No!!

If we have it most likely Russia does too!
They may not get it at the same time, but it doesn't take them long to get it!

They do skimp a little on their hardware like tanks, but unlike Iraq, they will stand in the face of massive casualties rather than surrender, adapting to changing tactics as they emerge!

They also have huge manufacturing facilities that can be geared quickly to manufacture military hardware as the war proceeds.
We are hardly able to take all of these out. Every plane we send up over their territory would be met by a sophisticated and high number of anti-air defenses and outnumbered by fighters familiar with our tactics and aircraft!

If somehow we could keep the war conventional, which would be the goal at first, we and our allies(forget going at them alone) would suffer extreme casualties! A full scale draft of the WWII magnitude would be necessary.
It would be us who would probably escalate the use of Nukes, and then there would be no winner. Esp the Europeans, but also the US mainland and the rest of the world.

There would be no 45 day victory over an insignificant and inept military with few casualties like the two Gulf wars. It would be massive with high casualties on both sides. It would be ugly and expensive. Those high tech weapons of ours are very expensive and wouldn't last long against Russia. Most of the high tech stuff would become useless as Russia began to knock out our GPS satellites. That's why I said it would be us who escalated the conflict to a nuclear one.

Russia is bada$$ no doubt about that. As a matter of fact every soldier I talk to say that russia is one of the countrys they would hate for us to go to war with. As far as the statement of if we have it so do they. Ok you show me their abrams tanks, cobra and apache gunships, f-35/f-22 fighters, not to mention all the crew served weapons that the plants are in the US and their for they couldnt have large amounts of these weapons, ie the m134 minigun, and various other weapons. But you are right that they can produce massive amounts of what they have on short notice. This is why I possed the question of which would be better massive ammounts of old tech or smaller ammounts of new more accurate tech. You are right though it would most likely turn into another cold war.

Act like a civilized country. If they don't act like that, why treat them like one? A threat of a DEFENSE shield, does Russia want one as well and are having a fit because they are a country that has fallen so behind to what they had once been?

You think Russia would truly threaten the entire European Union because of a missile DEFENSE shield? They aren't stupid. They will stand by and will do nothing besides wave around their outdated weapons and through nostalgic war parades.

Good general context for a debate people!

However, there is one thing profoundly wrong with this thread: ITS VERY PREMISE, AS POINTED OUT IN THE ERRONEOUS AND MISLEADING TITLE!!!

'RUSSIA THREATENS'.

PLEASE! GIVE THE US PARTY PROPAGANDA A BREAK HERE!!!

Here is a suggestion to correct this oversight, ...I'm sure!

'... US playing uninvited and unwelcomed 'WARGOD' in Russia's backyard, finds Russian authorities OBJECTING and REACTING in decisive and unwavering terms.'

I don't think the host would have chosen the same title, had the tables been turned and RUSSIA was meddling in the US backyard with a strategic missile base (defensive or offensive is absolutely irrelevant).

IMO, if the tables had been turned, I suggest the title would most likely have read something like this:

'... The United States of America, which stands for all things that are just and good, for all its peope that are jut and good, legitimately and righteously retaliates, in good measure, to RUSSIA's HOSTILE, GROSS and DEVIOUS INTIMIDATION OF 'US' SACRED AND GOD GRANTED SOVEREIGNTY!'

Before debating the 'pros' and 'cons' of a debating question, a debater must first question and put in the right perspective, the always subjective nature of the PREMISE, OR INVITATION TO DEBATE!

RUSSIA IS NOT THREATENING!!!

IT IS THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THAT ARE MEDDLING AND INTIMIDATING OTHER SOVEREIGNTIES IN THEIR BACKYARDS, UNDER THE UTTERLY FALSE PRETENSE THAT IT IS FOR THEIR GOOD!

You are naive, and sounding like a Bush puppet!
Although even he understands not to under estimate Russia's power!
Like I said your generation has no idea about the Cold War or Russia's threat to our security!

if they would have listened to Patton this and many other things would have never been an issue

So what? It's our survival & we are a free people unlike what would happen if tyrants get into power. Would you like that better? Do you really think that looking the other way & sticking your head in the sand is going to get you respect? I don't....

American / Soviet miniguns

http://world.guns.ru/machine/minigun-e.htm

Video of Soviet MBT

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/284208/modern_russian_tanks_best_tanks_in_2007/


Soviet attack helicopters

Ka-50
A single-seat attack helicopter. The Ka-50 is a good performer, but it is thought that the single-seat layout imposes a very high workload on the pilot.
Type: Ka-50
Function: attack
Year: 1982-84 Crew: 1 Engines: 2 * 1618kW Isotov TV3-117
Wing Span: 14.5 m Length: 16m
Weight: 10800 kg
Max Speed: 350km/h Ceiling: 4000m Range:
Armament: 1*g30mm 2A42, AT missiles, AS rockets.

MI-28A/N Havoc Attack Helicopter

Seen by many as the Russian answer to the Apache, the MI-28 Havoc attack helicopter is a sophisticated tank-killer.
The MI-28 'Havoc' has had a long and difficult development history, beginning in the early 80s when it competed, and lost, to the KA-50 in Soviet procurement trials. The design lived on into the mid 90s in the form of the Mi-28N, a more sophisticated variant, kitted out with advanced sensors (notably a radar / flir pod mounted above the main rotor) and fire control systems. The MI-28N is now in active service within the Russian military and is available for export.

