NationStates Jolt Archive

If no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons were used, who would have won the war? The Soviets or Americans? I am shamed to say i was not around at the time of the soviets, but i can point out that i would like to know your opinions. What would have happened if the worlds superpowers collided?

Time: Anytime past 1970

It's the same dilemma as a scenario between the US and China. The defender would always win. Neither the USSR or the US could ever hope to mount a successful invasion, nevermind occupy territory as massive as both those nations were.

Russia. If the US attacked Russia, they would probably suffer the same problems suffered by every invading force against Russia i.e. the cold and mass expanses of nothingness. If the Russians invaded the US, sheer weight of numbers would trounce the US. I reckon. Poorly.

The Soviets, of course. We had way too many pro-communists and subversives in our government.

Well then for all purposes, lets assume they met in another countries territory, one not allied with the US or The Soviets.

The Soviets, because thanks to McNamara (and later Kissinger), our military got severely gutted, while the Soviets achieved power beyond their wildest dreams (no thanks to U.S. corporations). If it was 1962 or earlier, we'd win without even trying. At the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, our nuclear capabilities outnumbered the Soviets at least 8 to 1.

If you completely ignore the fact that our ability to project force outclassed the Soviet's by an order of magnitude, you might be right.

Russia. If the US attacked Russia, they would probably suffer the same problems suffered by every invading force against Russia i.e. the cold and mass expanses of nothingness. If the Russians invaded the US, sheer weight of numbers would trounce the US. I reckon. Poorly.

The Soviets would never make it to American soil. Once the SOSUS system was complete, their only equalizer for our far superior surface fleet, their submarines, would no longer be able to sneak up on our carriers to attack them.

Another thing to consider: Our military was pathetically weak at that time. McNamara reduced it to almost Third World status.

Well, that didn't happen. Both had nukes and mutually assured destruction present.

I'd have to say i'd lean a bit on the side with America not completely being ruined. Only because after a certain amount of time, people get fustrated with dictators. America's second ammendment making this country a nightmare to a real invasion force.

American air and naval power was pretty effective at that time. We had more foothold on the Asian and african continents than they had on the Americas to wage a war. We had a LOT of oil at our access thanks to our Arab allies (which we really boned as of late for which I must apologize) and a few other factors.

However, the war would STILL be so close, a cease fire would have been more likely. Especially with China's numbers. The war would be so costly that it would have become a WW3 easy. There was really NO way of believeing either side would have just won. People would just get tired to the point that they would forget the point and the war would end without a real resolution.

The US would've won. Few people know how weak the Russian army really was throughout the Cold war. They did put up a good show during the war games, confusing the hell out of Western observers and making them believe that the Soviet army was battleworhty. If you read Viktor Suvorov's "The Liberator", he describes the situation inside the Soviet army with 100% realism: how, due to the idiotic nature of the system, the dumbest officers made brilliant careers, while the bright ones were kept down; how the much advertized new Soviet weaponry was either unworkable (T64 tank), or good, yet never reached the troops (the BTR APC); how hungry, abused and undersupplied were the soldiers; how low was the morale. In fact, the best model of what would happen if the US and the Soviets were to clash in a conventional weapons only war is readily avaliable: the Arab-Israeli wars. Substitute Israel for the US and the Arabs for the USSR- and you have your answer.

Well then for all purposes, lets assume they met in another countries territory, one not allied with the US or The Soviets.

Off the top of my head...

Ignoring the fact that you said 'one not allied to the US or the Soviets'.

Circa 65-79 or thereabouts -

Soviet Union breaks through the Fulda Gap and steamrollers towards Paris. Small pockets of Western forces become cut off and isolated by their rapid advance and are destroyed. USSR forces make it as far as Paris, but then themselves are cut off and a short term seige arises. Western forces drive into the Soviet flanks and eventually Paris is cut of from supplies. Meanwhile, fighting in the Balkans takes place and as ever remains somewhat inconclusive. Soviet troops in Paris are eventually forced to pull out, but under treaty which allows the USSR to extend its grip on Eastern Europe, all of Germany now being under its control.

