U.S. can't defeat Russia without nuclear weapons, Rogozin says

Title is a bit misleading. Article stipulates that Russia will use nukes, so only way USA could win is if it uses nukes as well. It doesn't get in to if neither party used nukes.

So in otherwords, a no brainer.

So, nothing's really changed in the past 66 years.

This is just internal Russian nonsense to keep the anti American vibe going that underpins the Putinistas popularity. Nothing to serious. Just a Russian politician mouthing off for the crowd. I do wonder how many of those neo con morons in the US though, like the ones in the Bush admin, would agree with something like this. Their entire shtick was that the US was so overwhelmingly powerful that they could clobber anyone anytime anywhere with conventional forces alone. The Iraq quagmire proved otherwise but I doubt reality was enough to take much of the wind out of the sails of the think tank warriors at all.

Or some kind of surprise attack by the numerically inferior side that succeeds massively and terrorizes their target so much that they sue for immediate peace. Cut the head off of any government or military high command with a sneak attack and no matter how big a power is they are they're going to stumble around in disorganized chaos, and probably for long enough that the attacker can seize enough superior positions and gain both tactical and strategic control.

The USA didn't fully commit to Iraq though. Only 1/10th of their forces were in theatre for any given period of time. Had they approached it with either greater numbers or without public outcry at some of the atrocious things that need to be done in order to snuff out an insurgency, Iraq wouldn't have ended the way it has.

The USA didn't fully commit to Iraq though. Only 1/10th of their forces were in theatre for any given period of time. Had they approached it with either greater numbers or without public outcry at some of the atrocious things that need to be done in order to snuff out an insurgency, Iraq wouldn't have ended the way it has.

The US had no problem defeating Iraq. If they had used the troop strength that Powell suggested, they would have been able to prevent the formation of the various resistance groups.

But then what? Iraq is a mess of ethnic conflict. You can have all the troops you want, but they wouldn't be able to solve that. What kind of govt could a unified Iraq have that is both democratic and keeps the country together? I doubt there is one. They would need to install another hard man like Hussein to keep the country together by fear and force. What would be the point of that? Just having a son of a bitch that's more pliant to US wishes? I think Iraq as a unified, peaceful country was doomed long before the US got involved. Same with Syria - these things only hold up so long.