Enjoyed the article, Marc. Thank you.
Was Twitter that reminded me it was the 9th April though (Lee’s surrender); is the holidays still, so have my hands full.
WORLD WAR 3
-
@Cmdr:
In a war with both sides equivalent in power, there would be no winner but the cockroaches.
However, history would have recorded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the winner because, and this is my personal opinion, Europe would have folded like a deck of cards and America would have sued for peace long before being invaded itself.
I don’t agree. The United States had a much superior economy and military at the end of world war 2 and through most of the cold war. I don’t think ALL of Europe would have folded (at least not the UK and its satelites), but the French definately would.
-
The United States was 100% dependent on the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a defense against the Warsaw Pact in the 1970’s and 1980’s.
IF we could have used those tactical nukes, we may have been able to hold the line somewhere in Europe.
However, the political climate would NOT have allowed for the use of nukes in Europe… thus the Soviet advantage in men and tanks would have eventually ground out a win in Europe.
-
@ncscswitch:
The United States was 100% dependent on the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a defense against the Warsaw Pact in the 1970’s and 1980’s.
IF we could have used those tactical nukes, we may have been able to hold the line somewhere in Europe.
However, the political climate would NOT have allowed for the use of nukes in Europe… thus the Soviet advantage in men and tanks would have eventually ground out a win in Europe.
speaking of Europe
in the early after war years( 1948-1949) The Soviets were having plans of attacking Western Europe(France) & supporting the communists there
Stalin made a calculation. It would be 3 days for the Soviet tanks to overrun France.
At that time Soviet Union and their satelites were :evil: :?
later with time passing the USSR&Warsaw Pact was inferior to NATO. Economy produces military and the USSR economy was poor and with the time passing the people were simply loosing motivation to work. As you previously explained to me in the Ronald Reagan years USSR was on its knees.
Well then Gorbachev showed up and realized that USSR is fallen. It cannot go further.
And if i may link upon now USA-Russian rivalry. Well definitely in the 90-s the USA was way ahead, but Russia still had military might( Yeltsin) but was economically weak.
Then Putin rose up. Now Medvedev too.
And in the long run i simply doubt that USA(and her proxies) will ever again (significantly) match Russia(and her proxies) in military might.
-
@Cmdr:
In a war with both sides equivalent in power, there would be no winner but the cockroaches.
However, history would have recorded the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the winner because, and this is my personal opinion, Europe would have folded like a deck of cards and America would have sued for peace long before being invaded itself.
I disagree, I believe Europe would have met the challenge. The wildcard would have been France, having withdrawn from NATO’s military command, would they honor their commitment to the alliance? Given an all out war I think they would. The danger had always been that Germany would be overrun before US reinforcements could arrive. The inclusion of France would have provided SACEUR the depth it needed on the central front to absorb the initial Soviet offensive and provide a staging area for US reinforcements to launch counter attack.
-
@ncscswitch:
The United States was 100% dependent on the use of tactical nuclear weapons as a defense against the Warsaw Pact in the 1970’s and 1980’s.
IF we could have used those tactical nukes, we may have been able to hold the line somewhere in Europe.
However, the political climate would NOT have allowed for the use of nukes in Europe… thus the Soviet advantage in men and tanks would have eventually ground out a win in Europe.
NATO planning included options for the use of Tactical Nukes, but to say that we were 100% dependent on them is folly. That said, during the 1970’s our conventional forces were in a sorry shape, and it may have well come down to that, but then came Reagan, enough said.
-
Is it true or just myth that the Soviets could launch a 50,000 tank invasion of Western Europe?
The thought of a Kursk type of tank battle between Soviet and NATO countries is captivating.
-
Well there was a shiz load of those T54s.
-
@Imperious:
Collapse of civilization if full nuke exchange occurs, but USA would win because it would have more survivors to finish the fight.
I agree with Imperious Leader. I can’t see us actually taking their whole nation with force but I can see them reaching terms of surrender with us to stop the bloodshed. I think both side would have been pretty motivated to reach an agreement for the fighting to stop but I voted for the US to come out on top.
-
@Imperious:
Collapse of civilization if full nuke exchange occurs, but USA would win because it would have more survivors to finish the fight.
I agree with Imperious Leader. I can’t see us actually taking their whole nation with force but I can see them reaching terms of surrender with us to stop the bloodshed. I think both side would have been pretty motivated to reach an agreement for the fighting to stop but I voted for the US to come out on top.
That’s true. The Soviets, if we had waged a war to conquer their entire country, would have waged guerilla warefare.
-
We have talked much about Europe in this discussion. If China remained neutral or sided with the Soviets would South Korea and Japan repel communist invasions?
-
This is why alternate setups are the shizznit. If Germany has only their capital left, and USSR and US are on either side, then just have 'em duke it out when Germany does fall. I missed the vote, :-( so I’ll go ahead and say a stalemate. Russia had no real capacity to invade the US, but they had enough superiority to sweep through Europe. After that, it would come down to shuttle-ing troops across the Atlantic and Pacific. US had the upper hand there, but if Russia owns Europe, then they have a little bit more pull, and can focus more on their navy if need be.
And mind you, this is ONLY possible if no nukes start flying. Once they do, this “stable” scenario will start to collapse, and as Imperious Leader said, so will civilization.
-
An all out conventional war between Nato and Warsaw Pact would be very hard to quantify, without nukes, war favours the defender.
US + WE got more production, but the communists would be more willing to make sacrifies.
Look at the Vietnam war, US killed maybe millions of vietnam people (soldiers+civilians) but if a nation is willing to take losses of millions compared to 60000 that means that millitary strenght will be not the most important factor. Same goes for Soviet vs Mujahedin, the Afghani people could not match the millitary might of a superpower, but they prevailed because of the will to fight and to defend at all cost.
Russians died for their homeland during WW2, but I think that western Europeans also would fight very hard if the soviets came knocking.
Mujahedin got some cool weapons from the US, but Stinger missiles and other nice toys would not have made an impact if the resistence had been much weaker. So the hypothetical NATO vs Warsaw Pact is not only about airforce, tanks and stuff. The power of the will would be what would matter most in the end, imo. -
Stalin made a calculation. It would be 3 days for the Soviet tanks to overrun France.
How can they hold out for this long? is this a misprint? Perhaps 3 hours for France not more. :-D
-
I unlocked voting since this subject still has life.
Suggested Topics