End result: an increase in Soviet territory, but at the expense of handing control of Western armed forces to the Hawks, which eventually comes back to haunt the USSR.

If it wasn't for the U.S., there wouldn't even be a Soviet Union. U.S. corporations supported the Bolsheviks when they first seized power. In the early 1920's, when Russia was on the brink of total collapse, then-Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover personally traveled to Russia, and, upon his return, begged President Harding to provide aid to the Soviets. After Roosevelt recognized the U.S.S.R. in 1933, aid to the U.S.S.R. skyrocketed (especially during WWII). After WWII, the U.S. pursued an oxymoronic, paradoxical policy where we spent billions of dollars "fighting communism," with one hand, while aiding it with the other hand.

The US would've won. Few people know how weak the Russian army really was throughout the Cold war. They did put up a good show during the war games, confusing the hell out of Western observers and making them believe that the Soviet army was battleworhty. If you read Viktor Suvorov's "The Liberator", he describes the situation inside the Soviet army with 100% realism: how, due to the idiotic nature of the system, the dumbest officers made brilliant careers, while the bright ones were kept down; how the much advertized new Soviet weaponry was either unworkable (T64 tank), or good, yet never reached the troops (the BTR APC); how hungry, abused and undersupplied were the soldiers; how low was the morale. In fact, the best model of what would happen if the US and the Soviets were to clash in a conventional weapons only war is readily avaliable: the Arab-Israeli wars. Substitute Israel for the US and the Arabs for the USSR- and you have your answer.

The Soviet Union wasn't weak at all. They had all the latest in technology, no thanks to the "anticommunist" U.S. and our NATO "allies."

If no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons were used, who would have won the war? The Soviets or Americans? I am shamed to say i was not around at the time of the soviets, but i can point out that i would like to know your opinions. What would have happened if the worlds superpowers collided?

Time: Anytime past 1970

When you say "not around at the time of the Soviets," you make it sound as if they're not around anymore. They're still around. The Soviet "collapse," was phonier than a three dollar bill. Read New Lies for Old and The Perestroika Deception by Anatoliy Golitsyn (a Soviet defector) and Through the Eyes of the Enemy by Stanislaw Lunev (I think that was his name, I'd have to look it up), the highest-ranking Soviet defector in history.

Another thing to consider: Our military was pathetically weak at that time. McNamara reduced it to almost Third World status.

Yes, but Reagan preaty much rebuilt our military and made it the strongest it had ever been. (Granted, it was at the expence of most other social programs, but desperate times. . .)



Well, that didn't happen. Both had nukes and mutually assured destruction present.

I'd have to say i'd lean a bit on the side with America not completely being ruined. Only because after a certain amount of time, people get fustrated with dictators. America's second ammendment making this country a nightmare to a real invasion force.


Damn right, lol. That comment actually reminds me of the movie "Red Dawn."

if they were to fight no nukes and no home field advantage russia would have won just like they did in WWII their willingness to sacrifice their soldier would have played a major role in that and since everyone in the US bitches if there is a war and someone on their side dies i would say they would pull back after they've suffered about 500k casualty if not less i mean right now we have about 1800 dead troops in iraq and there are people still bitching about it telling us to remove our troops its truly pathetic

After the deployment of the F-15, Russia had no hope in conventional arms. In the early 70's a conventional engagement would have taken a murderous toll on both sides, and the advantage would goto he with the numbers.


As to who built the military, Reagan reaped the rewards of investment under other administrations. All he did is blow money on MX missles. And of course arm our enemies with the lastest in shoulder launched missle technology, which the Chinese promptly copied. (Thanks Reagan!) Let's not forget the base closings either.

i think that the soviets unwillingness to issue ammunition to their troops before the last minute would have doomed them.

