Let's Invade Russia!

[SLD]

This time it's all of NATO plus Ukraine and Georgia against Putin's Russia. Byelorussia remains neutral. So does China.

A win is getting to Moscow and deposing Putin.

No nukes.

Could NATO succeed where Bonaparte and Hitler failed? There's less space to conquer without Ukraine and Byelorussia and the Baltics. But of course Hitler captured all of them fairly quickly and then got bogged down. But Hitler's problem was manpower vs space to conquer. He had to control Ukraine. He pissed off the locals as well and they kept quite a few divisions tied up. Plus he was distracted by his Antisemetic policies which tied up huge numbers of troops. But still I just watched a special on Operation Bagration. What a horror show for the Germans. Even if it could be done it would be rough.

SLD

 

[Philos]

This time it's all of NATO plus Ukraine and Georgia against Putin's Russia. Byelorussia remains neutral. So does China.

A win is getting to Moscow and deposing Putin.

No nukes.

Could NATO succeed where Bonaparte and Hitler failed? There's less space to conquer without Ukraine and Byelorussia and the Baltics. But of course Hitler captured all of them fairly quickly and then got bogged down. But Hitler's problem was manpower vs space to conquer. He had to control Ukraine. He pissed off the locals as well and they kept quite a few divisions tied up. Plus he was distracted by his Antisemetic policies which tied up huge numbers of troops. But still I just watched a special on Operation Bagration. What a horror show for the Germans. Even if it could be done it would be rough.

SLD

SLD,

Lock and Load!

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/europe/russia-nuclear-missile-satan-2/

A.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Hand out free vodka in Moscow. when they pass out, all we have to do is walk in.

 

[rjh01]

I can see many problems with invading Russia.
1. Long way to get to the front. This includes for troops and supplies.
2. Manpower. Russia can sacrifice many men. The West cannot.
3. General Winter is a great General. Will inflict heavy casualties on Western forces.
4. Cost in money terms. Will be huge.

And the elephants in the room
5. Nuclear weapons.
6. OK you conquered Russia. Now what? Maybe it would cause more problems than Iraq.

 

[Sarpedon]

1. Not really, if you go through the Baltic countries, get St. Pete's then straight to moscow from there. You can capture and use Russia's superb river transportation system. Bonaparte and Hitler went against the rivers and failed. The Mongols went with the rivers and succeeded.
2. Not really, While Russia is still Europe's most populous country, it doesn't have a 5th of western europe's population. That's excluding the United States. You can say they are more willing to sacrifice, and that is true, but on the other hand our military is specifically designed to chew up conscript armies like Russia's.
3. Global Warming. Better air power. better technology.
4. Yes, it would be. First real obstacle.

5. The only real obstacle worth talking about.
6. Also a major obstacle, but only if we ignore #5.

Also, need I point out that Putin does not have to stay in Moscow. He has a big country to run around in.

 

[funinspace]

It took the US roughly 6 months to stage our forces for the invasion of Iraq to make it a barrel shoot back in 2003. I would assume we would need at least that much time to get ready for a very bloody version of that. Would Putin just sit their for 6 months waiting for the obvious preparations to be completed? And would we really want to play Russian Roulette with ICBMs instead of a gun?

In that 6 months a seriously stressed and pissed off Putin could do insane things like share nuclear war heads with those we hate like NK and Iran just for S&G's before he is snuffed out. He could also share their best heat seeking hand held ground to air missiles, along with anti-tank rockets, with the Taliban...

 

[Elixir]

It took the US roughly 6 months to stage our forces for the invasion of Iraq to make it a barrel shoot back in 2003. I would assume we would need at least that much time to get ready for a very bloody version of that. Would Putin just sit their for 6 months waiting for the obvious preparations to be completed? And would we really want to play Russian Roulette with ICBMs instead of a gun?

In that 6 months a seriously stressed and pissed off Putin could do insane things like share nuclear war heads with those we hate like NK and Iran just for S&G's before he is snuffed out. He could also share their best heat seeking hand held ground to air missiles, along with anti-tank rockets, with the Taliban...

Fergit it. By now, every US-based ICBM has been re-targeted to hit US cities by Vlad's hackers.
We'd be better off attacking the Kremlin with sticks and stones.
Thanks, Cheato!

 

[bilby]

This time it's all of NATO plus Ukraine and Georgia against Putin's Russia. Byelorussia remains neutral. So does China.

