# Cold War Gone Hot



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2008)

Well I thought it might be neat to discuss what might have happened if the Cold War had gone hot. What would have happened, major events that might have happened (hypothetically speaking), technological differences and tactical differences of each side. Who do you think would have emerged victorious?


----------



## timshatz (Aug 12, 2008)

Back in the 80s, I remember a bunch of scenarios that used to be run involving Western Europe. As I recall, all them ended with the West not stopping the Warsaw Pact. Mostly because they brought more to the party and had shorter re-supply lines. 

After that, it went nuclear. First tactical, then strategic. Lots of units made it through without a scratch, but only because they were on the High Seas, in the Air or Roadbound and on the way somewhere. The the lines of communication were gone. 

Went with stalemate only because it wasn't complete nuclear destruction but the original states weren't running the show either.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 12, 2008)

I went with NATO but I think Europe would have been destroyed - we know the Warsaw Pact had the numerical advantage but I think the short range tactical nukes would have been the deciding factor. I also believe the technological edge would of erased most of the numerical advantage but still the victory would have been at a steep price.

With all that said, I don't think NATO would have been occupying any Soviet territory as well - in the end I believe the victory would have been "conditional."


----------



## rochie (Aug 12, 2008)

have gone with stalemate, mainly because i think nukes would have been used as fighting would have gone on and on and someone on either side may have desperate enough to look for a quick advantage.
not sure about nato's so called quality was as a great an advantage, i think it was there but mabye not as big as advertised and as was said quantity is an advantage all of its own


----------



## timshatz (Aug 12, 2008)

I read a good analysis on the cold war going hot some time ago. One of the points they brought up was there being a pause in the fighting after about 30 days or so because both sides run low on ammunition and other critical suppliers. They use up so much that they litterally have to wait for the next shipment.


----------



## rochie (Aug 12, 2008)

was wondering how realistic was the fighting described in red storm rising by tom clancy ? i mean the known weapon systems not the made up ones like the frisbee stealth aircraft


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2008)

rochie said:


> was wondering how realistic was the fighting described in red storm rising by tom clancy ? i mean the known weapon systems not the made up ones like the frisbee stealth aircraft



Excellent book, I love reading it over and over sometimes. I like to think that is how would have panned out, but I think I have to agree with Joes post up there.

We all know the fighting would have taken place mostly in Western Europe with the Soviets coming though the Fulda Gap. The quick Soviet attack would have pushed NATO further and further back. Tactical nukes would have been deployed and eventually the US would get whole more Mechanized and Armour divisions over to Germany and together with the NATO Allies the war would have been fought to an eventual conditional victory for NATO. Neither side being able to keep any of the enemies land which in the end would signal NATO victory.

The price would be heavy though...


----------



## The Basket (Aug 12, 2008)

Well...be careful what you wish for!

The Russian bear is still swinging!


----------



## JugBR (Aug 12, 2008)

the roachs...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2008)

JugBR said:


> the roachs...


----------



## Amsel (Aug 12, 2008)

I voted for "other". Eastern Europe would be liberated from the commies. Africa and Central America and parts of S.America would become marxist controlled. Cuba would be liberated by pro-American revolutionaries. Seattle would be bombed and burnt to the ground and mass starvation in the USSR would cause millions of civilian casualties. China would most likely donate troops to the Soviet bloc in exchange for food and weapons, but would remain economically inferior. Eventually the U.S.-Mexican border would be militarized to turn back the hordes of refugees from the south and marxist terrorists.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 12, 2008)

Agree with DA; WP would've probably made it close to the Atlantic, if not all the way, before we'd have a chance to push back. I think we would've ended up having to land our forces on the French or Spanish coast by the time we got to Europe with our airborne and seaborne forces; Germany would almost certainly have been overrun by the time we got there. I think it would've come down to NATO (specifically, the US) lobbing a couple of Pershing II's into WP formations, then everybody coming to their senses and deciding this might not be such a good idea (i.e.: escalation). Everybody would back off, we'd declare peace, and the USSR would get to keep Germany.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> and the USSR would get to keep Germany.



That I do not see happening. I think in the end it would have returned to pre war borders.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Aug 13, 2008)

The one thing about Red Storm Rising is that the Soviets lost because of an oil shortage... I'm not quite sure that would have happened. I always thought it would look a little more like World War I with a stalemate, except with nuclear bombs


----------



## Kruska (Aug 13, 2008)

I voted US and NATO.

The Warsaw Pact forces would have run into a stalemate within a week, due to logistical/infrastructural problems, their inferior material and subsequently suffering extreme losses.
In a last effort to turn the tide, the reds would have launched a limited number of mid range nukes into Germany awaiting the response. A similar number of NATO nukes would have been launched into East-Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia signaling; “you want more – you can have it”.