No one would win. Soviets would die. Americans would die. People in Europe or where ever the conflict took place would die. I think America could have had a millitary victory, but in a democracy that can't count as winning. It would just be better than losing. Even if American victory resulted in Soviet citizens sucessfully rebelling against their government, that wouldn't compensate the allies for the loss of lives. Would America then want to rehabilitate Russia and its former territories? America gave some help after the Soviet Union collapsed, but didn't seem terribly interested. Germany and Japan were helped by America so they could act as allies against the Soviets. Without a superpower enemy to fight, the former Soviet states could have been left to rot and become a sorce of terrorism and other criminal activity.

Interesting that no-one has chipped in with a direct US intervention in Afghanistan circa 1978/9 here.

I think the US would have this one. Just because if they got invaded, there would be mass revolts, if they tried to invade us, we would make them fight for every inch.

The grim reaper would have won.

who was it that said "there are no winners in war; only runners up"?

EDIT: wow, i just looked up and saw that Phylum Chordata posted like the same thing, but im leaving this anyway.

I dont think either side could have one. Some type of cease-fire agreement would have to be reached or the war would rage without end.

I would say before 1980, the Soviets would win. 1980-now, the US would win. Lets say its 1979. The Iranians have had their revolution, and hold many high-tech western technology. When the Iranians take the Us hostages, carter realizes he has to do something drastic in order to get re-elected. Many people are calling for direct intervention into Iran. He takes action.

A very large naval forcec comes near the middle east, soon heading up the strait of hormuz, and through the persian gulf. The Iranians, and the world, know whats happening. Its no surprise that a week before the US elections, American troops begin massive landings into Iran, with armour and aircraft making massive gains into Iran.

Russia realizes that an American-held Iran is dangerous, almost as dangerous as an Iranian-held Iran. It slowly pulls men off the western front, and shifts them to the Iranian border. Carter is re-elected on the war-seat, and five days later, after most of the Iranian military has been decimated(large divisions bombed to obliteration), it cuts toward the americans.

Tehran is quickly captured. Massive russian divisions drive through the desert, while the best air power is brought into service. The soviet navy begins air attacks on the US navy and the small bases set up so far, while scrambling its navy to get to the scene.

The US finds it difficult to move men into Iran, although many divisions were already there to attack Iran. However, the Russian T-72's follow the T-55's and T-62's, who were meant to be the aircraft bait, and take on the M-60's. The Pattons do well, for the age difference, but slowly get taken out.

The soviets flank the US forces, who are mainly on the coast. Taking the East, they smash the side of the americans, while moving artillery to each position they take. Nations offer assistance to the US, though mostly only refueling and transport service. The US has the majority of its men in while the fighting is still tough. The national guard and reserves are rushed off, while the draft is quickly called. Mass protest breaks out in the US, mostly by college students who have friends being taken out of school.

The US takes defensive positions, trying to hold the coast so they can bring more in. Massive soviet artillery bombards US positions, while soviet submarines start attacking all US shipping in the pacific. The areas to the east of Japan are particularly stalked.

The Iranian army slows down the Russians somewhat. F-14's and Shah II's prove better than some of the best soviet equipment, though the crews are not as good. However, the soviets finally move in enough AA and Artillery to break the defensive positions of the Iranians, followed by large attacks of T-62's and T-55's. The T-72's, supported by the latest AA and APC's, continue to press on against the US.

Despite the large size of Iran, the fighting it contained to the coast mostly. The soviets are held above abadan and Bandar-abbas, leaving the US the majority of the coast. The Iranians finally pledge support for the Russians, but only so the russians do not raze their major cities. The US pleads for a second front in Europe, but the warsaw pact members have most their forces still in the west, and the US was in a way an aggressor.

The Russians finally break through the middle of the Abadan-abbas line, splitting the US forces in two. A massive artillery attack with rocket artillery and massive stationary guns, followed by Tu-22 and Tu-160 strikes weakens the line to a point where the remaining T-72's are able to break through the line. The soviets are quick to reinforce their position with AA and artillery, and slowly begin to envelop the US forces, who are being overrun by the seemingly endless Soviets.