A win is getting to Moscow and deposing Putin.

No nukes.

Could NATO succeed where Bonaparte and Hitler failed? There's less space to conquer without Ukraine and Byelorussia and the Baltics. But of course Hitler captured all of them fairly quickly and then got bogged down. But Hitler's problem was manpower vs space to conquer. He had to control Ukraine. He pissed off the locals as well and they kept quite a few divisions tied up. Plus he was distracted by his Antisemetic policies which tied up huge numbers of troops. But still I just watched a special on Operation Bagration. What a horror show for the Germans. Even if it could be done it would be rough.

SLD

I don't think NATO plus would have any problem at all winning such a war, on a purely military basis. The only way they could reasonably lose (given that nukes are off the table) would be due to political interference with military command and control decisions.

But there's the rub - Winning the war is unimportant. Winning the peace would be essentially impossible. The US (plus a handful of allies) thrashed the fuck out of Iraq militarily; It was no contest at all. Russia would put up more resistance, but frankly, couldn't put up much more - even without the rest of NATO plus Ukraine and Georgia providing anything other than free access across their territory for US forces, the US alone would kick Russia's arse - The things that prevented Bonaparte and Hitler from doing so are not serious constraints for the modern US army. Logistics is everything; The US military has vast logistic capabilities, and could expect to establish air supremacy in short order. Without effective enemy air attacks on logistic convoys and cargo aircraft, it would all be over in weeks.

So, like in Iraq, you now have 'control' of a large nation with no effective government, populated by a variety of people with ancient grudges against each other, whose only shared belief is that the American occupying forces are the enemy. We know from Vietnam and from Iraq that a vast asymmetry of force is of massive help in defeating a conventional 'nation state' enemy, and that it is equally useless in defeating guerrilla tactics by small groups of poorly armed but fanatical citizens of an occupied nation.

The Russians won't just give up and stop fighting once Putin is deposed. You would be looking at many decades of high US casualties, in a vast nation where the new US (or US puppet) regime controls only the major cities and highways (and those only during the daytime). And all of this would be for what?

Sure, you could win, and win easily. But the consequences of that victory would all be bad, for everyone involved. So it would be a stupid thing to do. Even after nukes have somehow magically been taken out of the equation.

The idea that a big army can go and take over a country, and that the losing side would just go away and leave the spoils to the victors has not really been accurate for a couple of centuries. The defeat of the Axis powers in WWII was the exception, not the rule; Fascists were nothing if not obedient to authority, but even so the Marshall Plan, with its massive spending on reconstruction, and a significant and expensive 'de-nazification' program was required. Compare the response of the occupied European resistance movements acting against the Nazi invaders - non-fascists simply didn't lie down and accept their fate.

Maybe, just maybe, in the Stalin era, an invasion of Russia by anti-Stalinists might have worked (assuming that the invaders were kind and generous to the people they liberated). Certainly Hitler would have been well advised to treat the anti-Stalinist Ukrainians better than he did, as they could have been far more effective that they actually turned out to be. But today's Russia isn't a totalitarian Stalinist state. It has it's problems; But things are better than they have been in forever - and about as good as you can expect given the conditions under both the Tsars and the Communists. Today's Russians (mostly) wouldn't welcome NATO or US forces as liberators; They would (mostly) despise them as foreign invaders of the motherland.

Far better to drop the simple but ineffective 19th century idea that war can be used as the ultimate diplomatic tool, and to allow Russia the century or two she needs to work out her own internal problems. Putin won't be a problem in forty years time. Whether his successors will be better or worse will depend on both our perspective, and our diplomatic approach - and belligerence is likely to push that equation away from the optimum outcome from the POV of the USA and NATO.

Americans need to try to grasp that not everyone actually wants to be like America. People don't welcome 'liberation' and the imposition of the American Way; Just because YOU like it, that's no reason to expect people who have had it thrust upon them against their will to suddenly decide that America is the dog's bollocks. Look at your own Confederate States - even after a century and a half, those guys STILL hate the Yankees. Even though the impact of their defeat has been almost overwhelmingly positive for them. People don't like being forced to have nice things.

 

[barbos]

This time it's all of NATO plus Ukraine and Georgia against Putin's Russia. Byelorussia remains neutral. So does China.

A win is getting to Moscow and deposing Putin.

No nukes.