Russia would have called of the attack and in consequence the Eastern Block would have broken apart within weeks.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 14, 2008)

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 (Aug 14, 2008)

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 (Aug 15, 2008)

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 (Aug 15, 2008)

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 (Aug 15, 2008)

Kruska said:


> 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.
> ...




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 (Aug 15, 2008)

JugBR said:


> 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:
> 
> ...



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 (Aug 15, 2008)

timshatz said:


> 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 (Aug 15, 2008)

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 (Aug 15, 2008)

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 (Aug 16, 2008)

RabidAlien said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2008)

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 (Aug 16, 2008)

RabidAlien said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> 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 (Aug 16, 2008)

Kruska said:


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


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 (Aug 16, 2008)

Kruska said:


> 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.



Kruska said:


> 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.


----------



## Kruska (Aug 16, 2008)

Hello JugBR,

NATO has very clear defined statutes’, and Afghanistan therefore was never a NATO mission or NATO response. Afghanistan was a UN sanctioned mission and NATO took over the peacekeeping role after the initial US 911 retaliation.

During the Falkland war, not a single non British soldier was in action supporting the UK up front, merely logistical and weapons delivery assistance and over flight permissions were handed out. NATO did not act accordingly to its Statutes and the British were rightfully darn outraged and upset about this NATO buddy buddy talk alliance. 

It just proves that including the Cold War enemy Russia (Who never attacked because of the US ABC arsenal), NATO was and is a totally ineffective organization. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 16, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Hello JugBR,
> 
> NATO has very clear defined statutes’, and Afghanistan therefore was never a NATO mission or NATO response. Afghanistan was a UN sanctioned mission and NATO took over the peacekeeping role after the initial US 911 retaliation.
> 
> ...


thats due to some really lame members

you really should visit these folks and tell them it was all for naught i can find lots more if you want
Lahr


----------



## Kruska (Aug 16, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> thats due to some really lame members
> 
> you really should visit these folks and tell them it was all for naught i can find lots more if you want
> Lahr



Take a look into history,

Hundreds of German army personal died since NATO's founding, and they died whilst performing their duty, upkeeping Germany's defense, contributing to UN missions. It would have been Germany that needed to be defended against a possible red anslaught - take a look on a map.

Since the other European countries would not have been able to stop a Russian attack based on their individual account they formed NATO, and Germany being the front state was asked to join, since the others didn't want to take the brunt by themselfs - which in turn is logical.

So did Germany join NATO to help out, or did NATO allow Germany to create a new army to join in so as to help NATO? Would the Europeans and the US have helped Germany if Stalin had attacked presumably in 1941-42?

NATO was nothing else but to fill the gap of the Wehrmacht after 1945, since only Germany and its allies had fought against Stalin and the reds. Englands and France's decleration of war against Germany in regards to Poland caused Hitler to go west instead of east as he always planed.

Since Hitler couldn't finish his job, NATO had to be put in place instead.

These are historical facts, they do not excuse Hitlers madness and him starting the war. If Germany had been sucessfull against Russia (and not engaging against the West at first), another NATO would have been formed - against Hitler Germany.

NATO had one very significant advantage though, it forced the Western Europeans to abandon their everlasting brawls and wars and unite them to a common goal – prosperity and coexistence without further wars amongst themselves under US supervision. A longer lasting Napoleonic Empire or even a united Hitler Europe would have resulted in the same effect. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 16, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Take a look into history,
> 
> Hundreds of German army personal died since NATO's founding, and they died whilst performing their duty, upkeeping Germany's defense, contributing to UN missions. It would have been Germany that needed to be defended against a possible red anslaught - take a look on a map.
> 
> ...


How many of your thousands of casualties have been out of Germany proper
NATO was formed after the USAF and RAF kept your new capital Berlin supplied in the airlift 
Remember the tenseness in because of the actions of the Warsaw pact in 56 61 68 81 
Its time for a country your size to stand up and be counted
As the sign reads in Khandahar " No loud noises you'll scare the Germans"


----------



## Kruska (Aug 16, 2008)

```
pbfoot
How many of your thousands of casualties have been out of Germany proper
```

I wrote hundreds not thousands.


```
NATO was formed after the USAF and RAF kept your new capital Berlin supplied in the airlift
```

Was Berlin supplied to help the poor Germans and allied Forces from starvation, or to stop Stalin from grabbing it? I would say the population of Berlin was lucky to be in a place which the allies where not willing to give to Stalin as they did with other parts of Germany.

