NationStates Jolt Archive

I think the US.

MAD. In as much as anyone would win, it would be the rest of the world who didn't get involved.

Nobody would win. Anybody still alive would soon be dead from radiation sickness.

where's the 'me' option?

At long last the Ratmen will rule the Overworld!

That or mutant penguins.

Other. The grim spectre of death would have won.

Neither. Everyone would be dead or dying.

The USSR would have won. Napoleon and Hitler tried to invade them, and both failed miserably. I don't think nuclear arms would come into effect though. To contrary belief, Russia is very close the United States and a nuclear attack would effect them in the long run along with everybody else.

Are we talking about direct full scale war between the USSR and NATO or something smaller? On the smaller scale, war already existed between the two nations. Usually via proxies. Full scale war would involve nukes one way or another. Maybe not first strike, but if one side seems to be really on the losing side and the choice is between that or defeat, nukes would be used. That's the tricky part though.

Would MAD still apply if you happen to fire it at your own city that is under occupation by enemy forces?

The Warsaw pact had the numbers, but NATO had the technology. It would have been astonishingly bloody, and I can't see anyone really coming out on top.

That and the whole MAD factor, which means that it wouldn't have been worth fighting.

Heard of a little thing called Mutually Assured Destruction?

ever seen a little movie called "Red Dawn"

nyet. but in one of the red alert mission packs they had M.A.D. tanks that fucked with everything.

nyet. but in one of the red alert mission packs they had M.A.D. tanks that fucked with everything.

I thought they were a bit rubbish, especially if your opponent did an airstrike/strafing run on your MAD tanks when they were just leaving the factory.

cockroaches win

cockroaches win

They'd die of starvation.

cockroaches win
What with the nuclear winter and all, the cockroaches would probably freeze to death.

Assume a non-nuclear confrontation.

Anytime up to (about) 1975, the Warsaw Pact would likely win a ground war in Europe. Simply put, the US was stretched a bit thin with Korea, & Viet Nam, and the economies of the Continental NATO nations were quite weak before the late 1950s.

POST 1980, the reverse holds true. Bad planning by the USSR, Afghanistan, and the US (and to a lesser extent the UK) massive arms buildup seriously tips the scales, as does the more advanced NATO weaponry.

Personally, I voted neither because I really believe that there would have been a small nuclear exchange if one side or the other was winning... say the US hits Minsk and the USSR hits Houston or something like that.

The only winning move is not to play. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/) Deterrence theory and mutually assured destruction were designed to ensure that a hot war would mean the end of the human species. Thus the cost to each side of a hot war is much too high. Better living (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_control#List_of_treaties_and_conventions_related_to_arms_control) through the threat of apocalyptic holocaust.

There was this point in the 80s where the CCCP would have won the conventional war in Europe (probably) there is even a book about it, it plots out two plans of what could have happened, there is one very optomistic version which has the west hanging on by the skin of its teeth with sweaden aiding and poland being very anti russian and some equipment that wasn't in service at the time but could have been if they'd rushed it for the emergancy (it did involve limited nuke exchange (I think it was minsk and birmingham). (though the after affects of all this were all a bit odd what with russia collapsing and japan and china becoming much more important militarily)

However the second plan which was much more neutral (admitadly the soviets in this one had their plan go quite well) resulted in a soviet europe after about 1 month (max) of fighting

Everyone would have lost.

nobody. the massive nuclear war would destroy the world. literally.

cockroaches win

or termites.

http://ffmedia.ign.com/filmforce/image/article/584/584275/constantine-20050201101418769-000.jpg


The Triumph of Freedom...

Some wars aren't worth fighting.

http://ffmedia.ign.com/filmforce/image/article/584/584275/constantine-20050201101418769-000.jpg


The Triumph of Freedom...

Some wars aren't worth fighting.

:(

It is incredibly true...

In a truly technical sense, the United States had the ability to devastate the USSR to a slightly greater degree than vice versa. So, theoretically, the US would "win". But when the difference is a few hundred warheads out of thousands fired, it's hard to say that either side is actually going to "win".

