View Full Version : USSR vs. USA


Merc
Jan 28, 2003, 01:44 PM
If there was every a war between these two, who would have won? I've heard things like the Soviets had a bigger military but mostly outdated equipment, and only 2/3 their army spoke Russian, some other junk, but my knowledge is minimal on the subject. So, to anyone who knows anything, what do you think?

joespaniel
Jan 28, 2003, 01:49 PM
Neither.

Even if nuclear weapons stayed out of the equasion, a conventional war would have resulted in horrific loss of life.

And remember, the US had most of Western Europe on its side.

The NATO allies would likely emerge as the victors, but the price would have been staggering.

Im glad it never came to war.

nixon
Jan 28, 2003, 02:47 PM
You wouldn't perform a conventional strike - from either side - which was nothing less than eradicating something major, e.g. a carrier, a Kilo-class/Ohio-class, a base etc. Which would naturally call upon the nuclear forces to retaliate. Conducting a half-hearted conventional strike is simply out of question, I would think.

I am still claiming that conventional war CAN exist between two nuclear powers, but if the CCCP and the United States really went to war, both would've resorted to nuclear weapons within a short time.

wtiberon
Jan 28, 2003, 03:20 PM
Even assuming that nuclear weapons were used I would say that neither would have been capable of winning. For both sides it would take the ENTIRE domination of the others country to claim victory as each would fight to the last man.

The U.S. would have tactical and technological supremecy. Their war machine is second to none in recorded history and more than likely the war would begin in Europe and Asia. However if we are to assume that allies would be involved then the sheer man power of Russia, China, N. Korea, and Vietnam would be more than we could handle. Technology wise the Soviet Union would be hard pressed to launch an assault onto N. America as his only ally Cuba is not directly connected to the U.S.

Mexico could have been persuaded to hold Soviet troops if they could do so in a stealthy manner. However I feel sorry for any country that ever tried to invade the U.S. expecially through Texas. :)

Merc
Jan 28, 2003, 03:38 PM
I was asking because I just saw part of the movie Red Dawn, and I thought that U.S. was way too pathetic. I didn't see the begining, though, so maybe they had some sort of "master plan" that worked real good.

wtiberon
Jan 28, 2003, 03:53 PM
Yeah a scenario like Red Dawn of a suprise sneak attack in the 80s is rediculous. Of course it was during a time when we had an inflated idea of how strong the Soviet Union actually was. We assumed they were as strong as we were or stronger but by the late 80s we learned different.

SunTzu
Jan 28, 2003, 03:58 PM
yeha Red Dawn was like an invasion from Russia into Alaska and then like the Northwest and the invasion by the Warsaw Pact who snuck on freighters and invaded New York and the Cubans invaded and swept up the mississippi river valley or something like that.

stalin006
Jan 28, 2003, 04:58 PM
well it isnt taht easy, take nukes out of the equations and extermely hard to figure it out.

number one europe would had been taken over, england could last since they are in an island, but germany italy and france are gone.

the americans would had taken cuba out easy.

then russia takes the oil of the middle east, weakening the US

america retaliates by using sthealt tech to bomb military bases.

north korea takes south korea, w/ soviet support.

who knows if japan woudl survive. maybe not because of the proximity to the mainland.

china would be a ally for any sides, if allied to ussr, japan and most of asia gone, if allied to US, china alone woudl fight russia tot he end (if no nukes or chem or bio weapons)

Zcylen
Jan 28, 2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by wtiberon

Mexico could have been persuaded to hold Soviet troops if they could do so in a stealthy manner. However I feel sorry for any country that ever tried to invade the U.S. expecially through Texas. :)

well, Pancho Villa did, and succesfully.The only attack to the US in their land in all their history
:)

stalin006
Jan 28, 2003, 06:11 PM
that is true, he came, he saw, he attacked, he was never found or taken by the americans

joespaniel
Jan 28, 2003, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Zcylen
well, Pancho Villa did, and succesfully.The only attack to the US in their land in all their history
:)
The War of 1812, British troops landed and burned Washington DC to the ground.

Hawaii was not yet a state in 1941, but it was a US possession (territory), so the bombing of Pearl Harbor could count as well.

I dont count the revolutionary war nor the civil war, for obvious reasons.

Merc
Jan 28, 2003, 10:58 PM
Actually, the Japanese took an Alaskan island in WW2.

MadScot
Jan 28, 2003, 11:18 PM
The Soviet/Warsaw Pact 'window of opportunity' was probably the late 70s/early 80s, IMO.

Earlier on the cold war the NATO technical superiority (especially in nuclear weapons, we know now) was probably enough to deter the Pact, although the West didn't know it at the time.

But by the late 70s the oil shock had badly damamged Western economies and defence spending had reduced, plus the US Armed Forces was in the Vietnam after-shock and was something of a hollow shell. (Drugs issues etc)

Assuming a conventional offensive into Western Europe - the 'usual scenario' - it's hard to imagine the NATO forces stopping GSFG. The Pact would probably have gone chenical early too, which would have pretty much devastated the FRG.

Chances have to be that the Russians would have got to somewhere near the lower Rhine before running out of steam, at least. While the Russian CatII and CatIII divisions were pretty much cannon fodder, with obsolescent equipment, at least they HAD a second wave - NATO was pretty much a one shot deal, once the REFORGER units were in theatre.

The question is whether the Pact would have stopped at the Rhine. The question of French nuclear retaliation would come into play quite quickly, had they pushed on to Paris, say. Similar considerations apply to an attempt to take the UK.

Of course, one has to wonder WHY they would have attacked. After all, there wouldnt have been much left to loot. I guess its a good thing they never thought of a good reason.

Terje
Jan 29, 2003, 04:44 AM
In the eastern european communist states, they claimed that socialist states didn't pollute, so it's more likely that the russians would begin using nuke than the americans. But I don't doubt that the Americans would be just as swift in their retaliation.

But who would win? None, I'd say, since such a war probably would ruin the world completely.

Panda
Jan 29, 2003, 06:08 AM
IIRC, the Soviets didn't officially acknowledge the possibility of nuclear winter until the glasnost era. But I believe either side would rather have nuked half of Europe in order to prevent the opposite side gaining control of all of Europe, escalating in world-wide nuclear holocaust.

Tibetian Monk
Jan 29, 2003, 04:34 PM
The Soviets would have attacked to Paris before being stopped and would probably nuke Tokyo, and help North Korea invade South Korea. Then they would attack Alaska. The US would then sue for peace.

napoleon526
Jan 29, 2003, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by Merc
Actually, the Japanese took an Alaskan island in WW2.
Actually actually, they took several of the Alaskan Aleutian Islands.

Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising is a good hypothetical narrative of what a non-nuclear USA vs. USSR war would be like.

stalin006
Feb 01, 2003, 01:21 PM
yeah, oil.

joespaniel
Feb 01, 2003, 05:55 PM
"The Third World War" by General Sir John Hacket.

The best NATO vs USSR war scenario ever.

Hailed by the Armed Forces, Tom Clancy used it as a backdrop for Red Storm Rising.

