Talk:Scenario: World War III (Obama vs. Putin)/@comment-26294986-20150409154919

Greetings. I will not comment on the political accuracy. That is really hard. However, I have an issue on the proposed length of the war. One item that all experts agree on is that modern war is short and brutal. The slow pace of events makes it seem like WWI then WWIII. One side is going to run out of hardware and/or exhaust out. In the old days you could hand million conscripts rifles and send them into the meat grinder. That is no longer the case because they are worthless. Modern total war favors the offense and all systems will be depleted faster then production especially in the first year before anyone has converted to a total war economy. Never mind training conscripts on actually using the advanced systems. Modern War is a 400 yard dash, not a marathon.

I had issues on some of the technical issues. Why would NATO deploy several hundred thousand troops and just sit in Russia? Unlike WWII when Russia badly outnumbered Germany, the European Union plus the United States badley outnumbers Russia. Russia only has 150 million people which is about 20% of the EMEA NATO members. A mobilized Europe would have the resources to do the old Soviet style massive frontal assault.

The author also has the US Navy losing multiple battles to Russia. Russia's fleet has not been maintained for 30 years. I could understand a local set back in a ill fated attempt to rush the Black Sea. But the open ocean is what the US Navy does best. That implies to me the author is just thinking random events up to fill the timeline. If there is anything that we are sure of is the US Navy would have complete command of the oceans. All the Russians could do is have submarines lurk. A Russian surface force would be obliterated. And even if it could exist they have zero replenishment capability. Russia has zero aircraft carriers. How the heck would any surface ship survive the open ocean much less approach enemy land?