I think the US.
Neither ... ever heard of "mutually assured destruction?" :(

Neither ... ever heard of "mutually assured destruction?" :(


Well, it would be a bit of a political rorschach. The Other Side ( CCCP ) refused to accept the validity of that concept, and, like nuclear winter, did not even tolerate its mention in their media, except to illustrate western nuttiness.

So you could spot a proper dialectian by his insistence that to accept the unwinnability of nuclear war was the first step to losing that nuclear war.

I think the US.

Neither would win. It would have escalated to the nuclear option and the world would have been destroyed. Each side had enough nuclear weapons to wipe out the world on their own. I cannot imagine both sides lobbing nukes at each other at least it would have been quick for a majority of the people and horrible for the rest.

or termites.
I was thinking ants, termites only eat plant matter whereas ants are more versatile.

Neither East nor West would have won the war if it came down to an actual war between the superpowers. Hell, we would have been lucky if humanity even survived.

All you need to destroy the world is seven tactical nuclear devices. Nuke them on the San Andreas fault, and it causes a chain reaction that will literally blow up the earth.

The Other Side ( CCCP ) refused to accept the validity of that concept, and, like nuclear winter, did not even tolerate its mention in their media, except to illustrate western nuttiness.
Erm, bullshit. By the late 1970s, many national service exercises, particularly at junior officer level, revolved around the idea that every unit larger than a company would attract strikes with tactical nuclear weapons. This was the backup military doctrine for European theatre operations. Infantry would operate as independent platoons, given a specific task to perform in an information vacuum, until death. Officers were issued slide-rulers for calculating fallout and casualties from nuclear explosions - the scale ended at a million. The usual nuclear test videos of tethered goats being roasted and houses catching fire from the flash before the shockwave scattered them in the wind, were compulsory.

Quite a large proportion of officers also had a university technical background, in line with Soviet educational bias towards the physical sciences. If anything, a Russian soldier's understanding of the conditions of nuclear war exceeded that of his Western counterparts through the 1980s.

Erm, bullshit. By the late 1970s, many national service exercises, particularly at junior officer level, revolved around the idea that every unit larger than a company would attract strikes with tactical nuclear weapons. This was the backup military doctrine for European theatre operations. Infantry would operate as independent platoons, given a specific task to perform in an information vacuum, until death. Officers were issued slide-rulers for calculating fallout and casualties from nuclear explosions - the scale ended at a million. The usual nuclear test videos of tethered goats being roasted and houses catching fire from the flash before the shockwave scattered them in the wind, were compulsory.

Quite a large proportion of officers also had a university technical background, in line with Soviet educational bias towards the physical sciences. If anything, a Russian soldier's understanding of the conditions of nuclear war exceeded that of his Western counterparts through the 1980s.

Neither bullshit nor paradox.

The Sovs worked their officers hard - in order to WIN the nuclear war.

Boldened part - EXACTLY what I mean. There was a reason for doing so.

Sov soldiers ( as opposed to Officers ) didn't know a lot. On purpose, for Ivan didn't want his privates to be able to read as much as a map.

1950’s
Europe would of surrendered quickly America would use Nuclear weapons but I doubt it would cause a Soviet surrender a likely scenario is a quick war followed by peace Russia would be knocked out of its superpower status and Europe would be communist for years to come.

After the 1950’s its pretty much the same thing only with more nukes until about the 80’s were it would be the end of the world

Up until 57 or so, I think it would be a toss up since we did not have ICBM's until that point, which means that MAD would be much harder to apply since the only delivery method would be bombers. Thats not to say that both sides wouldnt suffer horrible casualties from nuclear bombings, but the attacking planes would also take casualties.
From '60-the late 70's, the USSR would 'win', for the most part, if a large scale nuclear conflict could be avoided. Basically, if were talking invasion of Europe with US help to the non-WP Europeans, I think that after a few years the USSR's superior numbers and pretty awsome tanks would win out eventually, especially since, during that period, US armoured technology was going through a rather awkward phase.
Post 80's, the US pwns the USSR pretty easily since a US invasion would result in mass confusion on the part of a poorly prepared and rather maltreated military that was busy fighting a losing war in Afghanistan. The USSR still had some good tanks, and its helicopters were quite awsome (the Hind is still one of the best choppers out there, I think), but the US had gotten out of Vietnam and rebuilt its military to some degree, the only real major worries were the USSR and North Korea grumbling a bit.