EmuGod
Feb 01, 2003, 08:41 PM
The USSR never invaded because the Cold War was not meant for one power to take over the other but rather to attempt to be able to defeat the other in case of a war. I think of the Cold War as this: a chess game where each player tries to get into a better position on the board so that in case of an actual war he can be the victor. Only a few minor pwans (such as Vietnam, and North Korea) attack other pawns and are retaliated upon. Any attacks on any larger game piece results in the destruction of the entire board and both sides are completely wiped out.

onejayhawk
Feb 01, 2003, 10:58 PM
I did not care for Hacket's book. I'll go with Napoleon. Clancy has the best scenario. In a conventional war between these two, the biggest problem is finding something worth taking that's not nearly invulnerable. Given wholehearted support, in 1945 the US Army could have done what Hitler could not, take Moscow. When that happens the war is over. Given western Europe as a base of oprations, I think the US would prevail. But that is a LONG drive.

J

Saruman
Feb 02, 2003, 07:10 AM
In 1945 the US would've been crushed. USSR had 6m soldiers stationed in eastern europe alone, superior to the NATO forces.

That's one of the reasons NATO couldn't brake the Berlin blocade by power. (1949?)

MadScot
Feb 02, 2003, 09:30 AM
Saruman

You need to differentiate between 1945 and 1948.

At the end of World War 2 the US armed forces had approximately 12 million men, about 7.5 million overseas. Add in the other Western allies and they outclassed the Russians in Europe in manpower, as well as in most measures of combat power.

But with the war over the West demobilized very quickly - in fact it became something of a disorganised shambles, it was done so fast - and by 1948 the huge Russian army was now opposed by a fraction of the previous numbers.

wtiberon
Feb 02, 2003, 11:38 PM
U.S. had far superior men and resources than the Russians...remember the major production sites in Russia had been taking a pounding from German bombers and their infrastructure was weakened. Stalingrad would have probably fallen had the allies not diverted German forces to the west.

Saruman
Feb 04, 2003, 11:57 AM
Remember that the russians moved all their fabrics behind the Urals and builded up the army there. Russia alone beats USA in manpower, and If you include all of Eastern Europe It'll be alot more. Remember they owned much land.

Watch some population number and you'll get a slight overwiew.
Today USA have some 250m (inhb) and Russia 320m or more wich says alot.
If you Include the -Stan's, Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Eastern Germany, probably they've would have got help from China after their revolution, and then we're closing to 2 billions, atleast 1,5 (inhb, not soldiers;))

I love being against everyone ;)

BTW, How could the US beat USSR If they can't beat some rice-farmers in south-east asia?;) :D (yes I know;))

kittenOFchaos
Feb 04, 2003, 12:22 PM
In 1948 people only the USA had the H-Bomb.

Zcylen
Feb 04, 2003, 01:31 PM
soviets were a great power in the past century.
Im sure US didnt want a war against Russia, none of them would have been the winner for sure
:evil:

Remorseless
Feb 05, 2003, 05:06 PM
Depending on the decade, it probably would have been one-sided, one way or the other.

In the 1950s, the western conventional forces were in dismal shape, while the Sovs had plenty of tanks, infantry and artillery, backed up by numerically superior air forces. Winner: Sovs by a lot. They get to the Channel.

In the 1960s: western conventional forces beginning to be built up, leavened with combat veterans from Algeria, Vietnam, etc. Sovs still had preponderance of tanks, but their supply lines extremely vulnerable to US/NATO aerial interdiction. Winner: NATO by a hair. They lever the Sovs back to the East German/Czech border, then force favorable political compromises.

In the 1970s: Sovs respond by bulking up conventional forces with fearsome chemical forces, to which NATO has no real defense. Winner: Sovs, all the way to the Rhine. But political problems in their rear due to massive chem attacks make this problematic.

In the 1980s: Western conventional forces improved, both chem and regular, but still not much of a match for Sovs. Winner: Sovs, get to Rhine, but problably trade the gains for political considerations as Afghanistan begins to take a toll.

In the 1990s: Sovs, desperate as CCCP begins to break up, launch massive assault with heavy divisions brimming with tanks, IFVs, chem, air power. But western technology, plus the air-land battle concept forged by US/W Germany, literally crush the Sovs in their tracks, leading to a massive breakdown of communist governments. Winner: NATO by a lot, they problably drive to CCCP/Polish border, might even think about invading.

The only time I see it being even is right after WWII. Both economies already in full war production, battle-tested tactics and operational art, good weapons, good leaders, veteran troops. Winner: Probably the West, but it would have been close -- and the casaulty figures, civilian and military, would have made WWII look like a picnic.

Knight-Dragon
Feb 06, 2003, 05:13 AM
Won't happen; any direct conventional war would quickly escalate into outbreaks of 'small' tactical nuke attks, before being followed up possibly by worse.... the first culprit would probably be the one with a perceived weakness and employing nukes to even out the odds.

Which was why both sides spent the Cold War years fighting 'proxy wars' all over the world, rather than engaging each other directly.

swan
Apr 19, 2003, 03:31 PM
You know, what is a SS-18 "Satana"?
If at least one of the these rockets has flown aside USA, that Earth change to desert.
In 1962 SOVIET UNIONS bring one of the such rockets on Cube. That there was afterwards explain not necessary.
Sorry of my English

SunTzu
Apr 19, 2003, 06:39 PM
Lets talk about this, with recent news about the Russian military completely overhauling their military in every way possible. Since it is said that 2 retired soviet generals helped Iraq with its defenses in the war, and since Iraq was equipped with nearly some of the same stuff the Russians have, now russia is wanting a plan off fulling modernizing its army and restructuring command and such.
As of right now, non-nuclear war between Russia and US, who would win?

Personally i think a fully conventional war between the US and Russia was possible, i don't think either side would dare launch nuclear weapons against the other.

onejayhawk
Apr 19, 2003, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by SunTzu
Lets talk about this, with recent news about the Russian military completely overhauling their military in every way possible. Since it is said that 2 retired soviet generals helped Iraq with its defenses in the war, and since Iraq was equipped with nearly some of the same stuff the Russians have, now russia is wanting a plan off fulling modernizing its army and restructuring command and such.
As of right now, non-nuclear war between Russia and US, who would win?

Personally i think a fully conventional war between the US and Russia was possible, i don't think either side would dare launch nuclear weapons against the other. Russians have a liability in planning a defense. They assume a fierce will to defend the homeland. As we saw, this was not a characteristic of the Iraqi defense.

J

Vrylakas
Apr 19, 2003, 11:44 PM
BTW, Happy Easter everyone.

I think some great points have been brought up, especially concerning the reality that at different times the two sides were in very different conditions.