Treaty of Brussels 17. March 1948 was the forerunner of NATO and caused the Berlin Blockade in the first place in conjunction with the currency introduction.


```
Remember the tenseness in because of the actions of the Warsaw pact in  56 61 68 81
```

I never denied that Russia used force to oppress the eastern countries, and NATO did not achieve anything to stop the Russians from keeping them oppressed till 1990. It was Ronald and the US who killed of Russia by driving them into bankruptcy. And I truly respect him for this feat. 


```
Its time for a country your size to stand up and be counted
```

Who should we stand up to and why? We are perfectly happy with our friends and ourselves, we do not have a Hitler who needs to stand up for whatever.


```
As the sign reads in Khandahar " No loud noises you'll scare the Germans"
```

Personally I do not give a rat’s ass about some silly sign put up in Kandahar or elsewere.

On the other hand you might be misinterpreting the actual meaning of this sign: Do not make noise, if the Germans have a reason to be afraid they will retaliate with all their power and skill and beat the **** out of everybody like in the past centuries.  

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 16, 2008)

Kruska said:


> It just proves that including the Cold War enemy Russia (Who never attacked because of the US ABC arsenal), NATO was and is a totally ineffective organization.
> 
> Regards
> Kruska



Label it what you wish, Kruska. You can attribute success where you want. But NATO exists. WARSAW pact does not. And last I read, the cold war was won. Revisionist history never dies. Its a wonder you can stand to live in your freedom. You must be very conflicted.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 17, 2008)

I agree with Kruska. The bankruptcy of the Soviet Union was not a military achievement of the NATO, but the economical of the reaganist USA. As an military alliance it was been proven itself ineffective when it came to some real action. The NATO was been created only with one purpose - to counter the Russian military threat and fight it in the case of war. That was the primary idea at the time of its founding. That's why when some NATO members were been involved in some local conflicts , no significant military aide was delivered. Simply because the NATO wasn't been created to oppose THAT kind of problems. It was like a gun with a single round in the clip. Effective only in one specific case - the war against USSR.


----------



## JugBR (Aug 17, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Label it what you wish, Kruska. You can attribute success where you want. But NATO exists. WARSAW pact does not. And last I read, the cold war was won. Revisionist history never dies. Its a wonder you can stand to live in your freedom. You must be very conflicted.



cold war wasnt won. thats the real revisionism, thinking cold war had a winner or a loser.

the warsaw pact does not exist because gorbachev ends the brejnev douctrin and gave to soviet satelite states and their republics the freedon to have democratic governments if they want. now, is gorbachev a nato guy ?

i think that point of view, cold war win, is not new, and it shows some lack of humility and some superb by the pompous and arrogant way that western leaders of nato faced the happened of the end of ussr. 

instead to leds the global policies to a new unified state, between west and east, it was a infant opportunity to say - in your face ! - 
instead to support the new born democratic russia, the leaders preferred to see they crash into a economic crisis that made possible things like nuclear proliferation. 

i think its the same arrogance that make today, western leaders dont face the crisis in georgia as it should be faced, and the very wrong policies over eastern europe that creates useless tensions like the missiles shield issues.


----------



## JugBR (Aug 17, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> I agree with Kruska. The bankruptcy of the Soviet Union was not a military achievement of the NATO, but the economical of the reaganist USA. As an military alliance it was been proven ineffective when it came to some real action. The NATO was created only with one purpose - to counter the Russian military threat and fight it in the case of war. That was the primary idea at the time of its founding. That's why when some NATO members were been involved in some local conflicts , no significant military aide was delivered. Simply because the NATO wasn't created to oppose THAT kind of problems. It was like a gun with a single round in the clip. Effective only in one specific case - the war against USSR.



agreed. and for the nato, if ussr doesnt wanted war anymore, its was a signal of defeat, not an oportunity to move a step forward in international relations.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 17, 2008)

Yes it is agiven that the USSR when bankrupt 
Prior to that it was a Mexican standoff it was as close to war to it could get at points , I really doubt many of you remember the Cuban Missle crisis or the invasion of Prague and other similar incidents. 
Of course your not aware of false Navaids set up to entice aircraft or ships to encroach Soviet territory. 
Was it ever the intention of NATO to free eastern Europe NO
Was it the intention of the USSR to get Western Europe Yes
Were Nuclear armed bombers on both sides orbiting 24/7 
Were Nuclear armed armed subs sitting off both sides coast 24/7
Why would Canada have 400 fighters in Europe in the 50's and 60's?
maybe so they have some uncongested airspace and good weather to fly in 


If NATO does not exist Kruska would now be whining about driving a Trabant or Lada


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 17, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Was it ever the intention of NATO to free eastern Europe NO



yeah, they didn't intend to free it, they intended to bomb it into stone age in a preemptive strike. See "Dropshot" plan.


