Cold War Gone Hot

[Ramirezzz]

the Clancy's book is an interesting stuff but it overlooks one significant point - USSR planned to use tactical nukes as an weapon of advance ,where the only task of armoured and motorized divisions was to move from one radioactive epicentre to another without much resistance. And I do believe there was no possibility of no -using of strategical weapons for both NATO on Warszaw pact countries ,so I voted for nuclear holocaust here.
another thought is that almost everyone thinks of 80ies conflict because of Clancy's book. But what about early 1970ies? even without tactical nukes I don't see any great chance for NATO to sucsessfully oppose tousands of T-64 and Mig-21 of some latest versions. No significant qualitative advantage, total numerical superiority of the Soviets.

[timshatz]

In the 70s, I can't see the Nato forces stopping the Warsaw pact forces. The US was a shell of itself due to Vietnam and the European forces weren't sufficient to do it alone. At least on the ground.

In the air, it would've been closer to parity. One thing the US had figured out by the 70s is how to fight with their own fighters. Top Gun and Red Flag were up and running. Plus, there were plenty of experienced US pilots. The European pilots had at least some experience with the US tactics learned from Vietnam. West would've done ok there, in air clashes.

Sea would've been all Western. Soviet Union really didn't get it's navy together until the end of the 70s. US had plenty of experienced Carrier pilots and crews, had their doctines worked out. Same with the European powers. Especially the Brits. Definitely knew what they were doing. And the Soviet Navy would've been on their own. Warsaw pact had no real fleet units.

Still, the ground war, where it all would've mattered, I can't see the Nato forces stopping the Warsaw Pact. Nato relied on the Nuke in the 70s and they would've been used. Once that happened, it probably would've escalated.

[JugBR]

i just cant believe the number of people who voted for nato victory with total destruction of europe ! a nuclear war between ussr and nato would destroy the entire world !!!

just the main leaders of each side could have a chance to survive in very armoured and well supplied bunkers, and after 20 years, when they came out of bunkers:

- hey mr. soviet premier, remember that war problem ?
- aww never mind mr. president of usa, lets be friends now !

the most part of us would be DESINTEGRATED !!! it would proves how silly was trust our lifes on politicians hands !

i think a nuclear war is a war that shouldnt have winners, also the role of nuclear weapons is not to destroy enemys military systems but to make genocide !!! in fact its not war, its just press a button and destroy a town. its just a technological way to make genocide. hitler would use that instead poison gas to kill jewish if he had the technology !

unfortunelly, instead to be banned, the nukes are growing more and more, because the minor countries take thes example of the major powers and see on nukes its very geo-political adavantage. "i have nukes, you dont treat me, i blow you".

a good movie about the cold war is "doctor strangelove", from stanley kubrick and starring the great peter sellers. its a nice movie to give some laughts and think about many things !

[Kruska]

The voting result doesn’t surprise me at all. It was a known fact to Germany that NATO was willing to use nuclear weapons in order to retaliate. And that this meant the total annihilation of Germany in the first place and in an ongoing war the total destruction of this planet.
However Russia and the US and other Nuclear weapon possessors would have only struck into Germany and not endangered each other directly.

As I forwarded previously, both Russia and NATO would indeed have used a limited number of short/midrange nuclear weapons to hit targets in West and East Germany/ Poland and Czechoslovakia. The French nuclear missiles didn’t even possess the range to get across Germany nor did any NATO nuclear artillery munitions.

That is why the majority of us Germans until today doesn’t give a rat’s ass about NATO or the US but are more concerned about our national immediate safety and our close friends rather than some alliance in which everyone seeks their own interest and safety after dragging everyone into a scenario.

Why should Germany or Denmark etc. etc. get hit, just because of the Ukraine and others being used as a buffer by the US towards Russia? Or to make the Ukrainians sleep better till the day comes?

Europe or the EU needs to be newly defined, and this Europe needs its own agenda and not a partner alliance with someone who has its own agenda. Our populations need to be friends but our governments still need to respect our individual needs or interests.

Regards
Kruska

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by Kruska

The voting result doesn’t surprise me at all. It was a known fact to Germany that NATO was willing to use nuclear weapons in order to retaliate. And that this meant the total annihilation of Germany in the first place and in an ongoing war the total destruction of this planet.
However Russia and the US and other Nuclear weapon possessors would have only struck into Germany and not endangered each other directly.

As I forwarded previously, both Russia and NATO would indeed have used a limited number of short/midrange nuclear weapons to hit targets in West and East Germany/ Poland and Czechoslovakia. The French nuclear missiles didn’t even possess the range to get across Germany nor did any NATO nuclear artillery munitions.

That is why the majority of us Germans until today doesn’t give a rat’s ass about NATO or the US but are more concerned about our national immediate safety and our close friends rather than some alliance in which everyone seeks their own interest and safety after dragging everyone into a scenario.