In 1945 I think it really depends on who was invading whom. Both sides had battle-tried soldiers, both of whom had fought several hundred miles to meet in Germany. The U.S. had the clear advantage of having the only atomic bomb, but they only had one or two left, and to have any real effect Moscow would have been the most likely target and that would have required flying bombers with minimal escort hundreds of miles into hostile territory where the enemy controlled the air. Had the USSR attempted an invasion of Western Europe, I am fairly certain it would have failed. The U.S. and British armies were far more mobile, knew the terrain, and had dramatically shorter (and very secure) supply lines. Had they attempted an invasion of the USSR itself, I'm not so sure. The peoples of Eastern Europe would have welcomed a Western invasion - note the euphoria that greeted Patton's 3rd army as it penetrated into Czechoslovakia, almost liberating Prague - but the Russians themselves are known for fighting with a dogged ferocity in even the most inhumane conditions, and might have successfully held off a Western attack, despite Western technological advantages. The reality of this of course is that neither the American nor British publics would have supported such an adventure, especially as the fighting would have been quite bloody.

As MadScot pointed out, the West rapidly demobilized after WW II, giving the USSR a numerical advantage. This would have been the optimal time for the USSR if it had wished to invade the West, though Stalin may have been deterred by the atomic bomb. When Cominform was created in 1947, one of its first acts was to criticize the French and Italian communists for not seizing power in their countries.

Remorseless pretty much laid out the timeline, except to add that in the 1960s the Soviet military doctrine gave up on technological superiority on the ground and committed to overwhelming numbers. This is how the 10-Soviet-tanks-for-every-NATO-tank formula comes from.

Though the Soviet military did prepare for the possibility of a NATO invasion and it screamed often about Western aggression, the Soviet leadershio through its various intelligence channels (KBG, etc.) understood that the West was not poised for the attack. Brezhnev had some paranoid moments but most Soviet leaders felt threatened by the West more through economic and social comparisons than militarily.

How would a Soviet attack on Western Europe have played out in 1982 or 1987? I think it would have failed. The USSR was a master of deception, creating Potyomkin armies with fierce facades. I suspect it would have played out something like the current war in Chechnya is going - sloppily and bloodily, with only slow results - and that's against a weak enemy incapable of a significant response. Recall siimilar results in the 1940 "Winter War" against Finland.

SunTzu wrote:

Personally i think a fully conventional war between the US and Russia was possible, i don't think either side would dare launch nuclear weapons against the other.

Because of the 10/1 Soviet-NATO tank ratio, Reagan installed medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe (with NATO's acquiescence). Conventional and nuclear war were too tactically intertwined by that point to strictly avoid one or the other. All everyone knew was the Poland and Germany were going to be radioactive ruble, whatever the outcome of the war...

Saruman wrote:

Remember that the russians moved all their fabrics behind the Urals and builded up the army there.

While the movement of the factories behind the Urals made great propaganda, it really was only partially effective. The USSR relied heavily on the U.S. for many basic manufactured commodities during the war. You can't just pick up whole sectors of your economy and move them hundreds of miles; what about power? water? transport? workers? training? Also, the Germans only very late in the war (too late) developed a long-range bomber so the Soviet facilities east of the Urals were relatively safe. The Allies however hda several long-range bombers that could strike much farther.

Russia alone beats USA in manpower, and If you include all of Eastern Europe It'll be alot more.

The Russian armies of World War I also vastly outnumbered the Germans, but they lost very badly. Numbers aren't everything if they're not used effectively. Also, you can forget the Eastern European part of the equation. We were dragged into the WTO against our will just for window dressing, and even the Russians didn't delude themselves into believing Poles and Hungarians would fight for them. Ever see Woody Allen's film Love and Death? There's the scene where the main character, Boris (a Russian in the 1812 Napoleonic invasion of Russia), mentions that his brother Mishka was "bayoneted to death by a Polish conscientious objector". It was sort of like that.

Remember they owned much land.

? Canada has the 2nd largest country by land as well, with some nasty winters to boot, but I wouldn't think of Canada as a fortress. Hitler's failures in Operation Barbarossa stemmed from his own strategic blunders, not from land. Moscow could have been taken, and the Wehrmacht could have survived the first winter in much better condition. The size gave Stalin some breathing room, but not much. Hitler was his own worst enemy, not the land. Similarly Napoleon did not prepare for a winter campaign despite his insistance on waiting months for a Russian surrender in Moscow.

Today USA have some 250m (inhb) and Russia 320m or more wich says alot.

Actually, currently Russia has about 180 million people, while the U.S. has about 281 million. Remember that modern Russia does not include large tracts of terrirory the USSR used to hold, like Ukraine, Belarus, old Soviet Central Asia, etc. Here's a quote from the BBC on the Russian population:

Russia's population fell by more than half a million, or 0.3%, in the first eight months of the year, new statistics show.
Figures from the State Statistics Committee predict a further population decline of 11 million, to about 134 million, in the world's largest country by 2015.

If you Include the -Stan's, Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Eastern Germany, probably they've would have got help from China after their revolution, and then we're closing to 2 billions, atleast 1,5 (inhb, not soldiers)

Depends when, again. I've already mentioned that Eastern Europe was a part of the Soviet empire and had little love for it; they would not have fought for it. China might have sent soldiers to aid a Soviet war effort at certain times, but not others - remember that China and the USSR fought a border war in 1969, and Mao sided with Nixon to isolate the USSR in the 1970s.

allhailIndia
Apr 20, 2003, 12:50 AM
There would have been no winners!!!:nuke::nuke:

Nuke or no nuke, both countries would have left the world as a pile of rubbel where the living envy the dead!!!

Simon Darkshade
Apr 20, 2003, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by swan
You know, what is a SS-18 "Satana"?
If at least one of the these rockets has flown aside USA, that Earth change to desert.
In 1962 SOVIET UNIONS bring one of the such rockets on Cube. That there was afterwards explain not necessary.
Sorry of my English

That missile was not in existence in 1962, coming in to service in the 1970s. The missiles in Cuba were MRBMs, SS-4s and SS-5s.
A nuclear war at that stage would have been extremely one sided in favour of the United States. So much so that it should have been done.
The evil red conspiracy to steal our precious bodily fluids and corrupt them should not have been tolerated. SAC should have gone in early and done them. It would have cost us 10, 20 million dead tops. :)

allhailIndia
Apr 20, 2003, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade


That missile was not in existence in 1962, coming in to service in the 1970s. The missiles in Cuba were MRBMs, SS-4s and SS-5s.
A nuclear war at that stage would have been extremely one sided in favour of the United States. So much so that it should have been done.
The evil red conspiracy to steal our precious bodily fluids and corrupt them should not have been tolerated. SAC should have gone in early and done them. It would have cost us 10, 20 million dead tops. :)

And a couple of billion mutilated and maimed for all time; a small cost in collateral damage that's all:satan::mwaha:

Simon Darkshade
Apr 20, 2003, 07:26 AM
No, that is an overstatement with no basis in reality. In 1962, the US enjoyed a massive superiority in nuclear arms over the Soviets, and the capability to strike them faster, harder and with more effect. SAC could have taken care of the Russkies, with minimum US casualties - 20 million tops.
Wouldn't have been conducive to your health to be walking through Red Square at the impact point of several bombs tasked on that particular zone, but overall, the world would go on just fine. And free of the evil red menace.