Russia pays a heavy price. About 30% of their airforce, armour, and guns are decimated. The number is worse than it sounds however, as the best equipment was often used first, to gain the initial advantage nessecary. The strength of their forces are lowered to 45% total. About 120,000 soviet soldiers die in the three weeks of fighting, and 200,000 are wounded or missing in action. The soviet navy is wiped out on the pacific, though the US merchant fleet is also deathly wounded.

The US, though losing, takes much less damage. About 20% of all equipment was lost, and while much of it was top of the line, it was fairly balanced. Their forces remain at about 60%. The US loses about 32,000 men, with 305,000 casualties. However, Carter is humiliated, with a number bordering 80% of the nation disapproving of his actions. Many drafted soldiers are told to go back, despite only a few weeks in boot, if that.

The middle-east, fearful of soviet incursion into their lands, opens a total embargo of oil to the US, after gaining NAP's with Russia. Israel is again attacked, due to the nations seeing that the US is not in a position to help. Israel prevails, though taking longer, and more damage than before.

The US is humiliated. Not expecting russian intervention, Carter made a gamble and lost. Many historians theorize how the US could have won. The decision to use tactical nuclear weapons was a possibility, but it likely would have led to escalation. The USSR repetedly claimed they would not fire missiles at, or invade, the US homeland. Some think that better control of the eastern flank, or more air support at the start of the war, could have done it. However, for every possibility, there is something the Soviets could have done better as well.

After the deployment of the F-15, Russia had no hope in conventional arms. In the early 70's a conventional engagement would have taken a murderous toll on both sides, and the advantage would goto he with the numbers.

Su-27 and Mig 29 could pwn F-15.

If no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons were used, who would have won the war? The Soviets or Americans? I am shamed to say i was not around at the time of the soviets, but i can point out that i would like to know your opinions. What would have happened if the worlds superpowers collided?

Time: Anytime past 1970
After 1970, and given that no WMD were used, I would have to say the US would have won, although it would have been the "mother of all wars," particularly if the battleground were Eastern Europe. American supply lines would have been vulnerable to Soviet interdiction.

And there's no way anyone could have successfully invaded the Soviet Union proper. Both Napoleon and Hitler tried it, and they were both lots closer.

Eastern Russia is nothingness right Vladivostok and what not but nothing decent right?

America-If America attacked from the East then they would make in roads to nothing.
Russia
If America was attacked from the East across the bering strait and the likes then Large American Cities are instantly at risk.


When people talk of the Russian winter I think it would be safe to say that the Russian Winters effects should have been halted by now as in logistics would be sorted out and ample supplies for all.

Remember Germany was held up by the Bug oveflowing etc that was the real reason for the delay of Barbarossa not so much The Balkans.

Id probably say no one Wins in War. :D

But thats a cop out.
America would win but only if they had all their Troops at home instead of Across the Empire!-Yes i said Empire!

Ill stick to my belief that tactics and Technology are better than numbers.-And if thier not think of the Honour!
Less men more=Honour to be shared around! :D

Eastern Russia is nothingness right Vladivostok and what not but nothing decent right?

If America attacked from the East then they would make in roads to nothing.
If America was attacked from the East across the bering strait and the likes then Large American Cities are instantly at risk.

I think it would be safe to say that the Russian Winters effects should have been halted by now.
Remember Germany was held up by the Bug oveflowing etc that was the real reason for the delay of Barbarossa not so much The Balkans.

Id probably say no one Wins in War. :D
But thats a cop out.
America would win but only if they had all their Troops at home instead of Across the Empire!-Yes i said Empire!

Ill stick to my belief that tactics and Technology are better than numbers.-And if thier not think of the Honour!
Less men more=Honour to be shared around! :D

From what I managed to read of this, the end is probably the easiest to interpret(from your foreign language). Quality is always good, but a million men with AK'47's and RPG's will beat one soldier with the best of the best equipment. If the numbers are enough, then quality doesnt matter.

