USSR vs. USA
- Thread starter Merc
- Start date
- Status
damn, i think i have alzheimers or something 
EdwardTking
Deity
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.
"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.
Originally posted by swan
You know, what is a SS-18 "Satan"?
If at least one of the these rockets has flown aside USA, that Earth change to desert.
In 1962 SOVIET UNION bring one of the such rockets on Cube. That there was afterwards explain not necessary.
Sorry for my English
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
Mysterious City of Gold
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
good economist wannabe
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.
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
King
Soviets probably would win
marshal zhukov
good economist wannabe
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
Duke of Gloucester
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
Duke of Gloucester
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
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
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?
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?
Sturmgewehr
Warlord
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)
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.
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
Reagan Republican
Watch the movie War Games, and there you will find your answer.
Moderator Action: Old thread resurrected for no good reason or input. CIVPhilzilla, I've noticed you like to resurrect such old threads. Pls desist.
Closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
- Status
Similar threads