Could NATO succeed where Bonaparte and Hitler failed? There's less space to conquer without Ukraine and Byelorussia and the Baltics. But of course Hitler captured all of them fairly quickly and then got bogged down. But Hitler's problem was manpower vs space to conquer. He had to control Ukraine. He pissed off the locals as well and they kept quite a few divisions tied up. Plus he was distracted by his Antisemetic policies which tied up huge numbers of troops. But still I just watched a special on Operation Bagration. What a horror show for the Germans. Even if it could be done it would be rough.

SLD

I don't think NATO plus would have any problem at all winning such a war, on a purely military basis. The only way they could reasonably lose (given that nukes are off the table) would be due to political interference with military command and control decisions.

But there's the rub - Winning the war is unimportant. Winning the peace would be essentially impossible. The US (plus a handful of allies) thrashed the fuck out of Iraq militarily; It was no contest at all. Russia would put up more resistance, but frankly, couldn't put up much more - even without the rest of NATO plus Ukraine and Georgia providing anything other than free access across their territory for US forces, the US alone would kick Russia's arse - The things that prevented Bonaparte and Hitler from doing so are not serious constraints for the modern US army. Logistics is everything; The US military has vast logistic capabilities, and could expect to establish air supremacy in short order. Without effective enemy air attacks on logistic convoys and cargo aircraft, it would all be over in weeks.

So, like in Iraq, you now have 'control' of a large nation with no effective government, populated by a variety of people with ancient grudges against each other, whose only shared belief is that the American occupying forces are the enemy. We know from Vietnam and from Iraq that a vast asymmetry of force is of massive help in defeating a conventional 'nation state' enemy, and that it is equally useless in defeating guerrilla tactics by small groups of poorly armed but fanatical citizens of an occupied nation.

The Russians won't just give up and stop fighting once Putin is deposed. You would be looking at many decades of high US casualties, in a vast nation where the new US (or US puppet) regime controls only the major cities and highways (and those only during the daytime). And all of this would be for what?

Sure, you could win, and win easily. But the consequences of that victory would all be bad, for everyone involved. So it would be a stupid thing to do. Even after nukes have somehow magically been taken out of the equation.

The idea that a big army can go and take over a country, and that the losing side would just go away and leave the spoils to the victors has not really been accurate for a couple of centuries. The defeat of the Axis powers in WWII was the exception, not the rule; Fascists were nothing if not obedient to authority, but even so the Marshall Plan, with its massive spending on reconstruction, and a significant and expensive 'de-nazification' program was required. Compare the response of the occupied European resistance movements acting against the Nazi invaders - non-fascists simply didn't lie down and accept their fate.

Maybe, just maybe, in the Stalin era, an invasion of Russia by anti-Stalinists might have worked (assuming that the invaders were kind and generous to the people they liberated). Certainly Hitler would have been well advised to treat the anti-Stalinist Ukrainians better than he did, as they could have been far more effective that they actually turned out to be. But today's Russia isn't a totalitarian Stalinist state. It has it's problems; But things are better than they have been in forever - and about as good as you can expect given the conditions under both the Tsars and the Communists. Today's Russians (mostly) wouldn't welcome NATO or US forces as liberators; They would (mostly) despise them as foreign invaders of the motherland.

Russia does not have many internal grudges. Yes there are some like Checnya but these are very small number of people living relatively compactly. 95% of people don't have any ancient problems with each other. I know, it's hard to believe but Russia is not Yugoslavia.
As for the russian army people falsely equate it with Arab dictatorship ones. It's not a match for US, no question about that but it is vastly better than anything US tried in recent history. By the way, one of the mistakes Hitler made was underestimating Red Army. He looked at Russian disastrous war with Finland and concluded that Red Army and especially commanders were shit, in reality it was not that bad and Finnish war performance was not true demonstration of Red Army. BTW, US/GB agreed with Hitler's assessment and did not expect Hitler having any problems. And Stalin made a mistake of underestimating the level of Hitler underestimation of Russia, He truly believed invading Soviet Union would be utterly stupid and that Hitler understood that, but he did not.

Far better to drop the simple but ineffective 19th century idea that war can be used as the ultimate diplomatic tool, and to allow Russia the century or two she needs to work out her own internal problems. Putin won't be a problem in forty years time. Whether his successors will be better or worse will depend on both our perspective, and our diplomatic approach - and belligerence is likely to push that equation away from the optimum outcome from the POV of the USA and NATO.

