Old Cold War

I'm still learning about The Cold War in school. And I was wondering if the Soviets had the right stuff to really destroy the USA conventionally (Yep No Nukes) Wohoo I feel homework passes and Extra Credit coming... I asked this because when we were talking about the Cold War they kept saying that the Soviets intimidated the world because of their Nuclear Arsenal.

[edit on 12-5-2005 by DaVirus]

some say the soviets were paper tigers.
but here is what i think
without nukes, the soviets would have a extreamly hard or impossible time to take on the whole US. look at soviets war on afghanistan, they did really bad back then, and they were a military superpower back then too. and afghanistan is pretty small compare to the US. + afghanistan has a border with russia so troops and tanks and stuff cna be put into place rather fast. plus troops and tanks were their specialty. and they lose, if they lost to afghanistan which has no army, no tanks, no airforce, no navy what so ever and can give soviets a serious punch i would said it would be impossible for the soviets to take on US main land. + there is a big ocean to cross in order for their troops and tanks to get over here.

good luck on your success in school

So what your saying is that the Soviets were a Superpower because of their "Nuclear Arsenal intimidation"? But is China almost a copy of the Soviet Union?

Yeah I'll use your explanation to have a Homework Pass Thanks...

Originally posted by DaVirus
So what your saying is that the Soviets were a Superpower because of their "Nuclear Arsenal intimidation"? But is China almost a copy of the Soviet Union?

Yeah I'll use your explanation to have a Homework Pass

Thanks...

no problem but i wouldn't said their superpower status is base on nukes but they are a superpower mostly because of their nuclear weapons althrough the soviets do have good tanks and a pretty good airfoce back then well compare to US tanks back then. and as for china, a little, i never look at china as a communist country but as a rip-off communist country, basicly steal few pointers from the soviets, but i would said china today is more dangerous than russia back then because of their Economic power and Economic relationship with US.

So what you are saying is that the USA is vulnerable because of their Economic Ties with China eh? If that is the case shouldn't we be more careful on messing with their Chinese-Taiwanese relationship.

Originally posted by DaVirus
So what you are saying is that the USA is vulnerable because of their Economic Ties with China eh? If that is the case shouldn't we be more careful on messing with their Chinese-Taiwanese relationship.

nono, what i ment was that China is more dangerous to USA than russia because of Economic ties, and you know what there are Economic ties, corporations are all over it hehe. and as for taiwan, i doubt china will attack taiwan even if they win it won't be good for them on the world stage.

I wouldn't take Afghanistan as an example of the Soviets failing, after all, there is an American counterpart named Vietnam . Besides, in Vietnam, the Soviets supplied the NVA with MiG-21s,RPG-7s and Ak-47s, on top of the many other stuff. Similarly, the Americans supplied the rebels with Stingers.

Back to the topic, pre-B-2s and F-117s, I'll put my money on the Soviets. The big number of mechanized infantry units and tank divisions stationed on the eastern block should have easily got the whole of Europe, with the vast number of T-72s, motor rifle units with BMP-2s, and also the MiG-29s and Su-22s were roughly equal to their western counterparts.

During the era when the F-117s were undergoing mass production, I'll say the rest of Europe and America had the advantage, they had aerial superiority with the F-15s, and had started to mass produce M1s, and meanwhile the Soviets were wasting their time with Afghanistan and trying to catch up to the US both economically and also with stealth technology. The economy part was what eventually killed off the Soviet Union, after all the whole of the western world had more trading power than the Soviet Union.

If there had been a conventional war during the cold war both sides would have battled to a bloody stalemate in central europe. The key would be if the emerging soviet navy could interdict the USNavy. Back then the feeling was that it would be like 1940 all over again. Maybe by the mid to late 1980s every thing looked rosey for NATO, but in the 1950s & 1960s it would have been extremely messy affair.

The problem was that NATO relied heavly on sealanes for fuel supplies and any weaponary replacements & troops flowing from N America.

[edit on 12-5-2005 by psteel]

If you ask me, the answer is a no. It takes an unbelievable amount of resources just to destroy a small enemy. Same goes for U.S. Neither the Soviet Union nor the U.S. could destroy each other conventionally.

As for "paper tiger," you'd have to talk to those who were stationed in Europe during the late years of the Cold War. Talk to them and you'll see how real and terrible the Soviet conventional threat truly was. If we ever went to war with them, it would either end one of four ways; NATO surrenders; NATO pulls a Hail-Mary with tactical nukes and thus sparks a nuclear war which nobody wins; NATO fights to the death; both sides agree to cease-fire. A cease-fire is the closest thing to a victory for NATO.

The thing back then was that the main thing which both sides fought wars with was with nukes, biological weapons and chemical weapons. In the event of war, the silos first launch their missles, then the subs, then everything else, remember the cuban missle crisis?