The Havoc can carry a range of weapons into battle. A 30mm 2A42 cannon is mounted beneath the nose and can pivot through 200 degrees. The MI-28's stub wings include counter measure pods stuffed with infra-red and electronic jammers, flare/chaff launchers and contain hardpoints for a variety of air-to-surface ordinance. Typical loudout includes unguided folding-fin rockets of various calibers in underslung pods and Shturm radio-guided and/or Ataka radar-guided anti-tank missiles. As with most modern gunships, crew survivability is paramount and the Havoc 's cockpits are heavily armored.
The Mi-28N's fire control system includes a helmet-mounted target designator which is slaved to pilot's line of sight. Sensors include narrow/wide field-of-view optical and video. A microwave radar fitted in a pod over the rotor can detect, target and anti-tank guide missiles. Other sensors include a forward-looking infrared (FLIR) system.


Soviet fighter that can cause real problems (video)

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/12/05/russian-fighter-jet.html

Another Soviet fighter

MiG-35 / MiG-29M OVT / Fulcrum F
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mig-35.htm

.......................................

Not really that backwards are they, or outdated?

So what?
The tanks of the German Army during WWII were far more sophisticated than the Sherman hunk of Junk the Allies used. Their fighters were way ahead of ours at first, as were their bombers, and about everything else they had!
Their problem was sustainability and numbers. We had more because ours were cheaper, we were able to sustain our numerical superiority because of that and could sacrifice 4 Shermans for every one Tiger, among other reasons!
The Soviet Union does have a very good Tank, Ive been in them (not the new T-80 but the T-72) as Im sure the Canadian Army Troops like Karma have. It may not be as sophisticated as the Abrams but it is a hell of a lot cheaper and they can field 12 for every one Abrahms that we have!
Their fighters are very good, and once again can out number ours. They are not Iraq and as I have feared Americans have grown to be cocky and sure from our successes in Iraq. They now think we are invincible.
A few months of conventional war with the well trained and well armed Russian Military would force us to use Nukes, Biological, and Chemical Weapons. Probably in the reverse order though.
Building up to a result that no one in the world wishes to see and no one can win!

You seem to take me for a ill informed fool. Believe me I dont just regurgitate facts I sit down and do the head work and compare the weapons myself. I weigh the merrits and drawbacks and then draw a conclusion. Yes the germans did have better tanks and what happened Their tanks ripped right through ours. There is one difference though you had to be fairly close to the enemy tank to hit them with a sherman or tiger, compared to the abrams, where as the abrams can hit an enemy tank before they even know we are there. The t-80 has excelent range also but the simple fact that we can spot them first is what will give you the kill shot. Finaly I am aware that russia is not the poorly trained rabble we ripped through in iraq. Russia would be a very tough adversary. I have stated this at least once before. There is a reason that the US has opted for quality over quantity.

I wasnt thinking that way, but the more you post I am.
You read! Ive trained to fight them (Infantry, 3rd ID, VII Corps). I was in Europe, stationed for 28 months 80 km from the border. Many times, for weeks at a time, I have studied the Soviets through Binoculars while hiding behind a wall or a bush, writing down notes. What they wore, what time they changed guards, when they ate, what they ate, how many times they **** or pissed, what weapons they carried, how many I saw, drawing sketches of insignia they wore, etc. etc, etc. Hours upon hours upon hours.
I spent years studying and testing, being able to recognize every vehicle, airplane, and tank, they possess. Learning their tactics and practicing to be as proficient and deadly with their weapons as mine. Did your books and web sites let you experience that? Did your books and web-sites let you experience the Cold War from a soldier's point of view who participated in it's experiences!
I doubt it!

Quickstepper,

If you take a quick look at the history of the 20th century, you'll find that a lot of those tyrants of whom you make reference, were a pure creation of either Great Britain, the Superpower of the first half of the 20th century, or the USA in the second part of the 20th century.

If you were to take th role of Great Britain, and the US relation and role in Iran/Persia for example, which pretty well covers the century, you would understand that the current hostilities have nothing to do with the Good nation USA battling the evil Iranian nation for justice and freedom. Just do a quick read of easily available information from the encyclopedia of your choice.

What you will undoubtedly conclude from this information, is that the USA, like G.B. before her, doesn't act with high moral purpose and virtue, but does so out of pure, calculated SELF-INTEREST. The US is not the first superpower or power period to do so, but it not doing any differently than the previous misguided fallen Empires either. And that is how the world's other nations are judging the USA, which includes the current 'reaction' from Russia, to the latest 'threath' from the US.

Your comment about sticking one's head in the sand and looking the other way, is rather irrelevant.

We are obviously not talking about an innocent bystander wondering selflessly, whether he should help the good side of the equation here.

We are talking about the very instigator, the creator of the mess in he first place.

Rather than the ...
'... sticking one's hand in the sand!...',
expression which doesn't apply at all in this case,
we could talk about ...
'... sticking one's butt in your neighbor's sandbox, doing so strickly for your own personnal interest as if it were yours, and crying foul when the neighbour angrily asks that you move your butt out of HIS sandbox!!!...'

If there is in fact 'one' whom is looking the other way Quickstepper, it would be the one looking away, and failing to take account of one's own responsibility in those matters which ONE causes himself and blaming the other for the consequences.

Not a matter of 'HEAD IN THE SAND' in the least!