I think Western policy makers mostly understand that. It's just dynamics is such that it's favorable or fashionable one way or another to paint Russia as a threat . It's also favorable for Putin, in short terms at least. In long term isolation is going to be bad for Russia. On a strategic level I think some faceless brainiacs in US just want Russia to stop being nuclear threat. US obviously can't suggest it directly, the only way to achieve it is to resume Cold War under some false excuse. That's why US supports all kind of rabid russophobes in former USSR republics.

Americans need to try to grasp that not everyone actually wants to be like America. People don't welcome 'liberation' and the imposition of the American Way;

That's what Vietnamese guy wearing american flag jacket once told me.

Just because YOU like it, that's no reason to expect people who have had it thrust upon them against their will to suddenly decide that America is the dog's bollocks. Look at your own Confederate States - even after a century and a half, those guys STILL hate the Yankees. Even though the impact of their defeat has been almost overwhelmingly positive for them. People don't like being forced to have nice things.

nobody likes invaders, even north koreans would not like them.
In US some (trump voters) even don't like immigrants.

 

[Bomb#20]

This time it's all of NATO plus Ukraine and Georgia against Putin's Russia. Byelorussia remains neutral. So does China.

A win is getting to Moscow and deposing Putin.

Wait, so your theory is when we get to Moscow we'll find Putin hanging around somewhere in town waiting for us to depose him? The entire Russian government will have decamped to Yekaterinburg.

For a win, do we have to go all the way to Yekaterinburg? You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia".

Could NATO succeed where Bonaparte and Hitler failed?

Let's not forget Charles XII. Napoleon read up on his Russia campaigns voraciously, and convinced himself he understood Charles' errors well enough to avoid repeating them.

 

[BH]

I don't know. The US has a lot of high tech but it takes time to make and replentish. Russia has what, a hundred and fity million people and lots of land to take over? And they are a smart hardy people. We may not have enough high tech stuff to take it out quick enough and they may be able to develop some tech suprises themselves. I'm sure some Spetznaz could be dropped off in some inner American cities and give out free "dope" with the needles containing small pox or other nasty shit.

 

[barbos]

I think high ranking retired military officials and their offspring should be banned (for life) from going to "work" for military contractors.
I have a strong suspicion that the current "russians are coming!" hysteria would suddenly reduce significantly if they do that.

 

[barbos]

I don't know. The US has a lot of high tech but it takes time to make and replentish. Russia has what, a hundred and fity million people and lots of land to take over? And they are a smart hardy people. We may not have enough high tech stuff to take it out quick enough and they may be able to develop some tech suprises themselves. I'm sure some Spetznaz could be dropped off in some inner American cities and give out free "dope" with the needles containing small pox or other nasty shit.

Yeah, I understand both US and Russia (and no one else) have kept small pox virus somewhere in safe place.
But before that I am fairly sure they could manage destroying a couple of nuclear subs and aircraft carriers. Of course aircraft carriers are a bit harder because US admirals would not be stupid enough to let them out of the port for fear of being destroyed. This is a difference between ME and Russian millitary, good chunk of US NAVY is useless against Russia.

 

[bilby]

I think high ranking retired military officials and their offspring should be banned (for life) from going to "work" for military contractors.
I have a strong suspicion that the current "russians are coming!" hysteria would suddenly reduce significantly if they do that.

I would go further; I would like to see anyone who works in any of the following categories, and their immediate families, permanently banned from working in any of the others:

1) Elected State or Federal Representatives, (Congressmen, Senators, Governors, Presidents, etc.)
2) Senior Military Officers (O-5 and above)
3) Salaried employees of companies who do significant business as suppliers to Government, Police, or the Military (eg over $100,000,000 per annum).