If it was a conventional war, then it's really a toss up.

If it was a nuclear war (more likely considering the pissing contest that was the Cold War), then no matter who "won", the world would "lose".

All you need to destroy the world is seven tactical nuclear devices. Nuke them on the San Andreas fault, and it causes a chain reaction that will literally blow up the earth.

Where'd you get that info? Is that true?

All you need to destroy the world is seven tactical nuclear devices. Nuke them on the San Andreas fault, and it causes a chain reaction that will literally blow up the earth.
...excuse me? Where the hell did you get THAT idea?

MAD - Mighty-easy-to Assume-both Done-got-blown-the-hell-up

Well, it would be a bit of a political rorschach. The Other Side ( CCCP ) refused to accept the validity of that concept, and, like nuclear winter, did not even tolerate its mention in their media, except to illustrate western nuttiness.


Well, you have to look at it this way. The general idea of telling the American populace on how to deal with the red nuclear scare was by hiding under their tables and pretending that great big fireball wouldn't incinerate them. You know, that whole duck and cover routine that was used to pacify the public and make them think that in such an event, they could just get right up and go fight some commies.

Likewise, the Soviet Union did the same with it's people, choosing however, to utilize straight ignorance rather than just a bunch of pacifying lies.

Different methods, same goals. Keep the populace ignorant and happy so that they can continue to support whatever it is you're doing.

I don't think the people at the Kremlin really thought that in such a war, there'd be much left to fight over or people to fight with. Or maybe they really were and were much better equipped to preserve a big chunk of their fighting force in such an event.

Assuming no nukes/biochemical weapons were used, the US/NATO. The Soviet economy just couldn't sustain a prolonged military campaign especially given the rapid increase in both military technology and the costs of maintaining those forces; also, Soviet GDP growth stagnated during the mid to late 1970's due to their inability to transition effectively to a consumer economy and their inability to meet the demands.

In most fields, they were technologically behind the West and had inferior quality goods overall. Other than the actual weaponry and equipment, the Soviet economy simply couldn't sustain their military in the field; the Virgin Lands campaign had helped to wreck Soviet food production and their food production was highly inefficient compared to the West.

Plus, the Soviets were no longer self sufficient in resources and lacked the ability to dramatically improve their resource efficiency or their

Even a conventional war would have almost certainly resulted in a nuclear exchange. American planning presumed they could not hold with conventional means against a Soviet Assualt, and tactical nuclear weapons were to be used very early. In response the USSR would have probably done the same, and due to the particlar vulnerability of much of their arsenal, probably stepped up to strategic strikes very quickly. They seemed to have planned to move to nuclear warfare very early. I would guess, unless somehow the initial forces of Nato in Germany could actually hold the Russian attacks (which, if to plan would have been massive. I believe one army based near Berlin had more tanks than the entire Nato forces in Germany... though that may be a bit of an exaggeration), the war would have lasted about a day or two. Desperate conventional fighting for those days, then someone calls in a tactical nuke... and then it results in Russia, Europe and the States as big black holes.

No one.

The cockroaches. Them and decomposers, they'd probably do well for a while, what with all the dead things everywhere. Eventually there'd be nothing left but a few dead cockroaches to eat and they'd start to die off.