From what I managed to read of this, the end is probably the easiest to interpret(from your foreign language). Quality is always good, but a million men with AK'47's and RPG's will beat one soldier with the best of the best equipment. If the numbers are enough, then quality doesnt matter.
They were optional counter arguments for each proposal. :rolleyes:

No dah a million to 1........

What if you had a million men and the enemy had 1 million and you sent your million in 1 at a time who would win then? :rolleyes:

They were optional counter arguments for each proposal. :rolleyes:

No dah a million to 1........

What if you had a million men and the enemy had 1 million and you sent your million in 1 at a time who would win then? :rolleyes:


My point was, its not always clear whether one is better than the other.

Su-27 and Mig 29 could pwn F-15.
Which no doubt explains why the F-15 has 112 air combat victories against zero loses, many of which came against the modern Russian hardware.

The modern Russian arms are great at airshows, and every person who can fly and afford one should own one I'm sure. But when it comes to force of arms, the F-15 is in a special class.

Which no doubt explains why the F-15 has 112 air combat victories against zero loses, many of which came against the modern Russian hardware.

Speaking of pwnage... :p

Which no doubt explains why the F-15 has 112 air combat victories against zero loses, many of which came against the modern Russian hardware.

The modern Russian arms are great at airshows, and every person who can fly and afford one should own one I'm sure. But when it comes to force of arms, the F-15 is in a special class.

F-15 has fought few Mig-29's, and those were mostly crappily flown ones. Fight one that the polish, or the russians use, and it will be much different.

Besides, the majority of F-15 kills are on Mirage III's, Su-23's, Mig-21's, etc.

F-15 has fought few Mig-29's, and those were mostly crappily flown ones. Fight one that the polish, or the russians use, and it will be much different.

Besides, the majority of F-15 kills are on Mirage III's, Su-23's, Mig-21's, etc.
Haha. Tell that to the dead Iraqi pilots. They looked like a real professional airforce, until the Eagle showed up. The F-15s would have had more kills, but the pilots wisely ran away. Out matched is out matched. First look and best speed kills. If I'm not mistaken the best MiG pilots, and hardware, fly out of Germany. Who are all too happy to give their NATO allies a lesson or two. If any of the MiG's had any real competitive edge, they wouldn't be batting a perfect 0 against F-15s. Even the new MiGs are a joke. Great for show, though. But they'll never even see an F-22. Just clear blue skies, and suddenly the pilots willl find they have harps. It's positivly unfair. Just the way it should be.

My point was, its not always clear whether one is better than the other.
ill sit on the fence.
F-15 has fought few Mig-29's, and those were mostly crappily flown ones. Fight one that the polish, or the russians use, and it will be much different.

Besides, the majority of F-15 kills are on Mirage III's, Su-23's, Mig-21's, etc.
I'll agree with Chellis on this Good Pilots equals Aye!

If no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons were used, who would have won the war? The Soviets or Americans? I am shamed to say i was not around at the time of the soviets, but i can point out that i would like to know your opinions. What would have happened if the worlds superpowers collided?

Time: Anytime past 1970

Depends were it was fought. The Soviets wouldn't have had the funding to carry out a widespread war(well they'd just continue to starve the people) but that was the era of the oil crisis. I don't think either would have won and diplomacy would have eventually kicked in

Haha. Tell that to the dead Iraqi pilots. They looked like a real professional airforce, until the Eagle showed up. The F-15s would have had more kills, but the pilots wisely ran away. Out matched is out matched. First look and best speed kills. If I'm not mistaken the best MiG pilots, and hardware, fly out of Germany. Who are all too happy to give their NATO allies a lesson or two. If any of the MiG's had any real competitive edge, they wouldn't be batting a perfect 0 against F-15s. Even the new MiGs are a joke. Great for show, though. But they'll never even see an F-22. Just clear blue skies, and suddenly the pilots willl find they have harps. It's positivly unfair. Just the way it should be.