Why should Germany or Denmark etc. etc. get hit, just because of the Ukraine and others being used as a buffer by the US towards Russia? Or to make the Ukrainians sleep better till the day comes?

Europe or the EU needs to be newly defined, and this Europe needs its own agenda and not a partner alliance with someone who has its own agenda. Our populations need to be friends but our governments still need to respect our individual needs or interests.

Regards
Kruska

Kruska,
In a way, I agree with you on this one. Nato was put together to perform a mission that is long gone. It should be disbanded. Instead, it has been expanded. More countries are in it than every before and the mission is less well defined. The only thing most of the members seem clear on is they are supposed to attack the country that attacks any member nation. And I'm not sure that is going to happen at all.

It oughta be ended and the Euros go their way, US goes it's way and we see what pops. Right now, if a war starts somewhere in eastern Europe, the US gets pulled in just because of this treaty. And I think most Americans have had enough of wandering around the world, running to the rescue (in both war and peace).

[timshatz]

Originally Posted by JugBR

i just cant believe the number of people who voted for nato victory with total destruction of europe ! a nuclear war between ussr and nato would destroy the entire world !!!

just the main leaders of each side could have a chance to survive in very armoured and well supplied bunkers, and after 20 years, when they came out of bunkers:

- hey mr. soviet premier, remember that war problem ?
- aww never mind mr. president of usa, lets be friends now !

the most part of us would be DESINTEGRATED !!! it would proves how silly was trust our lifes on politicians hands !

i think a nuclear war is a war that shouldnt have winners, also the role of nuclear weapons is not to destroy enemys military systems but to make genocide !!! in fact its not war, its just press a button and destroy a town. its just a technological way to make genocide. hitler would use that instead poison gas to kill jewish if he had the technology !

unfortunelly, instead to be banned, the nukes are growing more and more, because the minor countries take thes example of the major powers and see on nukes its very geo-political adavantage. "i have nukes, you dont treat me, i blow you".

a good movie about the cold war is "doctor strangelove", from stanley kubrick and starring the great peter sellers. its a nice movie to give some laughts and think about many things !

Banning is a great idea. Won't work. But is a great idea. Nukes do to much by their existence to be banned effectively. Kind of like the ban on land mines.

The problem with land mines is they work. They scare the crap out of people and effectively deny or slow down terrain to an enemy. They can also be used to terrify a population during irregular warfare. Nasty, ugly, scary things. But they work. So the ban is pretty much a useless scrap of paper signed for a feel good and ignored when it becomes a problem.

Ban nukes and the country that hides away a couple of nukes is the one eyed man in the world of the blind.

[pbfoot]

[quote=timshatz;387254] The only thing most of the members seem clear on is they are supposed to attack the country that attacks any member nation. And I'm not sure that is going to happen at all.

QUOTE]Some nations actually believe that and contribited troops to Afghanistan
And in retrospect if some countries like those in the British Commonwealth had not stepped up to the plate in 39 for a war far far away things might have been very different North Africa would have fallen , the Med would have been an Axis lake and so on and so on

[RabidAlien]

You have to keep in mind that the only reason Russian Naval technology increased so drastically in the 80's was due to Aldrich Aimes (and I'm wanting to say there was another guy, too, but the name escapes me at the moment). Their best technology up to the Aimes era was about 10 years behind ours. Thank the Lord that Aimes didn't have access to all the latest and greatest stuff...the damage that he did to the US was bad enough with what he was able to get ahold of. In a wartime scenario, I would say that Aimes would never have been able to get that info to Russia. Paranoia was running high during the Cold War....if it had turned into a Hot War, he would've been discovered MUCH sooner, and probably dragged into some dark alley, with 50 people standing around who "saw nothing".

A modernized ground-war in Europe....I shudder to think about it. It would've taken quite some time for the US to get its forces back up and running after Vietnam, and it would have taken a direct attack on the US to galvanize the average citizenry into demanding blood in return.

Its been quite some time since I've read "Red Storm Rising", but its still probably my favorite of all of Tom Clancy's novels. I forget whether they did in the book or not, but wouldn't the easiest/best route to invade the US go through the Ukraine into Alaska via the Aleutians? A suprise attack on Elmendorf and Travis AFB's (Elemendorf in Alaska, Travis in California), a couple mechanized divisions with attached infantry adn support battalions....they could have the West Coast sewn up fairly quickly, especially if they hit multiple targets (communications/supply/command) simultaneously with nukes. While the missles are flying, trot the ground-pounders in underneath....

Anyhoo. Just a few thoughts runnin through my addle-pated noggin.