----------



## JugBR (Aug 17, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Yes it is agiven that the USSR when bankrupt
> Prior to that it was a Mexican standoff it was as close to war to it could get at points , I really doubt many of you remember the Cuban Missle crisis or the invasion of Prague and other similar incidents.
> Of course your not aware of false Navaids set up to entice aircraft or ships to encroach Soviet territory.
> Was it ever the intention of NATO to free eastern Europe NO
> ...



invasion of prague ? are you talking about prague spring ? when the population of prague was instigated to make protests by the "radio free europe" - a western instrument of propaganda then ussr army occupy the country and nato did nothing ? 

funny thing is that i found a website of RFE, seems like they still instigating people against ussr or what they think still been ussr. should nato thinks russia is ussr too ?

i think in the past some soviet low profile supporters could said to some eastern germans protesters that if the wall wasnt built they would be driving mercedes or bmw´s  maybe a vw passat...

ridiculous isnt ? a trabant for a bmw... but the real deal is the wall. still in some people minds...


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 17, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> yeah, they didn't intend to free it, they intended to bomb it into stone age in a preemptive strike. See "Dropshot" plan.


The key word being preemptive


----------



## JugBR (Aug 17, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> The key word being preemptive



preemption ? or a mc carthyist paranoia ?


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 17, 2008)

JugBR said:


> preemption ? or a mc carthyist paranoia ?


I'm in Canada ......but you being from Brazil with its 20 long years of Democracy 1988 its hard to tell the difference .
I guess your right they built that wall and fence just to keep us away from that socialist paradise 
I always used to say to myself don't those Young Pioneer uniforms look so much better then my Boy Scout suit and I'm sure I'd like to explore all those spas in Siberia fresh air excercise and the Soviet confessional was far more awakening then that of the Catholic Church


----------



## JugBR (Aug 17, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I'm in Canada ......but you being from Brazil with its 20 long years of Democracy 1988 its hard to tell the difference .
> I guess your right they built that wall and fence just to keep us away from that socialist paradise
> I always used to say to myself don't those Young Pioneer uniforms look so much better then my Boy Scout suit and I'm sure I'd like to explore all those spas in Siberia fresh air excercise and the Soviet confessional was far more awakening then that of the Catholic Church



pb, in 70´s we spank your commies and fry them with electric wires. to defend freedom we throw some marxist students in the ocean... all in the name of the fight against the reds.

wheres the recognition ?

Augusto Pinochet, Costa e Silva, Emilio Garrastazu médici, Jorge Rafael Videla great names of the fight for a free world !

btw our first democratic ellection wasnt in 1988, but in 1990 and it was a good stuff because wouldnt took the risk of ellect a comunist president ! thats what the right wingers from military dictatureships and the CIA fellows believed.

whe have democracy before that, but in 64, our president gave a stupid medal for che guevara then was decided brazil should no longer be a democracy.

freedon is when you have the right to choose... the right option !!!

  

and isnt that in everywhere ?

how many comunists canada killed or tortured ? we killed them in many forms, not good enough ? we also tortured thousand of those red commies giving to them hard sequels for all life. of course some of those wasnt really commies, just students, or democrats, peacefull people, but who cares ? i dont care, wasnt me, let them burn in hell !

not complaining buddy, just asking for the appropriate recognition for the work done. and hell it was well done !!!


----------



## Kruska (Aug 17, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> .......and I'm sure I'd like to explore all those spas in Siberia fresh air excercise and the Soviet confessional was far more awakening then that of the Catholic Church



Hell, for no money in the world would I like to book a beach trip to the super democratic lead Cuban - US compound to make a confession. Or does quantity or numbers decide about right and wrong?

As for your pro NATO argumentation above and Canadas contribution: If Germany had been on its own to defend its territory without any outside help and no restrictions on its weapons development and purchase program (its "NATO Brothers" did not allow Germany to possess ABC weapons), Russia would have never attacked, since it would have resulted into the same devestating outlook. And Ronald would still have screwed them into bankrupcy.

NATO was a blown up, overproportionate, conventional weapons, $$ consuming waste, simply because Germany was denied ABC weapons in order to protect itsself. And as a result, Germany had no choice but to seek protection within NATO to evade a possible retaliation by Russia that was getting itsself into a Cold War with the US and as such with NATO.

Oh sure, we were such fantastic NATO buddies that we Germans had to get the approval from our NATO brethrens - and had to countersign "securities" in order to receive the "permission" to reunite with our own countrymen in East Germany. A guy called Gorbi and a Russian government (Communists) did not impose a single questionable demand on us in regards to Germany's reunification, but meerly politely forwarded a need for financial support.
That is what I call a friend and a truly outright government, especially after what the Germans had done to Russia 45 years before.

