US to slash nuclear weapons?

Very true, however which one got more emphasis and was actually taken seriously by each side is more relevant.

There is for instance, as far as I can tell, no serious plan from NATO to defeat the Soviet conventional forces in detail all the way to Moscow. EVERY serious plan from the Soviets deals with overrunning Western Europe.


there's a pretty good reason why...
 
Thats one reason, yes, the other being that they wouldn't have been able to, and they thought their ability to do so was even less than it was in reality.

Just as no serious plans from Soviet side involved invasion of the U.S. mainland on the way to the Washington DC.
 
Thats one reason, yes, the other being that they wouldn't have been able to, and they thought their ability to do so was even less than it was in reality.

Also true.
 
I am not much of an expert, but basic common sense dictates that both NATO and WP had to have plans for both defense and attack (or call it preemptive strike).

Not having such plans prepared would mean that general staffs of these alliances would have deserved to be shot for treason.

Just my two cents.

NATO obviously focused on defense of Western Europe (it had little idea what to after it succeeds - maybe it was presumed that the world would no longer exist :lol: ), but WP focused almost solely on offense which was considered to be the only possible course of action for the Eastern Bloc. The offensive focus was dropped only after Gorbachev got in power in the USSR.

The whole structure of Soviet(Eastern Bloc) armies is a testament to this - they were designed for rapid movements in NBC-hit areas. Due to the massive conventional superiority of the Eastern Bloc, there hardly needed to be any detailed plans for defense, because NATO conventional attack was practically impossible. The Soviets were only afraid of a sudden nuclear strike by the West, to which they planned to respond with a combined nuclear/conventional offensive in Western Europe.
 
Top Bottom