Give the americans Mig-29's and full training, the iraqi's the F-15's, and the americans would still have done just as well.

Give the americans Mig-29's and full training, the iraqi's the F-15's, and the americans would still have done just as well.
That's a nice thought. Historically, superior training against superior equipment tends to produce a kill ratio between 5 and 3 to one at best and depending on the advantage 1 to 1. And NO fighter has record of victories like the F-15.

A nice experiment might be to see how many pilots of Su's and MiGs would trade their ride in for an F-15, versus the guys driving the Eagles opting for a Fulcrum or Flanker. I bet that'd look a lot like the kill ratio.

Another thing I've noticed, although divergent, everytime a pilot or analyst talks about the F-22 its a quantum leap beyond the F-15, and by far the most dominant fighter of the future, an aircraft so deadly it might never have to fight blah blah. The other next generation fighters, the Typhoons, Su-47's (By far the best looking), they don't even get a mention. But there was a thing about the new Russian super-fighter, and the test pilot talked about how great the plane was, and added that the American F-22 is a great plane too, but his was better. That contrast is pretty amusing.

Well, the Soviets were conventionally dominant in Europe by this point in time, so the Russians possibly would have been able to take out most of the Western European allies (except for GB) pretty rapidly. You see, the elimination of nuclear weapons as an option is a key blow to NATO strategy against the Soviet Union, chiefly because NATO strategy called for the use of smaller nuclear weapons in a counterforce role, busting up Soviet areas where large numbers of Soviet forces had grouped, such as rail yards and the like.

The Soviets just had so many more tanks in Europe than the western allies. Of course, the western allies didn't have as many tanks for a reason: tanks are offensive weapons, and we didn't want the Soviets to think that we were preparing an offensive force, have them get scared, launch an attack into West Germany and start a war.

Now, if the Western European allies were capable of surviving for around two weeks, the US could have gotten a good number of troops in Europe, perhaps enough to stop the Soviets and drive them back to previous borders. Under a best case scenario, the western allies might take East Germany and Czechoslovakia, but that's doubtable. That would, in a situation where nukes wouldn't be used, get the Soviets to call for a cease fire, and with the total casualties from such a war, a ceasefire would be readily accepted by the NATO allies.

Beyond that, something western wargames postulated would occur would be a mass Eastern European revolt against the Soviets. Civil unrest would ensue without the Soviet tanks to keep order in Prague and Warsaw. So that throws an entirely new wrench into the machine if that happens. But it is unknown if such an instance were to occur.

But the reality is that with such an armored force, the Soviets would probably be able to knock out the BRD pretty rapidly, and might have Paris within two weeks, if not sooner. It's not an insult to anybody, there just weren't enough counter-armor capabilities in Europe to stop twenty-fucking-thousand soviet tanks.

One of the most freightening things, in my mind, is the 100,000+ RPG-7's the soviets would probably have, if not more. It would bring a whole new meaning to the human wave.

That's a nice thought. Historically, superior training against superior equipment tends to produce a kill ratio between 5 and 3 to one at best and depending on the advantage 1 to 1. And NO fighter has record of victories like the F-15.

A nice experiment might be to see how many pilots of Su's and MiGs would trade their ride in for an F-15, versus the guys driving the Eagles opting for a Fulcrum or Flanker. I bet that'd look a lot like the kill ratio.

Another thing I've noticed, although divergent, everytime a pilot or analyst talks about the F-22 its a quantum leap beyond the F-15, and by far the most dominant fighter of the future, an aircraft so deadly it might never have to fight blah blah. The other next generation fighters, the Typhoons, Su-47's (By far the best looking), they don't even get a mention. But there was a thing about the new Russian super-fighter, and the test pilot talked about how great the plane was, and added that the American F-22 is a great plane too, but his was better. That contrast is pretty amusing.

Its still unrepresentative. Until the F-15 fights contemporaries, in both training and equipment, you cant judge effectiveness. And I doubt anyone would qualify the Iraqi air force as even slightly well trained, by 1st world standards.