Of course, such a law will likely never be passed, due to the very corruption that its passage would help to prevent.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Okay, in a general Book-of-Revelations way, these plans make a ton of sense. I mean, duh. But I'm thinking long range, and I think the smart money is on incremental war, i.e, pick up a lot of smaller areas to both A) get our forces into fighting trim and B) expand our base of operations and launching areas. So, to mark the steps I think would work, let's think of them in terms of the four years of Trumpolini's first term.
Trump 1: We're off to a late start, so I suggest just one preemptive war this year: we take Tonga. Throws the Ruskies off, gives us a carrier base.
Trump 2: We launch a spring offensive and take Nauru. Now the Ruskies are convinced we have a trans-Polynesian strategy, and they sit back and relax. But, in October, like a lightning bolt: Sao Tome and Principe. I suggest getting the kids into this one, say, Ivanka taking Sao Tome and Eric taking Principe. Now the whole world is going, WTF.
Trump 3: The masterstroke, the last maneuver before the Art of the Deal plays out: NUNAVUT. Not only am I sick of those (literally) snot-nosed Nunavutians, but Nunavut gives us unpresidented capability: a no-nonsense, never-before attempted version of Shock & Awe: a snowshoe army assault on the Ruskies where they least expect it, their northern frontier. We'll do what Napoleon and Hitler shoulda done: march through snow, bogs, more snow, unmapped tracts of boggy salt marsh, some more snow, and then finally the fields of root vegetables, to the prize itself: Moscow. This part of the master plan should wrap up in Trump 4, about a month before the election. Fuckin' Voila. You're welcome, Mr. Bannon, sir.

 

[funinspace]

Death to the Sicilians!

Wait, so your theory is when we get to Moscow we'll find Putin hanging around somewhere in town waiting for us to depose him? The entire Russian government will have decamped to Yekaterinburg.

For a win, do we have to go all the way to Yekaterinburg? You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia".

Yeah, getting to Moscow could be done probably w/o too much pain, but going another 1,000+ miles would be a tough going even with US logistics. Those cute Tomahawks that recently hit Syria couldn't even reach Yekaterinburg, even if our navy was ported in St. Petersburg. The US would have to slowly push their way in to establish working air bases. I'm sure Vlad doesn't know anything about a destructive retreat. Part of the modern US air power is that we always have full air superiority. The AWACs and satellites are never at risk. The US also only really has 60 B-1B's and and 20 B-2B's operational long range bombers push in with. The B-52's would get chewed up. Even then, the bombers would require fighter escort, so rang would still be limited unless the US was willing to take big losses. The Russians do have very capable air defense systems that we have never tested. I'm sure the US offensive and defensive systems are better, but this would not be a barrel shoot. We would have to push inward in waves, securing another band of 100-300 miles at a time with our shorter range fighter/bombers taking out targets to secure this new band. And all this ignores possible Russian asymmetric warfare options as the preparations for full invasion would be obvious for at least half a year.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Wait, so your theory is when we get to Moscow we'll find Putin hanging around somewhere in town waiting for us to depose him? The entire Russian government will have decamped to Yekaterinburg.

For a win, do we have to go all the way to Yekaterinburg? You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia".

Yeah, getting to Moscow could be done probably w/o too much pain, but going another 1,000+ miles would be a tough going even with US logistics. Those cute Tomahawks that recently hit Syria couldn't even reach Yekaterinburg, even if our navy was ported in St. Petersburg. The US would have to slowly push their way in to establish working air bases. I'm sure Vlad doesn't know anything about a destructive retreat. Part of the modern US air power is that we always have full air superiority. The AWACs and satellites are never at risk. The US also only really has 60 B-1B's and and 20 B-2B's operational long range bombers push in with. The B-52's would get chewed up. Even then, the bombers would require fighter escort, so rang would still be limited unless the US was willing to take big losses. The Russians do have very capable air defense systems that we have never tested. I'm sure the US offensive and defensive systems are better, but this would not be a barrel shoot. We would have to push inward in waves, securing another band of 100-300 miles at a time with our shorter range fighter/bombers taking out targets to secure this new band. And all this ignores possible Russian asymmetric warfare options as the preparations for full invasion would be obvious for at least half a year.

And the Tomahawks only work if the US has enough satellites in place that can guide the Tomahawks, provide intel, etc. No nukes doesn't mean no anti-satellite weapons, and I'm not sure what their non-nuclear capabilities on that front are. Without satellites (or with very few), things get a lot more complicated.
Additionally, no nukes doesn't mean no chemical or biological weapons against densely populated areas in the West, with a threat of a lot more of the same if the invasion continues.

 

[bilby]

Wait, so your theory is when we get to Moscow we'll find Putin hanging around somewhere in town waiting for us to depose him? The entire Russian government will have decamped to Yekaterinburg.

For a win, do we have to go all the way to Yekaterinburg? You fell victim to one of the classic blunders - the most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia".