allhailIndia
Apr 20, 2003, 09:47 AM
Actually, no Mr. Darkshade, there would have been close to 200 million approx in the USSR and the satellites and these would have benn almost entirely killed or maimed. At this the fact that by the time the first ICBM's were sen lifting off, by Russian satellites, rest assured, SS-4's and SS-5's would have been heading to NY.:flamedevi:(Soviet missiles were always in readiness to launch such an attack, in minutes)

Plus, the fact that wars are not planned on a split second. The risks would have vastly outweighed any percievable benefis of such a nuclear exchange. Even the loss of 20 million Americans would have destroyed the economy and turned the victory into a defeat.p

Besides, you must surely be kidding about the fact there would not be a nuclear winter from the explosions, plus the fact that maybe even China could get involved for fear of its existence and try and nuke what is left of the US.:nuke:

allhailIndia
Apr 20, 2003, 09:49 AM
Actually, no Mr. Darkshade, there would have been close to 200 million approx in the USSR and the satellites and these would have benn almost entirely killed or maimed. At this the fact that by the time the first ICBM's were sen lifting off, by Russian satellites, rest assured, SS-4's and SS-5's would have been heading to NY.:flamedevi:(Soviet missiles were always in readiness to launch such an attack, in minutes)

Plus, the fact that wars are not planned on a split second. The risks would have vastly outweighed any percievable benefis of such a nuclear exchange. Even the loss of 20 million Americans would have destroyed the economy and turned the victory into a defeat:p

Besides, you must surely be kidding about the fact there would not be a nuclear winter from the explosions, plus the fact that maybe even China could get involved for fear of its existence and try and nuke what is left of the US.:nuke:

Simon Darkshade
Apr 20, 2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by allhailIndia
Actually, no Mr. Darkshade, there would have been close to 200 million approx in the USSR and the satellites and these would have benn almost entirely killed or maimed. At this the fact that by the time the first ICBM's were sen lifting off, by Russian satellites, rest assured, SS-4's and SS-5's would have been heading to NY.:flamedevi:(Soviet missiles were always in readiness to launch such an attack, in minutes)

Plus, the fact that wars are not planned on a split second. The risks would have vastly outweighed any percievable benefis of such a nuclear exchange. Even the loss of 20 million Americans would have destroyed the economy and turned the victory into a defeat:p

Besides, you must surely be kidding about the fact there would not be a nuclear winter from the explosions, plus the fact that maybe even China could get involved for fear of its existence and try and nuke what is left of the US.:nuke:

Tsk. Stick to what you know, little boy. Whatever that may be is as yet uncertain. :p

On what examination of the US SIOP of the early 1960s do you base your 100% casualty rate? Back up your statements with precise targetting data and casualty estimates, or they are simply baseless and wild speculation.

The SS-4s and SS-5s could not hit New York from the Soviet Union; they are MRBMs, rather than ICBMs. The Soviet arsenal that could touch the continental United States at this time was extremely limited, and vulnerable to a first strike.
The Soviets did not have a great satellite surveillance capability at that stage; this was only 5 years after Sputnik, and should not be confused with the technological situation in later years.

As to it being constantly ready, this is not the case. The Soviet nuclear arsenal was not on its highest state of readiness during the Crisis, by virtue of the fact that it could not be due to operational problems. This particular piece of intelligence was supplied to the US by Oleg Penkovsky, thus enabling Kennedy to call the Soviet bluff in regards to such matters; he knew what cards they were playing with.

Nuclear winter is a theory, rather than gospel. Bringing up China does show the flaws inherent in your argument - They did not test their first nuclear bomb until October 16th, 1964, nor test their first nuclear capable missile until 1966 - some two and four years later, respectively.

The Soviets relied upon their bombers as a nuclear attack force at this stage - Tu-95 Bears, Tu-16 Badgers, Tu-4 Bull and M-4 Bisons, with quite a small missile force that was rather vulnerable to SAC.
Some Il-28 light bombers were deployed to Cuba, but otherwise could not hit the US, and would have had a hard time getting through TAC anyway.

Compared to this, the US outnumbered the Soviets with better quality bombers waiting at failsafe points around the Soviet Union 24 hours a day, had vastly more ICBMS, more Polaris SSBNs, and many aircraft carriers with nuclear capable A-4 Skyhawks and A-3 Skywarriors.

The Russkies realized this. There was a MASSIVe strategic imbalance, which they unsuccessfully sought to rectify by placing missiles in Cuba.

And finally, the "10, 20 million dead tops" line is from General "Buck" Turgidson. Reflect on that.

Knight-Dragon
Apr 20, 2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Vrylakas
If you Include the -Stan's, Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Eastern Germany, probably they've would have got help from China after their revolution, and then we're closing to 2 billions, atleast 1,5 (inhb, not soldiers)

Depends when, again. I've already mentioned that Eastern Europe was a part of the Soviet empire and had little love for it; they would not have fought for it. China might have sent soldiers to aid a Soviet war effort at certain times, but not others - remember that China and the USSR fought a border war in 1969, and Mao sided with Nixon to isolate the USSR in the 1970s. [/B]In 1945, the KMT were still holding the mainland. The Chinese Communists were in no condition or mind, to send soldiers out to help the Soviets, esp when Stalin didn't give them much of any help either, during the course of their struggle with the KMT. The KMT itself had cosy relations with the Soviets, esp in the early years, and its organisation was actually based on the CPSU. Jiang himself studied in a military college in the Soviet Union.

In 1949, when the Chinese Communists finally emerged on top of the struggle with the KMT; everyone was surprised, incl Stalin and the Soviets. I think Stalin was suspicious of the PRC, viewing them as competition for the leadership of the Communist bloc. There're no love lost betw the two sides.

In any war betw the Western Allies and the Soviets, the Chinese were probable to stand aloof, to concentrate on developing their devastated country...

AccessDenied
Apr 20, 2003, 05:56 PM
Who would have won?
Interesting.

In 40s-50s US developed many plans of an attack on USSR such as famous "Dropshot" (year of development - 1949; Projected beginning of the war - 1957; 300 atomic bombs + 250,000 tons of conventional bombs in the first month of war on USSR), but the US command decided, that USSR is too strong to defeat and didn't attack.

If the war started in 45-48, Soviet Union probably would have occupied Western Europe (or at least part of it), but wouldn't be able to invade UK or US.
US starts atomic war, but because of lack of bombs and especially bombers with little success.
Great starvation and economical crisis in Extended Soviet Union. Resistance in Western Europe
Then, 3 variants:
1. EUSSR creates it's own A-bomb in a short time. Rapid economy growth. EUSSR wins.
2. EUSSR can't create it's own A-bomb in a short time. Economy can't fully recover after WW2 and war against US-UK in Europe.
US develops good strategical bomber. US wins.
3. Mix of #1 and #2. Long, long war with millions dead.

If the war starts in 49-54, after the creation of A-bomb by USSR.
USSR occupies Europe in short time.
US drops 100-300 A-bombs on USSR's main cities but loses strategical aviation and unable to continue mass-bombing.
USSR loses millions of people, industry is heavily damaged, economical crisis, mass starvation.
Long war, US wins only if able to overpass Soviet air defense in a very short time; USSR wins if able to recover after powerful A-bombing and create Tu-95 and ICBM in a short time.