Alot of soviet battle plans for invading wet germany used nuclear weapons - and when they didn`t plan to use nukes, they used chemical agents!

quite scary - oh and also IIRC the soviets could go to war in 72 hours (get in tanks and drive) - ok not exactly brilliant with support but something to be thought about

Warlord,

Just a wee issue to raise with you,

"During the era when the F-117s were undergoing mass production"

I would hardly call 54, mass production.

Cheers

BHR

Not really mass production...I meant....just at the point when the F-117s were being ordered by the USAF.

Warlord,

Do not worry, mate.

I was being a bit over pedantic.

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by W4rl0rD
The thing back then was that the main thing which both sides fought wars with was with nukes, biological weapons and chemical weapons. In the event of war, the silos first launch their missles, then the subs, then everything else, remember the cuban missle crisis?

thats why there were never direct soviet and US troops fight, cause if they go toe to toe then nukes will be used. i still hope the soviets didn't fall, need to split the hated between the soviets and US in the world hehe

Ulshadow,

There was not requirement for any US/Soviet conflict to have gone nuclear.

There was always the possibility but it was not a guarantee.

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by DaVirus
I'm still learning about The Cold War in school. And I was wondering if the Soviets had the right stuff to really destroy the USA conventionally

- Possibly after the mid 1970's IMO. But I doubt it would have been anything other than close.

IMO the Soviet military was in a condition to successfully attack Europe (they would have seen it as a pre-emptive strike) with conventional weapons but not the continental USA.

IIRC it was also Soviet doctrine not to view nuclear weapons as anything particularly special, they were a 'normal' part of their arsenal and would be used accordingly (or at least that was the story we were told here in Europe at the time).

when we were talking about the Cold War they kept saying that the Soviets intimidated the world because of their Nuclear Arsenal.

- Everybody felt threatened by everybody.

I suggest you watch the film '13 days' to see how the paranoia of the nutter hard-liners on either side fed the other. IMO that aspect comes across very well in the film.
It is our weakness and our strength that people are involved and in this case for all the faults it was a willingness to establish trust that saved the day as opposed to the 'you can't ever trust them' mentality some can't let go of, ever.

The USA whilst persuing her 'normal' policy of 'containment' felt happy at ringing the USSR with nuclear weapons (in this case Turkey), the Russians responded by putting some on Cuba.......so, who intimidated who, first, hmmm?

It's also worth noting that the potential for a soviet collapse through inherent economic weakness was explicitly recognised in the late 1960's by Nixon's gov.

We could also have taken up Kruschev's 1950's offer to reduce arms and peacefully coexist with improving relations without all the tension and near disasterous holocaust we experienced in the early 1980's (there were at least 3 occassions where the world came close to an accidental nuclear holocaust).

I think we were lucky to get another bite of the cherry and doubly so that there was a Gorbachev to come along at that time.
The improvements in international affairs that followed his efforts to steer the USSR in a different direction litterally saved us all IMO.

We were extremely fortunate that Reagan got along with him as a glance at Reagan and Weinburger & Co.s statements before any of that happened were dangerously inflamatory and deeply unhelpful IMO to say the least.

i think most soviet battle plans for the central front had a tac nuclear component.......even if they didnt use em, the soviets woulda been eatin croissants in no time, thanx to natos unbelievably convoluted mobilization plans and that all wp forces close to the IGB were ready to roll. just gotta look at the example of the invasion of czecozlovakia. a whole bunch of tanks and mech troops rolled right up to the border, and NO ONE could have done anything to stop them if they kept on going......as always, the warnerd does a good wrap up, with glazed eyed russian tank generals pining fer the good ol days and all, its a good read

www.exile.ru...

i reckon they woulda SMOKED nato in a conventional fight.

Originally posted by nubby
i reckon they woulda SMOKED nato in a conventional fight.

- But that is to miss the point too, nubby, surely?

There would have been no conventional fight.

The whole point of NATO's doctrine was that 'we' relied on nuclear weapons pretty much right from the start.
'We' knew 'we' would have little option but to go nuclear very very quickly or lose.

Afganistan is very bad example for showing Russian power, if you dont want to anhilate whole population around that area, they were fighting guerilla warfare and US armed guerillas with latest arms. Russia went to afganistan as invader whole population rise against em one way or another, US went there as liberator. But look at Iraq US is still fighting there, same way as Russia fought Afganistan, can you say US has done any better yet?

When you look latest wars i would say Iraq on first gulf war it was somewhat strong military might compared to other middle east countrys and it had #3 - 4 largest military budjet on world that time. Alliance defeated the army quite a fast, the army was capable of invasions and posed threat to its neigbours. I would say it was one example of western superiority on that day warfare.

Cant find any same size of wars in near history by Russia, cold war was arms race that didnt luckily lead war. But far as looking back West was more powerful by its strong economy and stability. I doubt Russia could have won west in convential war, the damage it would dealt in the end would been too much for both sides.