Yeah, getting to Moscow could be done probably w/o too much pain, but going another 1,000+ miles would be a tough going even with US logistics. Those cute Tomahawks that recently hit Syria couldn't even reach Yekaterinburg, even if our navy was ported in St. Petersburg. The US would have to slowly push their way in to establish working air bases. I'm sure Vlad doesn't know anything about a destructive retreat. Part of the modern US air power is that we always have full air superiority. The AWACs and satellites are never at risk. The US also only really has 60 B-1B's and and 20 B-2B's operational long range bombers push in with. The B-52's would get chewed up. Even then, the bombers would require fighter escort, so rang would still be limited unless the US was willing to take big losses. The Russians do have very capable air defense systems that we have never tested. I'm sure the US offensive and defensive systems are better, but this would not be a barrel shoot. We would have to push inward in waves, securing another band of 100-300 miles at a time with our shorter range fighter/bombers taking out targets to secure this new band. And all this ignores possible Russian asymmetric warfare options as the preparations for full invasion would be obvious for at least half a year.

Mathias Rust tested the much vaunted Soviet air defences at the height of the Cold War, and they were utter dogshit.

I seriously doubt that the Russian defences are any better today; The reaction at the time was for Gorbachev to use the incident to justify a purge of his political opponents, rather than to implement a more competent air defence policy.

And as you say, the system has never really been tested in the subsequent thirty years.

 

[barbos]

Mathias Rust tested the much vaunted Soviet air defences at the height of the Cold War, and they were utter dogshit.

It was 1988, not a height by any measure. Soviet Union was done by that time.
And it was an organizational failure, no one was ready to take responsibility to take action.

I seriously doubt that the Russian defences are any better today;

Oh, It's definitely better. Both hardware and organization wise.
Tomahawks are practically useless if specific target is protected, problem of course they can't protect everything because range of these systems is not great against low flying missiles.

 

[funinspace]

Yeah, getting to Moscow could be done probably w/o too much pain, but going another 1,000+ miles would be a tough going even with US logistics. Those cute Tomahawks that recently hit Syria couldn't even reach Yekaterinburg, even if our navy was ported in St. Petersburg. The US would have to slowly push their way in to establish working air bases. I'm sure Vlad doesn't know anything about a destructive retreat. Part of the modern US air power is that we always have full air superiority. The AWACs and satellites are never at risk. The US also only really has 60 B-1B's and and 20 B-2B's operational long range bombers push in with. The B-52's would get chewed up. Even then, the bombers would require fighter escort, so rang would still be limited unless the US was willing to take big losses. The Russians do have very capable air defense systems that we have never tested. I'm sure the US offensive and defensive systems are better, but this would not be a barrel shoot. We would have to push inward in waves, securing another band of 100-300 miles at a time with our shorter range fighter/bombers taking out targets to secure this new band. And all this ignores possible Russian asymmetric warfare options as the preparations for full invasion would be obvious for at least half a year.

Mathias Rust tested the much vaunted Soviet air defences at the height of the Cold War, and they were utter dogshit.

By that kind of argument, then the US air defences must be cat shit.

I call your Mathias Rust with Frank Eugene_Corder

I seriously doubt that the Russian defences are any better today; The reaction at the time was for Gorbachev to use the incident to justify a purge of his political opponents, rather than to implement a more competent air defence policy.

And as you say, the system has never really been tested in the subsequent thirty years.

As barbos said, it was an organizational failure, not a technical or military training one. It was also just a simple Cessna, hardly a threat to anyone. The Russians don't generally sell or give away their best equipment. The dogshit the US hit in Iraq was truly antiquated and wasn't a test of anything. If anything close to this threads scenario played out, I can guaranty that the military orders will be to shot anything/everything that isn't answering IFF correctly.

The US air combat/control hasn't been seriously tested since the Vietnam war, and even then we lost a few thousand planes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

All told, the U.S. Air Force flew 5.25 million sorties over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, northern and southern Laos, and Cambodia, losing 2,251 aircraft: 1,737 to hostile action, and 514 in accidents.

When things get this complicated, things fall apart much faster, and you have more accidents. The S-400's are nothing to sneezed or laughed at. Again, when you don't have nearly 100% control/domination of the air theater, it gets far more risky. Iraq is barely 400 miles from border to border, and we only had to go about 200 miles to get to Baghdad in very open territory. Pushing in 1300 miles over much more complicated terrain is very different, especially against a professional military with decent quality weapons, even if inferior to the US.