You all talk of soviet victory on the ground in Europe as a given, you fail to realize that the standard NATO reaction to large tank formations would be to take them out with tactical nukes. Right up until the 80's, that was the standard play, as western armor wasn't of sufficient quality to match Warsaw Pact quantity. What's the easiest way to knock out soviet tanks before the 80's? B61 tactical nuclear weapon, it'll knock out the large formations. Tank formations only work when used as just that, tank formations--- that's the central concept of blitzkrieg( use tanks as spearheads in and of themselves suppored by mechanized infantry and then normal infantry, if you knock out large tank concentrations, you lose your spearheads and are left with only very expensive "infantry bulldozers" which are pretty vulnerable to AT missiles and mines). What's the best way after the 80's? M1 Abrams, Leopard II, and Challenger tanks along with AH-64 Apaches and A-10 Warthogs: these weapons are VERY effective tank killers, and gave NATIO its first options for dealing with Warsaw pact tank formations (typically T-72's with T-80's if the commander in the 80's was lucky). Soviet tanks were far inferior to NATO tanks by that time, so much so that the technological edge would give us a kill ratio substantial enough to make a big difference, not to mention that soviet close air support power would be severely lacking (Mi 24's, Su-25's, and Mi-28's were all inferior platforms and would fall relatively easily to NATO air defense). Make a long story short: the Russkies make it to part of W. Germany at best before they get their formations nuked, their only hope would be to keep our bombers away from their tank formations and their mobile AA defenses were weak at best, although their stationary defenses were pretty good (or at least more numerous than their Western equivalents). I'll stop ranting now.

Neither. We would all lose when it went nuclear.

You all talk of soviet victory on the ground in Europe as a given, you fail to realize that the standard NATO reaction to large tank formations would be to take them out with tactical nukes... Make a long story short: the Russkies make it to part of W. Germany at best before they get their formations nuked,

I said that... and that would have resulted in a strategic nuclear exchange very quickly. And that lead to "bye bye world".

True, all of this would probablly lead to strategic nuclear exchange. But we underestimate that the Soviets didn't want a nuke war just as much as we didn't want one. I truly believe that it would have involved only a limited exchange of strategic nuclear weapons. I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, 10-20 million tops.... depending on the breaks. God I love that movie. I do like however, that the NATO plan B in the 80's if the superior tech failed to stop the tank formations was the 60's plan A... just use nukes. That's why we stationed all those Pershing type mobile missile launchers in Germany and Kohl bitched until we twisted his arm and he gave in. Christ the euro-hippies bitched to no end about those Pershing launchers being deployed.

Who would have one of what?

Sorry, I'm talking out of my ass here. By one, I'm referring to a full scale nuclear war, as oppsed to a limited tactical exchange. Anyway, I think that some of our cold war behavior resulted from us believing our own propaganda that the Russkies were absolutely insaine. By the mid 70's, we truly believed that the Soviets woke up every morning and had a nice tall glass of CRAZY with their breakfast. This isn't true, they were pretty reasonable and wanted to avoid a war as much as we did, it's just that they seemed crazy because they weren't afraid to blatantly saber rattle, unlike us who has to face more international criticism if we were to saber rattle and threaten as blatantly as the soviets did. (Note: I'm not saying that the Soviets weren't bad guys, they were dirty commies with no regard for human life... that's not to say they wanted to destroy the world though)

Christ the euro-hippies bitched to no end about those Pershing launchers being deployed.

Well, how would you feel about having your country being turned into a nuclear battlefield?

Sorry, I'm talking out of my ass here. By one, I'm referring to a full scale nuclear war, as oppsed to a limited tactical exchange. Anyway, I think that some of our cold war behavior resulted from us believing our own propaganda that the Russkies were absolutely insaine. By the mid 70's, we truly believed that the Soviets woke up every morning and had a nice tall glass of CRAZY with their breakfast. This isn't true, they were pretty reasonable and wanted to avoid a war as much as we did, it's just that they seemed crazy because they weren't afraid to blatantly saber rattle, unlike us who has to face more international criticism if we were to saber rattle and threaten as blatantly as the soviets did. (Note: I'm not saying that the Soviets weren't bad guys, they were dirty commies with no regard for human life... that's not to say they wanted to destroy the world though)

In a full nuclear exchange, NATO would be the technical victors, as I believe NATO had more nukes and could technically cover more surface area with the bombings. However, when I say "technical victor", that simply means that they would deliver more nukes. Both sides would be immensely and horribly devistated by the war. There is no winner.