We had US NATO officer comrades, standing behind us during manouvers with their hands on their pistols, simulating the clear order to use weapon force if the Germans would not act accordingly to NATO orders, and many other not public known issues. NATO's ABC arsenal was pointed at Germany besides the reds.

So I would about be the last person to be impressed about this NATO "one for all and all for one" BS

How come the evil big red bear never attacked the helpless non NATO countries, Finland and Sweden? after all to certain NATO believes (Until today) Stalin and his followers wanted to conquer the West. How come they never attacked Iran? (You must know that Iran has oil) How come that they never even attacked anyone after 1950. Yes they oppressed liberation movements in their sattelite countries, were is the difference to what Holland did in Indonesia, France, Portugal, Spains and Englands Colonial wars. Not to mention the wars the US was involved in with their own army until today. 

Off all the things in regards to NATO you forward the US-Cuban Crisis, I love that one, what was Pershing II in the 80's about? what was and is NATO doing presently? Russia would say they are moving the threat of NATO's Armed Forces just next to Russias borders. Offcourse NATO calls it a defence against the ever evil big bear, who is in an everlasting attack mood.

The Russians tried to base nukes next to the US, the US intervened - I got no objection to this - Hell the Russians had hundreds of nukes next to Germany - probably NATO and the US should have threatend them with a Nuke war. The Russians took them away from Cuba (only Cuba) and replaced them with nuke carring subs - who could get even closer to the US.

pbfoot, I am not blind to what Russia did or wanted, but I am not one sided and therefore do not close my eyes towards the other side. 

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 17, 2008)

...there's that confliction again.


----------



## Kruska (Aug 17, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> ...there's that confliction again.



Which you obiously have - being one sided -

If you would care to acctually read and understand my post, e.g. first statement, you might be able to understand that I am just forwarding that the Siberian camps and interrogation methods used by Russia are just as much against human rights (About which the US cares sooooo much) as those that the US is maintaining on Cuba.

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 17, 2008)

Siberian camps and interrogation methods = Camp Gitmo

Bloody brilliant.

Again the confliction.


----------



## Kruska (Aug 17, 2008)

*Matt308;Siberian camps and interrogation methods = Camp Gitmo

Bloody brilliant.*

Thanks, I hoped so

Oh, I just noticed that you made mod, congratulations - what a confliction -

Regards
Kruska


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 17, 2008)

Easy Simba. Consider yourself warned.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 17, 2008)

Kruska said:


> Oh, I just noticed that you made mod, congratulations - what a confliction -
> 
> Regards
> Kruska



What's up with the personal attacks here?


----------



## stasoid (Aug 18, 2008)

As one of those who grew up in the USSR in 70th and 80th I doubt the soviets had ever planned to invade Western Europe, at least in that period of time. France and Germany were seen in the USSR more like friends rather then enemies. We felt like we were in the same boat with the rest of Europe being taken hostage by the US' so-called national interests.
The soviet version of Axis of Evil those days went from US through Israel to Pakistan. Great Britain along with Japan, as I recall, were rearly mentioned as unfriendly, more in context of being US' puppets in their regions.

Had Cold War ever gone hot, the main targets, I think, would have been US cities along East Coast. First salvo from russian subs in the Atlantic would turn that whole area into a moonscape. Then the West Coast and numerouse US military bases around the globe would have been wiped out within first few minutes of the conflict. 
A seize fire agreement would have been signed on day two of the war.

With Brezhnev's doctrine of "Peaceful coexistance" I dont think it would be the soviets to fire the first shot, but if under attack, they had guts to go all the way to the end, crazy commies.

So, I vote for Nuclear Holocaust.


----------



## JugBR (Aug 18, 2008)

stasoid said:


> As one of those who grew up in the USSR in 70th and 80th I doubt the soviets had ever planned to invade Western Europe, at least in that period of time. France and Germany were seen in the USSR more like friends rather then enemies. We felt like we were in the same boat with the rest of Europe being taken hostage by the US' so-called national interests.
> The soviet version of Axis of Evil those days went from US through Israel to Pakistan. Great Britain along with Japan, as I recall, were rearly mentioned as unfriendly, more in context of being US' puppets in their regions.
> 
> Had Cold War ever gone hot, the main targets, I think, would have been US cities along East Coast. First salvo from russian subs in the Atlantic would turn that whole area into a moonscape. Then the West Coast and numerouse US military bases around the globe would have been wiped out within first few minutes of the conflict.
> ...



as one of those who grew in s. america in 80´s when the military dicatureship was ending, i learned first that comunists was evil people that ate childrens. soviet union wanted to conquest our lands and take off our "freedom".

those who supported marxist ideals was like devils and should be defeated by or national security forces. a student that complained about government was a terrorist for example.

then came the democracy and everything became confuse. the marxists wasnt evil anymore and the dictatureship pro-usa tortured, killed or banned those who was for a democratic government.

stasoid i think in both sides, we had the impression everything is normal and goes fine. but now we see that soviet union like south american dictatureships was very brutal regim. in the end, everything was allowed to defeat the enemy. this talk about "free world against evil empire" is some kind of propaganda. the "free world" wasnt that free and the "evil empire" wasnt that evil, but both leaders was superpowers and like all superpowers led all world into a struggle of ideologies and power between themselves.