If war starts in 55-58.
US starts mass air attack on USSR and drops hundreds of A-bombs on USSR. USSR occupies Western Europe. USSR attacks USA. Millions dead in USSR, USA and Europe. At that time US nuclear forces were much stronger, than USSR's. Still not strong enough to achieve guaranteed victory.

If war starts in 59-64.
USSR would have beed able to survive after US strike and occupy Western Europe. USA would have been nuked. Terrible economy crisis in the world, the recovery would have taken decades.

If war starts in 65+
Nobody would have won in the last war.

==============================================

If any nuclear weapon is restricted.


USSR always had strong ground forces, and USA had powerful fleet. (that's because of geography of these countries)
So, if the war would have started, USSR easily could occupy the whole Europe.
After that, USSR would have become much bigger and stronger, than USA and would have won economically.

allhailIndia
Apr 21, 2003, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade


Tsk. Stick to what you know, little boy. Whatever that may be is as yet uncertain. :p

On what examination of the US SIOP of the early 1960s do you base your 100% casualty rate? Back up your statements with precise targetting data and casualty estimates, or they are simply baseless and wild speculation.

The SS-4s and SS-5s could not hit New York from the Soviet Union; they are MRBMs, rather than ICBMs. The Soviet arsenal that could touch the continental United States at this time was extremely limited, and vulnerable to a first strike.
The Soviets did not have a great satellite surveillance capability at that stage; this was only 5 years after Sputnik, and should not be confused with the technological situation in later years.

As to it being constantly ready, this is not the case. The Soviet nuclear arsenal was not on its highest state of readiness during the Crisis, by virtue of the fact that it could not be due to operational problems. This particular piece of intelligence was supplied to the US by Oleg Penkovsky, thus enabling Kennedy to call the Soviet bluff in regards to such matters; he knew what cards they were playing with.

Nuclear winter is a theory, rather than gospel. Bringing up China does show the flaws inherent in your argument - They did not test their first nuclear bomb until October 16th, 1964, nor test their first nuclear capable missile until 1966 - some two and four years later, respectively.

The Soviets relied upon their bombers as a nuclear attack force at this stage - Tu-95 Bears, Tu-16 Badgers, Tu-4 Bull and M-4 Bisons, with quite a small missile force that was rather vulnerable to SAC.
Some Il-28 light bombers were deployed to Cuba, but otherwise could not hit the US, and would have had a hard time getting through TAC anyway.

Compared to this, the US outnumbered the Soviets with better quality bombers waiting at failsafe points around the Soviet Union 24 hours a day, had vastly more ICBMS, more Polaris SSBNs, and many aircraft carriers with nuclear capable A-4 Skyhawks and A-3 Skywarriors.

The Russkies realized this. There was a MASSIVe strategic imbalance, which they unsuccessfully sought to rectify by placing missiles in Cuba.

And finally, the "10, 20 million dead tops" line is from General "Buck" Turgidson. Reflect on that.

I admit I may have gotten my military facts wrong,:blush:
but his much I know and the loss of 1/8 of its population, mostly male, would not have left the US in great shape either. Plus, the radioactive dust and debris thrown up by these nuclear warhead, would have blanketed the earth and cut off the sun and trapped greenhouse gases at the same time!!!
It is a little hard to believe that 3000 nuclear bombs unleashed in the atmosphere, would have no effect whatsoever on the entire planet:eek:

Simon Darkshade
Apr 21, 2003, 01:28 AM
For further clarification, the quote of '10-20 million dead tops' is from the film Dr. Strangelove.:p
The actual figure would probably have been substantially lower with a US first strike, combined with their edge in defensive fighters as against smaller numbers of Soviet bombers.
The nuclear winter scenario you put forth is just one scenario, and one theory. Most of the weapons would have been low airburst or ground burst.

And in regards to AccessDenied, the US certainly did NOT lack bombers in 1945-1948. They had thousands of them.
The USSR was not creating operable Tu-95s and ICBMs in the early 1950s, particularly in the aftermath of nuclear attack.
Up until the mid 1960s, the winner of such a conflict, with the employment of their full arsenal, was undoubtably the US.
During the US nadir and the USSR build up of the 1970s, the Reds were in front.
After 1983, when the big 5 started to come on line fully in combination with new training, doctrine and organisation, Ivan would have been kicked again.

allhailIndia
Apr 21, 2003, 07:21 AM
Ground burst or low-air burst weapons aren't any more eco- friendly my dear Darkshade, they unleash Gotterdammerung on the world anyway.:p

Simon Darkshade
Apr 21, 2003, 08:47 AM
A better world was born out of Götterdämmerung.
Anyway, your understanding of nuclear weapons and nuclear war is flawed by your conception that they are some sort of magical eldritch world ending devices, when all they were and are is rather powerful bombs with some interesting side effects.

EdwardTking
Apr 21, 2003, 03:02 PM
Three points:

(1) The USA was surprised by the Japanese at Pearl harbour; the USSR by the Germans with Barbarossa. Both the USA and the USSR had plenty of intelligence information; but chose to ignore it.
After that; they both became very wary.

I really don't think that either side could ever have launched a substantive preemptive strike against an unsuspecting enemy.

(2) Various assumptions are made about allies. If the USA had
asked Britain to join in an attack; it would most likely have been told; that is a stupid idea and Britain would have stayed neutral.
What possible interest could there be for Britain in invading the USSR?

(3) Troops would have been reluctant to fight.

(4) The people at home (whether in the USA or the USSR) would not support a high casualty aggressive war.

(5) There would not necessarily be any winner.

(6) China, Japan & India would most likely remain neutral and
would have dominated the world by the end of the 20th century.

MadScot
Apr 21, 2003, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by EdwardTking
Three points:

(1) The USA was surprised by the Japanese at Pearl harbour; the USSR by the Germans with Barbarossa. Both the USA and the USSR had plenty of intelligence information; but chose to ignore it.
After that; they both became very wary.

I really don't think that either side could ever have launched a substantive preemptive strike against an unsuspecting enemy.
Afghanistan 1979. September 11th. Fall of the Shah. How many intelligence failures post war shall we recount?

(2) Various assumptions are made about allies. If the USA had
asked Britain to join in an attack; it would most likely have been told; that is a stupid idea and Britain would have stayed neutral.
What possible interest could there be for Britain in invading the USSR?
For USSR substitute Iraq. :)

(3) Troops would have been reluctant to fight.
Never been a problem at the start of a war before. Germans fought on to the ruins of Berlin in WW2. French d*mn near destroyed a generation in WW1 before mutinying briefly, then returned to the fray.

(4) The people at home (whether in the USA or the USSR) would not support a high casualty aggressive war.
War weariness in WW1 did not set in for most combatants until approx 2-3 years after major casualties were incurred. I see no reason to believe any differently of a well motivated population. (i.e. propaganda is a wonderful thing)

(5) There would not necessarily be any winner.
Britain entered WW2 not really expecting to "win" by any reasonable estimate. Sometimes the result of not fighting is perceived as worse than the result of a war.