[Erich]

what about coming right into Alaska then south ? Russia is friends with Alaska as it is sending wanted goods by ship especially when the ice starts to form in the bay and Russia is the closest one to need instead of pleading for us in the lower 48 when air travel is sometimes nil

[Ramirezzz]

Originally Posted by RabidAlien

You have to keep in mind that the only reason Russian Naval technology increased so drastically in the 80's was due to Aldrich Aimes. Their best technology up to the Aimes era was about 10 years behind ours. Thank the Lord that Aimes didn't have access to all the latest and greatest stuff...

Oh really?
In fact Aldrich Ames hadn't any access to the navy classified data. His activities had nothing to do with the navy whatsoever. He was a CIA officer.

(and I'm wanting to say there was another guy, too, but the name escapes me at the moment).

John Walker. But his activities had nothing to do with a technology transfer as such. Walker provided USSR with some excellent info regarding US Navy communications and surveillance secrets. For example his greatest achievment was that the USSR has learned of the existence of SOSUS. As a communications officer he couldn't help the Soviets in a ship building etc.

go through the Ukraine into Alaska via the Aleutians?

Ukraine? I believe that was kind of typo

what about coming right into Alaska then south ?

such plans did in fact exist. 14th Landing Army of Gen. Oleshev was deployed at the Kamchatka Peninsula in the late 1940ies.

[RabidAlien]

Walker, yeah that's the guy. *g* I'm not sure who leaked the info, but with regards to submarine stealthing technology, up until the leak the Russians might as well have put to sea with blinking neon signs, or sailed with rusty washingmachines loaded with nuts and bolts. They thought they were sooooo stealthy, when in reality we knew exactly where they were at all times. Sometime in the early 80's they just sorta disappeared...and it became MUCH harder to track them. They'd learned about sound-dampening, using rubber "pads" beneath all of their mechanical equipment, etc. Learned this from a "spook" chief who rode with us on a WestPac spec-op once (no really, it was an "extended training mission in international waters"!!!). It was really quite the eye-opener.

As far as the Ukraine goes.....my bad. You wouldn't believe how bad I am at Geography. Probably shoulda used Google Maps before posting.

[Ramirezzz]

Originally Posted by RabidAlien

Walker, yeah that's the guy. *g* I'm not sure who leaked the info, but with regards to submarine stealthing technology, up until the leak the Russians might as well have put to sea with blinking neon signs, or sailed with rusty washingmachines loaded with nuts and bolts.

As far for spying ... as far as I know Russians didn't achieve much intelligence successes in the submarine building. At least I can't remember any name regarding that issue.
It's rather about materials and not only about the technology was been used in a sub building. In the 1970ies Russians begun to widely use titanium in the sub construction. A lot of research was made as well.

disappeared...and it became MUCH harder to track them. They'd learned about sound-dampening, using rubber "pads" beneath all of their mechanical equipment, etc.

such rubber pads were actually used even in the first Soviet nuclear submarine K-3 commisioned in the late 1950ies.

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Some nations actually believe that and contribited troops to Afghanistan
And in retrospect if some countries like those in the British Commonwealth had not stepped up to the plate in 39 for a war far far away things might have been very different North Africa would have fallen , the Med would have been an Axis lake and so on and so on

Hello pbfoot,

I didn't know that the country Afghanistan or its government or its army attacked any NATO member, when was that?

But I do remember the following:

That NATO has never gotten itself into an active war, despite members or half members being attacked by another country.

Greece attacked by Turkey – NATO military response NONE
UK attacked by Argentina – NATO military response NONE
Georgia attacked by Russia – NATO military response NONE

Regards
Kruska

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Kruska

Hello pbfoot,

I didn't know that the country Afghanistan or its government or its army attacked any NATO member, when was that?

But I do remember the following:

That NATO has never gotten itself into an active war, despite members or half members being attacked by another country.

Greece attacked by Turkey – NATO military response NONE
UK attacked by Argentina – NATO military response NONE
Georgia attacked by Russia – NATO military response NONE

Regards
Kruska

Western Europe not attcked by the Warsaw pact looks pretty good
The UK had assistance from NATO in the Falklands particularly the US also Canada allowed aircraft to stage from here to the war zone (personal experiance) , also Portugaul allow use of the Azores for staging of flights

[JugBR]

Originally Posted by Kruska

Hello pbfoot,

I didn't know that the country Afghanistan or its government or its army attacked any NATO member, when was that?

the interpretation there is that al-qaeda, was a supported group by taleban, inside afghanistan. i agree with that. the usa had the right to invade afghanistan by this logic.

Originally Posted by Kruska

UK attacked by Argentina – NATO military response NONE

usa and all other pan-american countries have a similar agreement about some of them been attacked by a foreign power. this agreement is more ancient than nato also.

so, usa, couldnt help britain against argentina, but also wouldnt defend argentina since their government was a dictatureship and england and usa have many cultural and historical ties.