-----------------------------------------

well if a nuclear war really happened, i believe would be good that a soviet bomb fall right over my house. then the death would be quick and painless. others wouldnt had the same lucky. they would die weeks or months after the war.

i think the only guys to survive, would be the presidents of major western powers and their staff, with some playmates and top models and the soviet leaders with some "comunist version of playmates and top models"

the rest of us(the suckers) would die like miserable rats !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 18, 2008)

stasoid said:


> As one of those who grew up in the USSR in 70th and 80th I doubt the soviets had ever planned to invade Western Europe, at least in that period of time. France and Germany were seen in the USSR more like friends rather then enemies. We felt like we were in the same boat with the rest of Europe being taken hostage by the US' so-called national interests.



Well as someone who grew up in Germany during that same time period and I do not recall that kind of feeling here in Germany towards the US. Relations were actually pretty damn good.

Please state your facts that show that Germany felt they were taken hostage? Communist propaganda does not count either...


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 18, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well as someone who grew up in Germany during that same time period and I do not recall that kind of feeling here in Germany towards the US. Relations were actually pretty damn good.
> 
> Please state your facts that show that Germany felt they were taken hostage? Communist propaganda does not count either...




Hello D.A.I.G, 

there were strong antiamerican ressentiments in Germany indeed. Remember all those demonstrations against the stationing of US troops in Germany etc. I know quite a lot of German students from my Austauschprogramm and they are not that proamerican either.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 18, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> Hello D.A.I.G,
> 
> there were strong antiamerican ressentiments in Germany indeed. Remember all those demonstrations against the stationing of US troops in Germany etc. I know quite a lot of German students from my Austauschprogramm and they are not that proamerican either.



There was a loud segment of the European society that was strongly left in the late 70s. Red Army Faction (Baader-Mienhoff), Red Brigade and similar groups had substantial support amongst the student populations of Western Europe. It's something of a phase students go through in college. However, for every 100 or so sympathizer, there was only one that actually did anything (usually marches or graphitti). 

There were even groups of that type in the US. SDS, SLA and the Weathermen would be examples. 

However, these groups were very small and did not reflect the general consensus of the population. When their actions moved from the arena of protests the active revolution, there was a violent and visceral reaction by the population against them. Such support as they had (very limited at it's best) dissappeared and the groups were hunted down and jailed. 

The idea that Western Europe was in some way negative as a whole to the US presence is very, very far fetched.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 18, 2008)

stasoid said:


> Had Cold War ever gone hot, the main targets, I think, would have been US cities along East Coast. First salvo from russian subs in the Atlantic would turn that whole area into a moonscape. Then the West Coast and numerouse US military bases around the globe would have been wiped out within first few minutes of the conflict.
> A seize fire agreement would have been signed on day two of the war.



From what I have read, the Soviets didn't put their subs in the Atlantic that often. Not the boomers. It was a mistake of the west to think the Russian sub fleet operated on the same strategic basis as the Nato navies. 

My understanding is the Soviets knew of the SOSUS line and the strong probability of their sub fleet being tracked once they passed Iceland. As such, they usually didn't send their boomers south. 

There strategy was to keep them north and west of Murmansk in what was called "the bastion". The Boomers were protected by the Attack subs. It was the job of the Nato Attack subs to go up there and find them, under the ice. 

Even now specifics are hard to get but the general understanding is they were a reserve and not the front line force, launched as a second or third line attack. The Strategic Rocket Services, being relatively immoble, were the first line and first launch weapons, along with the long range bombers. The primary targets were not American or European cities but Counter Attack or Attack assets (Missle Silos, Airports, Sub Bases, ect.). The average warhead was in the range of 550kt and usually were mirvs. 

The cities are usually the last thing hit, and at that point, you are just going for mass destruction anyway. When the cities start going up in smoke, your talking Armageddon.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 18, 2008)

JugBR said:


> well if a nuclear war really happened, i believe would be good that a soviet bomb fall right over my house. then the death would be quick and painless. others wouldnt had the same lucky. they would die weeks or months after the war.
> 
> i think the only guys to survive, would be the presidents of major western powers and their staff, with some playmates and top models and the soviet leaders with some "comunist version of playmates and top models"
> 
> the rest of us(the suckers) would die like miserable rats !