(6) China, Japan & India would most likely remain neutral and
would have dominated the world by the end of the 20th century.
I'm sure the two superpowers would have found a few spare nukes to take down any likely post war rivals. After all, what are they going to do. Make the US or Rusiian rubble bounce some more. (Similarly, I doubt the Russians would have spared the UK or France, regardless of their stance regarding a war. It's easier just to press the big red button, I suspect.

allhailIndia
Apr 22, 2003, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
A better world was born out of Götterdämmerung.
Anyway, your understanding of nuclear weapons and nuclear war is flawed by your conception that they are some sort of magical eldritch world ending devices, when all they were and are is rather powerful bombs with some interesting side effects.

Sure when you are sitting 10,000 miles away, watching the Ashes series.

Also, I don't think military planners usually take in the best case scenario:p

Simon Darkshade
Apr 22, 2003, 03:53 AM
You're just jealous because we whipped the absolute pants off you in the World Cup. :p :mwaha:

allhailIndia
Apr 22, 2003, 04:12 AM
:blush: :blush:I admit defeat on that front, but I continue to maintain that a 3000 nuke exchange would have left no victors on any side!!:p

AccessDenied
Apr 24, 2003, 03:11 AM
Simon Darkshade
And in regards to AccessDenied, the US certainly did NOT lack bombers in 1945-1948. They had thousands of them.
Wrong.
Strategical nuclear bombers by years:

1945 - 15
1946 - 148
1947 - 319
1948 - 556
1949 - 525

Bombers Weapons (Force Loadings) - Total (Force Loading Weapons):

1945 - 6
1946 - 11
1947 - 32
1948 - 100
1949 - 200

The Data is from NRDC - Natural Resources Defense Council
www.nrdc.org

Up until the mid 1960s, the winner of such a conflict, with the employment of their full arsenal, was undoubtably the US.
.
Wrong.
If US had enough chances to win, it would have attaked.

After 1983, when the big 5 started to come on line fully in combination with new training, doctrine and organisation, Ivan would have been kicked again.
Ivan... Kicked again...
Yeah, very "well-reasoned" statement

allhailIndia
Apr 24, 2003, 04:24 AM
Whew, I thought I made a few sahafisms.;)

Simon Darkshade
Apr 24, 2003, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by AccessDenied
Simon Darkshade
And in regards to AccessDenied, the US certainly did NOT lack bombers in 1945-1948. They had thousands of them.
Wrong.
Strategical nuclear bombers by years:

1945 - 15
1946 - 148
1947 - 319
1948 - 556
1949 - 525

Bombers Weapons (Force Loadings) - Total (Force Loading Weapons):

1945 - 6
1946 - 11
1947 - 32
1948 - 100
1949 - 200

The Data is from NRDC - Natural Resources Defense Council
www.nrdc.org

Up until the mid 1960s, the winner of such a conflict, with the employment of their full arsenal, was undoubtably the US.
.
Wrong.
If US had enough chances to win, it would have attaked.

After 1983, when the big 5 started to come on line fully in combination with new training, doctrine and organisation, Ivan would have been kicked again.
Ivan... Kicked again...
Yeah, very "well-reasoned" statement

In terms of the post war period, the US had thousands of bombers. They had well more than 15 B-29s in 1945, not to mention the earlier heavy bombers able to be adapted to carry the bomb.

Secondly, that is a political matter, and a consideration for history. In terms of strategic nuclear arms and the means to deploy them, the US vastly outnumbered the USSR in the 1950s. If it had hit the fan, then things would have worked out this way. To presume that the US would have attacked the USSR in this period is not backed up by reality.

Thirdly, 1983 was when the technological and qualitative developments of the US in the late 1970s and early 1980s started coming on line in force - the M1 Abrams, the M2 Bradley, the Patriot, the AH-64 and the UH-60. In combination with other capabilities, such as the increased Pershing II strength, and the ALCM deployment, as well as conventionally with the MLRS, Ivan would have been very roughly handled. All of the pundits who have examined capabilites and doctrine, such as AirLand Battle, have come to this conclusion. The technological and qualitative edge evaporated the quantitative edge that Ivan had developed. It would not have been a walkover, but in a conventional conflict, NATO would have defeated Ivan.

allhailIndia
Apr 24, 2003, 04:47 AM
However, it was in the eighties that Gorby came to power and threw the spanners of Glasnost and Perestroika into the works of the Commies.:goodjob:

Besides, the Allied govts, were already getting the real info about the USSR's tottering economy from several moles and defectors, who were later betrayed by Aldrich Ames and saw that onlt a gentle nudge would send the entire edifice of the USSR into dust.

AccessDenied
Apr 24, 2003, 08:36 AM
Simon Darkshade
In terms of the post war period, the US had thousands of bombers. They had well more than 15 B-29s in 1945
I never argued about that.

US had more than 15 B-29, but only 15 B-29 bombers were in the Strategic Air Command active inventory in 1945.

The same source gives additional information:

"Not all B-29 Boeing bombers were modified to carry nuclear weapons. On 31 December 1946 there were 23 nuclear modified B-29 bombers; on 1 March 1947 there were 35; on 1 December 1948 there were 38; in mid-January 1949 there were 66; and on 1 January 1950 there were 95. See David Alan Rosenberg, "U.S. Nuclear Stockpile, 1945 to 1950," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 1982, p. 30. The Strategic Air Command was established on 21 March 1946 as a combat command of the Army Air Forces. On 18 September 1947 the Department of the Air Force was created as a military service and SAC was reorganized and realigned."

"Not all of the 385 Convair B-36 bombers that the Air Force accepted were modified to carry nuclear weapons. On 1 December 1948 there were four nuclear modified B-36 bombers; by mid-January 1949 there were 17; and by 1 January 1950 there were 34. Effective 1 October 1955, SAC's four heavy Strategic Reconnaissance Wings were redesignated heavy Bombardment Wings in recognition of the conversion of the RB-36 from a reconnaissance airplane to a bomber."

"Not all of the 370 Boeing B-50 bombers that the Air Force bought were modified to carry nuclear weapons. On 1 December 1948 there were 18 nuclear modified B-50 bombers; by mid-January 1949 there were 38; and by 1 January 1950 there were 96. The B-50 was basically a B-29 that was to be a stopgap to be used until an aircraft more suitable for atomic weapon delivery became available. On 1 July 1950 there were a total of 264 nuclear modified B-29, B-36 and B-50 bombers. SAC's five wings of atomic-capable B-50s began to exchange their aircraft for new B-47s at the end of 1953. Those wings were the 509th (Walker AFB, NM), 43rd (Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ), 2d (Hunter AFB, GA), 93rd Castle, AFB, CA), and 97th ( Biggs, AFB, TX), all activated in July and August 1948."

I gave you the link, go and check yourself if you don't believe me.