Better dead than red. At least that's me. I'd personally be thankful to the Americans for offering THEIR military to protect my land and way of life. I don't even have to pay taxes to them in exchange for their military assistance. To me, that's a pretty amazing deal. Were Mexico or Canada, for some odd reason, to become a very real threat to the US in a military sense, I'd gladly welcome Bundeswehr troops and missiles onto US soil if they were offering to help with the defense of the US. Gallosim is also right btw, we did have more nukes. Nuclear weapons differences between the powers was an interesting thing. Russkies had weapons of higher yield and fewer of them (quality over quantity, which is the opposite of their other forces) while the US had more with lower yield. However, when you realize that the US nukes were much more accurate than the Russian ones (we're talking in terms of MIRV's here), you realize that we don't need incredibly high yields if the accuracy's good enough. That and since they were lower in yield, they were also "cleaner" than Soviet nukes.

The cockroaches. They'd be the only ones left.

the cockroaches. they can actually SURVIVE a nukeular blast. unlike, you know, anything else i can think of.


and i discover that other people have already said that. oh well. it's still my opinion :)

Better dead than red.

Excellent... doom the entirty of humanity to suffering and possible extinction rather than possibly suffer a few decades of occupation and a repressive government, which will collapse at some point, or a conventional war which, though would kill many people, would not actually threaten humanity's existance.

Sorry, I would go with "Better red than dead" in this case. Resist with all you can conventionally, but nuclear war? No.

Its called second strike capability everyone!

That is why no one would win. At all. It is physically impossible to eliminate all of the other side's nuclear weapons in a first strike. The other side can respond before you can destroy all of the weapons.


Because of that, both sides lose.

It is pretty meaningless to discuss a victory when Europe has been wiped clean of human life and is uninhabitable. And that's the inevitable result of a "limited nuclear exchange". Sure, the US and USSR might have come to a 'gentleman's agreement' to have a good clean fight without hitting each others' countries, but the reality is, at the end of it, half a billion people caught in between would be fucked.

The destruction of mechanised formations by tactical nuclear weapons applies equally to NATO too, by the way. The Soviet secondary doctrine of small-unit infantry warfare in the aftermath of a nuclear exchange, fully assumed the destruction of their armour and military organisation above company level, and made provisions for ensuring the same at the other end. From the late 1970s, the Red Army wargamed isolated companies and platoons hunting each other in a contaminated environment, without communications - proper field training, not just on paper.

What you are left with at the end of that, cannot really be called victory. The USSR would remain intact, the US would remain intact, and Europe/NATO would be dead, the US deprived of a strategic ally and the USSR deprived of millions of men for no territorial gain.

What's the point of that? It would represent a failure of humanity that would consign the Holocaust to footnotes.

Its called second strike capability everyone!

That is why no one would win. At all. It is physically impossible to eliminate all of the other side's nuclear weapons in a first strike. The other side can respond before you can destroy all of the weapons.


Because of that, both sides lose.

Anyone see that stupid film "Sum of All Fears"? At some point the advisors are telling the President "If we strioke first we can take out the vast majority of his nuclear arsenal, and all he will have left are his smaller, less accurate more mibile weapons, and we are sure he will retain them to deter against any future threat".

I was just thinking "Ok, 1)What about the Nuclear Missile Submarines? How do you hunt them all down and sink them in the time they would need to ready to launch? 2)Deter against what? You have just bombarded his nation with several nuclear threats, probably reduced several population centres to ash. He wont really have anything you could call a nation left to defend anyway, and if he didnt respond any idea of deterrance against attacking Russia would be completely discredited. He would be forced to respond.

http://ffmedia.ign.com/filmforce/image/article/584/584275/constantine-20050201101418769-000.jpg


The Triumph of Freedom...

Some wars aren't worth fighting.

The Triumph of Death (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Thetriumphofdeath.jpg)...

1) If strategic nukes would have been used, no one wins.

2) If tactical nukes only were used, NATO wins.

3) And if no nukes were used, NATO still wins.

Depends a lot on when also. I'm assuming late eighties here - NATO will fully up-to-date, ready-to-deploy modern tank divisions, the Soviets with big amounts of relatively old material, unreliable allies and poor maintenance.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Nukes.jpg