If the cold war had gone hot.....

If the cold war had gone hot, would NATO have won. Say no nukes were used because both sides agreed it would be the end of humanity.

who knows what other weapons the USSR and US had, it's hard to tell.

Super secret and deadly WMDs would do as good as atomics... stuff like scalar EM weapons... pretty scary.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Johnny]

Russia is the country with the most biological weapons up to date, sooo u decide

It really depends on if you are talking before Reagan or after Reagan. Ford and Carter years were very dangerous indeed and I doubt NATO could have prevailed without tactical nuclear weapons before Warsaw Pact made it to the Atlantic cutting off American resupply efforts. With the advent of new and improved weapons, air/land/sea NATO might have fought to a draw at the western borders of Germany and Belgium afterwhich the Warsaw Pact Armys would have required major resupply, resupply would have been interdicted probably causing Warsaw Pact to use tactical nukes. Maybe because of the above reasons it never happened- would have been a disaster for everyone no matter conventional outcome.

well I just read "Red Storm Rising" by T. Clancy and NATO without the use of nukes granted it's only a novel

I also say it depends on when the engagement started but for different reasons. It is a question of who had who where at the time. Revelations have shown that the Soviets had penetrated the intelligence services of the west quite throughly from top to bottom. This would be a "force multiplier" that could easily affect the outcome from the upstart. It is unknown as to what assets the west had in place so it is impossible to speculate. But it is a frightening scenario to consider that the Director of MI-5 was quite probably a Soviet mole during the early sixties. Imagine the havoc he could have caused if hostilities had not been avoided.

Originally posted by TheButcher
If the cold war had gone hot, would NATO have won. Say no nukes were used because both sides agreed it would be the end of humanity.

But that wouldn't stop them from using nukes. If one side nuked another and destroyed the other side totally, not all humanity would be destroyed?

Hard to tell which side would have won? Both powers had disadvantages and advantages.

Originally posted by f16falcon
well I just read "Red Storm Rising" by T. Clancy and NATO without the use of nukes granted it's only a novel

ddid you not wonder why in clancy books USA ALWAYS WINS?



HAHAHAHAHA!


same with the James Bond moives.

My guess is there wouldn't have been any winners in that war, if it had escalated to an all out nuclear exchange.

Whoops, there goes Western Europe, the Soviet Union, the US, Australia, Japan, parts of China etc. With all the major powers out of the game the rest of the world is pretty much #ed. World economy would've collapsed and all kinds of wacky hijinks would've probably ensued.

Originally posted by Paradigm
My guess is there wouldn't have been any winners in that war, if it had escalated to an all out nuclear exchange.

true..


would be the world ENDING war.

Originally posted by Russian

true..


would be the world ENDING war.

The dead would've probably been better off than the survivors. Total worldwide economic meltdown, fallout from the nuclear explosions, diseases, famine, social collapse and worldwide anarchy. Not to mention all kinds of wars the surviving nations that didn't get hit get into when they try to secure mineral deposits.

Originally posted by Paradigm


The dead would've probably been better off than the survivors. Total worldwide economic meltdown, fallout from the nuclear explosions, diseases, famine, social collapse and worldwide anarchy. Not to mention all kinds of wars the surviving nations that didn't get hit get into when they try to secure mineral deposits.

if this happens i would rather be dead too!!!!!


i dont want to live in the STONE AGE!

It depends on what you mean by "win." Do you mean win in the big picture or just the war itself? If you are talking about the war only, the USSR would win, hands down. Superior technology of NATO is so overrated, and it's not like the Soviets are entirely primative. In fact, they do so many things better than us (more like did). They also have the benefit of superior numbers, and those ratios are HUGE. Soviet ground forces are also far more well-equipped. They might not have as advanced weaponary, but some are far more reliable and carrying more bang. The air battle is moot. The Soviet Air Force alone would outnumber NATO fighters by a ratio of 10-1. Reinforcements could not arrive in time and their stockpile of radar-guided AAMs would run out in three weeks. They would then have one week to decide whether to surrender, fight on until the death, or nuke them. It's a lose-lose-lose situation.

USSR would only MAYBE win cause they have more land.

so it would to MORE NUKES to NUKE it!

hey if the cold war went hot i think nato would lose the ground air war mabye they could reach a stailmate there but sea war nnnnnnnoooo nato would hold the sea

Originally posted by devilwasp
hey if the cold war went hot i think nato would lose the ground air war mabye they could reach a stailmate there but sea war nnnnnnnoooo nato would hold the sea

one oscar-2 submarine can destroy a whole carrier battle group

Originally posted by TheButcher
If the cold war had gone hot, would NATO have won. Say no nukes were used because both sides agreed it would be the end of humanity.

If we assume the war was in Europe that means getting the US forces stateside mobilized and into the European theater. That means lots of boats. Which in turn means lots of subs, aircraft, and surface ships trying to stop the flow of supplies and troops into Europe. Which in turn means lots of ASW, Surface to surface engagements, Air to surface, Air to Air etc.

Who ever had the most capable resources would take the ocean, and eventually the war assuming that it went to the "last Man" standing.

hrxll

the USSR would have won. They havn't been defeated in ages. They know how to win wars.

It owuld have been a looong drawn out war in the European theater, to say the least. The issue of supply was brought up, and correctly so. The Soviets had a hard enough time trying to fuel their tanks in their own country, let alone in a major European conflict. They would have to plunder the resources of the countries they have already taken to keep them moving indefinitely. Insurgency would have also been a nightmare in Europe, either for the Soviets if they pushed far into western Europe, or for Nato, if they pushed far into Eastern Europe.

Nato had 100,000's of troops stationed throughout western Europe, so reinforcements from America and Canada would have enough time to get overseas, unless the Soviets initiated a blitzkrieg type offensive, which would have been highly doubtful.

Air superiority, I believe, would have belonged to Nato, as well as the seas.

Also, we have to look at the countries involved in both alliances: Nato and the Warsaw Pact. Nato was by far more technologically advanced. The Soviets had an awesome army, but look at their allies:

Bulgaria and Rumania: (remember these 2 from the big one, WWII.) A platoon of U.S. forces could have broken through a battalion of them.

Poland: kind of iffy. Not much military-wise, but they were very sympathetic to the west. Would have been interesting.

Hungary: forget about it.

Czechoslovakia: another "iffy", loyalty wise

East Germany: hmmm.... I believe they would have put up a tough fight either way.

Now, on to the Nato countries:

USA: you already know the numbers and strengths

Canda: kind of iffy

England: battle ready, as always

France: up in the air

Benelux countries( Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands): forget about it

Scandanavian countries: another, forget about it.

Turkey: ready to roll, battle ready.

My all and all opinion of a war between the Alliances: A draw

eeennnnnngglllllaaannnnnndddd remember we are a united kingdom we dont call u all redneck texans