To presume that the US would have attacked the USSR in this period is not backed up by reality.
Wrong.
US had several plans of agressive nuclear war against Soviet Union.
You think US developed these plans just for fun or what?

Thirdly, 1983 was when the technological and qualitative developments of the US in the late 1970s and early 1980s started coming on line in force - the M1 Abrams, the M2 Bradley, the Patriot, the AH-64 and the UH-60.
Abrams..., Apache..., Bradley....
So what?
Soviet Army had modern weapons too.

The technological and qualitative edge evaporated the quantitative edge that Ivan had developed.
Bullsh*t.

Want to compare soviet tanks/helicopters/planes/etc. with NATO's?
I am ready, are you?

Simon Darkshade
Apr 24, 2003, 10:55 AM
When even the thinking of former Soviet generals and officials that their window of the 1970s had passed by the time that the modernizations and reforms of the US military came on line in the 1980s.
Further, experiences since tend to show the result of putting Soviet equipment and doctrine up against that of the US and NATO.
The big 5 were just the equipment part of the transformation of the Army, and were markedly superior to what the Soviets had, especially when combined with the US edge in airpower.
The Soviets had modern weapons, but the US weapons were better than them as systems, as they were designed to be. The view was taken that they could not match the Soviets tank for tank, so instead went for quality. No amount of red loving and hagiography changes the quality match up of US equipment against Soviet equipment.

The US had plans for war with the Soviet Union, but to suggest they did not put them into action just because they didn't think they would win is a jump of logic and a presumption of intent and grand strategy that is not supported by the facts. There are other reasons and calculations.

The US hollowed out its military in the period of 1945-1948, reducing it to a shadow of its size and capabilities in WW2. If this end of hostilities and subsequent disarmament had not occured due to a new war against the Soviets, the the numbers would not have declined as sharply.

El Tee
Apr 24, 2003, 01:04 PM
Ah...the discussion here reminds me of another thread on this forum...

I'm not counting all the discussions regarding events prior to say, the late 80's as it seems to be stuck fighting over single points (trees for the forests) rather than the war as a whole.

I have two theories, one assuming, for whatever reason, the (highly unlikely) non-use of nuclear weapons, and the second assuming the use of nuclear weapons. And, again, both assume a military state of readiness of the late 1980s to 1990s.

1. [Assuming a conventional-only conflict] USSR/WarPact invades western Europe. Simultaneously, they push the North Koreans to invade South Korea to tie up American resources and launch an invasion into the Middle East to secure oil reserves. Already there is a lot of assumption; could the Soviets have managed all of this without western intelligence finding out? But moving on...

The USSR, given some level of strategic surprise, rolls forward with massive armored presence and strategic bombing of key locations and troop concentrations. Initial gains would be more than they suspected; though it pains the NATO allies, they give ground in order to deal more damage to the invading forces, but NATO needs time to bring reserves to the front and reinforce their troops. The US is hampered greatly, given their relative weakness in airlift/sealift capability, which is being stretched to the limit as it deploys reinforcements to Korea and Europe and is tasked with deploying in rapid fashion the RDF to the Middle East. The Soviets/WP drive deep into Germany, until a counterattack stabilizes the front somewhat. As reinforcements stream in from both sides (Cat2 and Cat3 Soviets being called up to serve as follow-on and rearguard; US mobilizes Reserve and NG forces en masse, but are needed in front-line action).

Eventually NATO achieves a workable level of air superiority (crucial to the AirLand Maneuver strategy) and pushes Soviets back across the West German frontier - by now, the USSR/WP central command is being hit by deep-penetration bombers, cruise missiles and stealth bombers and C3 is disrupted in large part. NATO's air and sea assets neutralize the USSR/WP air and sea assets but are mostly neutralized themselves due to losses.

Without the large air presence, NATO's drive to Moscow is stalled, and the front in Europe is a static line, as both sides change their strategies continually as losses mount.

In the final accounting, Europe is left a devastated wasteland, as is Korea (which I believe would fight to a stalemate at roughly the 38th parallel) and the Middle East (although which side will control the oil reserves is uncertain - the Soviets would likely have control of territory into Iraq).

2. [Assuming use of nuclear weapons] The war begins much like the conventional only scenario, but as losses mount, NATO and WP both use tactical nukes to shield retreats or withdrawals. Eventually, both sides unleash their strategic arsenals, devastating the entire world. In this case, no one wins.

When I was in the Army, the junior and mid-grade officers would wax poetic about what would have happened if the "big one" happened. We spoke of how the US would certainly win eventually, given the technological advantage arrayed by the west (and of course, we'd been trained to believe we were the best). One time, a Colonel dropped in on our conversation. He essentially said we were right. The US would lead NATO to victory, but it would be hard fought. He pointed randomly to all of the officers there, except two (there were eight of us) and said, you'd all be casualties. Our families would be decimated. The enemy would be even worse off.

My theory is that both sides during the cold war didn't really want to fight a massive war in the end (though they planned and trained for it constantly). The powers that be on both sides had to realize that there was no way to start such a war without billions of lives lost as a result, not to mention the absence of any "pre-war" global superpower.

I've given it quite a bit of thought, and while I come to the conclusion the US would prevail, the cost would be unimaginable. I'm certain we could all agree to that last point.

SunTzu
Apr 24, 2003, 02:40 PM
Lets put a little switch a roo on this. What about now?
Lets get into a good discussion about presently, could the US defeat the russians with their old military technology? A Non-nuclear war of course.

Also i'd like to hear if u think the US should beef up its military again like in WW2 :p that would be better i think ;)

Simon Darkshade
Apr 24, 2003, 02:45 PM
Your thread in OT has good information on that type of thing, Sun...

SunTzu
Apr 24, 2003, 03:02 PM
i made a thread in OT about this? :lol: damn, i think i have alzheimers or something :p

EdwardTking
Apr 24, 2003, 03:26 PM
Quotation from Field Marshal Alan Brooke's diary:

"Here I was on the evening of May 24th, a few days after VE day, examining the results of the Planner' work on this problem. The result of this study made it clear that the best we could hope for was to drive the Russians back to about the same line as the Germans had reached. And then what? Were we to remain mobolized indefinitely to hold them there?"


President Eisenhower was from time time approached by hawkist business, congressmen, military etc suggesting a pre-emptive attack.

His response was that any successfull attack would require at least 200 people in Washington to be in the know; and that if 200 people in Washington were in the know; it would not remain a secret and the whole world would know.

swan
Apr 25, 2003, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by swan
You know, what is a SS-18 "Satan:satan:"?
If at least one of the these rockets has flown aside USA, that Earth change to desert.:nuke:
In 1962 SOVIET UNION bring one of the such rockets on Cube. That there was afterwards explain not necessary.
Sorry for my English

Titan2018
Apr 25, 2003, 07:58 PM
Large scale conquest became obsolete once nuclear weapons became wide spread. The simple fact of the matter is that if a nuclear armed country if facing being wiped out by an invading army, they arevery likely to use nuke the ememy's capital in an attept to relieve the presure. The problem is that if that country also has nuclear wapons then they will certainly retaliate and initiate a full scale nuclear war. You can argue all you want about how the USSR was bent on world domination but the were sane and they didn;t want to risk a nuclear war anymore than we would. World War 2 was likely the last war between the major industrial countries. Nuclear weapons make the it far too risky to attck another country. Also, the situation in the international community has changed. The world won't stand idly by while two industrialized countries go at eachother.

