, AIDS and interceptors, by, say, 160 strategic warheads, remaining after the Russian preemptive strike?

There will be no Russian preemptive strike.

Are you sure? Even if there will be choice between "uncontrolled escalation with high risk of the American 1600-nukes strike against unprepared civilians" and "preemptive strike at the moment choosen by the Russians, with possibility of postattack blackmail and after evacuation of the cities"? Do you think they want to commit suicide?