Actually Jug, I think you would've probably survived it. South American was not nuclearized and really had a limited threat to anyone. Same with Africa and the middle east. Being that most weather paterns stay north and south of the equator, even nuclear fallout would've been (probably, but not definitely) limited in your end of the world. 

Instead of being destroyed by a Nuclear war, odds are Brazil would've probably come out as some kind of regional superpower. Not because of anything she did, but because she wasn't in it at all.


----------



## stasoid (Aug 18, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Please state your facts that show that Germany felt they were taken hostage? Communist propaganda does not count either...



Those facts are well known to everyone - numerous anti-nuclear protests in Western Europe in late 70th and early 80th. The question is who were those people - students, houswives or just some left-wing pacifists. And an anti-military protest was not necessarily anti-american or anti-soviet. The main objective was a complete removal of intermediate range nukes from Europe and that was acheived by signing a treaty at the end of 80th eliminating this class of missles.


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 18, 2008)

stasoid said:


> Those facts are well known to everyone - numerous anti-nuclear protests in Western Europe in late 70th and early 80th. The question is who were those people - students, houswives or just some left-wing pacifists. And an anti-military protest was not necessarily anti-american or anti-soviet. The main objective was a complete removal of intermediate range nukes from Europe and that was acheived by signing a treaty at the end of 80th eliminating this class of missles.


yes there was rioting and protests but I don't believe the same option was open to students in the WarPac countries . The students were probably more interested in trying to obtain jeans and Beatle music .


----------



## timshatz (Aug 18, 2008)

Hey Stasoid, did you catch this Fashion show in Moscow back in the 80s. Given the options, I can see where an invasion of the west be a good idea!


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va_IIOKYl6M_


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 18, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> Hello D.A.I.G,
> 
> there were strong antiamerican ressentiments in Germany indeed. Remember all those demonstrations against the stationing of US troops in Germany etc. I know quite a lot of German students from my Austauschprogramm and they are not that proamerican either.



Just because some people protest does not mean that they speak for a whole country. There are protests against homosexuals on a daily basis in the United States. Does that mean that everyone in the United States is anti homosexual?


I lived in Germany during that time, did you?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 18, 2008)

stasoid said:


> Those facts are well known to everyone - numerous anti-nuclear protests in Western Europe in late 70th and early 80th. The question is who were those people - students, houswives or just some left-wing pacifists. And an anti-military protest was not necessarily anti-american or anti-soviet. The main objective was a complete removal of intermediate range nukes from Europe and that was acheived by signing a treaty at the end of 80th eliminating this class of missles.



Sorry but that is no proof what so ever at all. That is just your believe and analysis of what you think the truth to be. People protesting do not speak for the nation as a whole.

Sorry try again...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 18, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> yes there was rioting and protests but I don't believe the same option was open to students in the WarPac countries . The students were probably more interested in trying to obtain jeans and Beatle music .



Very good point, and that is also a big difference between the West and the Soviets right there.


----------



## stasoid (Aug 18, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Hey Stasoid, did you catch this Fashion show in Moscow back in the 80s. Given the options, I can see where an invasion of the west be a good idea!
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va_IIOKYl6M_




Funny commercial! Having no choice is no fun. For sure. 
That's one of the main reasons the USSR has collapsed - its inefficient socialis economy ate the country from inside.

_Just because some people protest does not mean that they speak for a whole country_

Agree. But I dont believe that the silent majority of western europeans have ever enjoyed having nuclear missles placed in their backyards either. It's obviouse that type of weapon didnt make them feel safer in any way.

It would be nice to hear a Frenchman or German's who remembers that time, opinion on that matter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 18, 2008)

stasoid said:


> Agree. But I dont believe that the silent majority of western europeans have ever enjoyed having nuclear missles placed in their backyards either. It's obviouse that type of weapon didnt make them feel safer in any way.



It may not have, but that again does not prove your theory. Your theory is only an opinion of what you think the truth to be.

The United States has no more nuclear tipped missiles in Germany, the Germans still protest about nuclear weapons. What does that prove? Nothing.

The city of Stuttgart has a population of 590,429 and the whole metropolitan of Stuttgart has a population of 2.7 million people. The HQ for US European Command is there. Every year there are 3 or 4 demonstrations right outside the front gate. Do you know how many people turn up for it? On average about 45 or 50 people. That is one in every 54,000 people living in the Stuttgart area.

Do you know who they are? Mostly far left students. Why do they do it? Because they think it is cool. They skip school and walk around in T-Shirts with a red star on it. Yeah Communism is very cool... 