Simon Darkshade
Apr 26, 2003, 12:48 AM
In reply to the latest repetition of the SS18 story, one repeats what one said earlier - those missiles did not even exist at that stage. They only entered service in the 1970s.

marshal zhukov
May 02, 2003, 06:25 PM
Through out the cold war there was a balance of forces between the two.
Even though that balance of force wasn't equal at all areas of the military. The balance existed on the big picture.
For example up until the 70's the US had nuclear superiority, while the USSR had a huge army. During the 70's the russians achived nuclear parity with the US, while Nato improved the military.
Rest assured that if any of the sides had achived complete military superiority over the other, war would have been the result.
The fact that the US and the USSR never went to war during the Cold War, is a prove that the military and the leaders of the both nations were aware of the balance of forces between the them.
During World War I, the european nations thought that there was an inbalance of force between them, that is why they went to war. Each side thought that they had an advantage over the other, the lenght of the war proved that they were wrong.

Sayounara
May 02, 2003, 06:34 PM
Soviets probably would win

marshal zhukov
May 02, 2003, 07:03 PM
I could agree. In a conventional war the Soviets had a good chance of winning. I actually believe that they would attack if they knew that the war was going to be conventional, no NBC.

Richard III
May 04, 2003, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by AccessDenied
Who would have won?
Interesting.

In 40s-50s US developed many plans of an attack on USSR such as famous "Dropshot" (year of development - 1949; Projected beginning of the war - 1957; 300 atomic bombs + 250,000 tons of conventional bombs in the first month of war on USSR), but the US command decided, that USSR is too strong to defeat and didn't attack.

Welcome to CFC, newcomer!

For the record, however, you've been taken in by marxist propaganda; I've actually read the Dropshot summary plan from cover to cover. It's not a plan for an attack on the USSR, but a plan for defence against a Soviet attack, as is made frighteningly clear by the predictions within it of the Soviets reaching the Rhine in a week, Paris in two and invading Britain within a month. Dropshot's conventional plan was basically an exploration of what lines of defence NATO's limited forces could use to actually check a Soviet invasion, e.g. "hold Japan, less Hokkaido" was one (direct quote) goal of the plan, owing to the belief that Hokkaido should simply be abandoned.

It was only when the second tier of defences fell - e.g. the Brittany peninsula, the GIUK gap, landings in Britain, breach of the Pyrenees, landings in Japan, etc. - that the atomic weapons were to be locked and loaded.

R.III

Richard III
May 04, 2003, 06:57 PM
Further to other scenarios in the list, I agree that Clancy actually did a good job, particularly in his representation of the post-ATGM world in Europe - although his NATO air scenario is awfully convenient, and the political stuff with the fake German agent is a bit ridiculous as well.

I'm surprised at Joespaniel's wholehearted endorsement of Hackett's book. While it has its moments - the short vignettes of small unit actions are superb - and his Yugoslavia scenario was more reasonable than most, it is also, as one normally modest reviewer put it, a delusional right wing cold warrior's fantasy, with Sweden and Ireland joining the Allied side voluntarily. The sequel was even worse, with El Salvador treated as though it was a soviet-sponsored front line, etc. His portrayal of events in South Africa was also, needless to say, an embarrasment.

Naturally, this won't deter many CFCers, so I need only point to his ridiculous one nuke per alliance scenario to shovel Hackett's credibility into the grave.

Re: Red Dawn, a favorite of mine that I own on DVD, the scenario is completely implausible if only for one fact alone (among so many), namely the idea that the bulk of the soviet invasion force comes "down from Alaska through Canada - 60 divisions worth" - if I have the quote right. Of course, there is virtually no way 60 hostile divisions, let alone 60 allied ones, could operate on an Alaska-to-prairies axis; there is literally one highway serving that route, and the two or three mountain ranges in the way are not exactly friendly to human visitors.

I would have thought it would have been more credible if the Sovs had taken the east and west rather then the centre; given the soviet's long studied love of using disguised merchants as nuke carriers - a tactic noted in detail in Plan Dropshot - I would figure that route would make more sense for an initial attack.

R.III

tecc
May 06, 2003, 08:07 AM
Intersting thread... assuming no nukes, Europe would go straight away without much of a fight if it had been before the 60's it was mostly bombed out still the people were poor and communist parties were gaining strenght before the USSR sent the tanks in to the Chzeck (is that right) republic which changed alot of peoples minds. Britian and its island fortress would have fallen eventually leaving no beach head for the US. Would have europes empire that was crumbling during this time have fallen? Dunno, certianly most of Africa, but Autrailia etc probably not.

India and Asia would have certainly fell to the USSR especially when china joined in with them (which they would), the Yanks would be left with North and South America and maybe Australia, but Europe, Asia, Africa and Middle East would be commie in sphere of control if not direct.

It might not have been too bad a thing becuase theirs no way the USSR could have controlled the populations of their new territories, who knows maybe we would have had proper 'nice' communism out of it?

swan
May 10, 2003, 05:54 AM
I try to correct my old message, but was got one new. I apologize for this.
About SS-18? I had in view of not exactly it, but rockets of this sort.

Sorry for my translate english

Sturmgewehr
May 10, 2003, 08:36 PM
It would not have been pretty. A nuclear winter? I doubt that. But remember Chernobyl. If the Soviets were to Nuke western Europe, alot of the clouds of radioactivity would have drifted east, even to Moscow. If Russia were to Nuke the USA (even if they were to lose the war [The Soviets]) there would be more casualties from long-term radioactive esposure than from the nuclear blast itself (American)

Godwynn
May 18, 2003, 04:53 PM
M_A_D (Mutually Assured Destruction)

They Nuke Us, We Nuke Them...

World is back to caves and stone spears, because of different governments

vonork
May 25, 2003, 11:01 AM
Most say "assuming no nukes", "well if it's only conventional". Well why would it not be no nukes. Think about it, the nuke is a fearsome weapon but would it actually be used.

Some say that two nuklear powers can't fight without going into nuklear hot. Becouse when one side is loosing the war they would use nukes. Why would they, it would not help, the other side would then nuke the loosing side to oblivion.

Consider two evil dictators lak in using WMD in the battlefield I say there is not that logical that nukes would be used. Ask yourself, why did not Hitler use Chemical weapons when he was supose to loose & the same for Saddam. Not as powerfull as nukes but still fearsome - & a logical step in the last madman attack only to couse looses on the other side.

CIVPhilzilla
Mar 09, 2004, 02:41 PM
Watch the movie War Games, and there you will find your answer.

Knight-Dragon
Mar 09, 2004, 08:31 PM
Old thread resurrected for no good reason or input. CIVPhilzilla, I've noticed you like to resurrect such old threads. Pls desist.

Closed.