Where I live in Ansbach we just had a demonstration a few weeks ago. Ansbach has a population of 40723 people. Do you know how many people showed up for the demonstration? 12 people (4 of them were the 5 or 6 year old children of some of the protesters so they do not count because the only opinion they have is what flavor Kool-Aid they are wnat ). That is 1 in every 5090 people living in Ansbach.

Do you know who they are? 4 were children about 5 or 6 years old how were brought by there parents. 6 were students and 2 were former American soldiers who got out of the Army.



stasoid said:


> It would be nice to hear a Frenchman or German's who remembers that time, opinion on that matter.



So my opinion does not count on it. At the time I held a German passport, and I still have lived in Germany for the majority of my life.

Thanks...


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 18, 2008)

timshatz said:


> From what I have read, the Soviets didn't put their subs in the Atlantic that often. Not the boomers. It was a mistake of the west to think the Russian sub fleet operated on the same strategic basis as the Nato navies.
> 
> My understanding is the Soviets knew of the SOSUS line and the strong probability of their sub fleet being tracked once they passed Iceland. As such, they usually didn't send their boomers south.



in the early -to mid 1980ies at least three or four subs were on patrol at one time in the Northern Atlantic.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 18, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Hey Stasoid, did you catch this Fashion show in Moscow back in the 80s. Given the options, I can see where an invasion of the west be a good idea!
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Va_IIOKYl6M_




lol what a cheap capitalist crap   "Not our methods" (c) V.I. Lenin


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 18, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Just because some people protest does not mean that they speak for a whole country. There are protests against homosexuals on a daily basis in the United States. Does that mean that everyone in the United States is anti homosexual?


That depends.
As I suggest, you lived mostly in South Germany. Well I spent much time in Berlin both West and East and I tell you what. There're more centrists and lefties that you can ever imagine, then and now. What was the quote of the SPD and PDS during the last elections? 60 or 70 percent I believe? Guess how proamerican those voters are?
That depends,really..


> I lived in Germany during that time, did you?



in _other_ Germany, yes, quite a long time.


----------



## stasoid (Aug 18, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It may not have, but that again does not prove your theory. Your theory is only an opinion of what you think the truth to be.
> 
> So my opinion does not count on it. At the time I held a German passport, and I still have lived in Germany for the majority of my life.
> 
> Thanks...



OK, let it be just my theory.

And you opinion counts, of course, ... among other opinions.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 18, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> That depends.
> As I suggest, you lived mostly in South Germany. Well I spent much time in Berlin both West and East and I tell you what. There're more centrists and lefties that you can ever imagine, then and now. What was the quote of the SPD and PDS during the last elections? 60 or 70 percent I believe? Guess how proamerican those voters are?
> That depends,really..



Actually I lived for about 8 years in the Ruhr gebiet...

As you say it does depend on where you go. Of course in the former East Germany there are lots of far leftists. What do you expect after living under the Communist Soviet thumb print for so long.

Again the point is this: 

1. A minority can not speak for a whole nation.

2. While you are entitled to your opinion, and believe me when I say that I want to hear your opinion. An opinion however is not fact so please do not call it fact...




Ramirezzz said:


> in _other_ Germany, yes, quite a long time.



But do you really know the true German, or do you only know the Germans you chose to surround yourself with?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 18, 2008)

stasoid said:


> OK, let it be just my theory.
> 
> And you opinion counts, of course, ... among other opinions.



Please do not take me wrong. You are entitled to your opinion and as I said to Ramierezzz, I certainly want to hear your opinion.

Fact is though that a minority can not speak for a whole nation, and an opinion is not fact.


----------



## stasoid (Aug 18, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Fact is though that a minority can not speak for a whole nation, and an opinion is not fact.



Agree, but on the other hand, that silent majority of ordinary people who never participate in any kind of organized protests or rallys wouldnt be automaically counted as pro- nuclear/military/american etc... either


----------



## pbfoot (Aug 18, 2008)

stasoid said:


> Agree, but on the other hand, that silent majority of ordinary people who never participate in any kind of organized protests or rallys wouldnt be automaically counted as pro- nuclear/military/american etc... either


Thats also a fact but then the silent majority went to the polls with more then one viable option and the majority ruled the weapons were there . I recall when the initial cruise missle tests were flown in Canada and when the USAF guys recovered the unit it was plastered with" refuse the cruise stickers "
they were some pissed off and the guys who stuck them on as a jpke thought it some what humourous


----------



## Ramirezzz (Aug 18, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> > 2. While you are entitled to your opinion, and believe me when I say that I want to hear your opinion. An opinion however is not fact so please do not call it fact...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 18, 2008)

Hmmm.. .sounds like stasiod would make a good US conservative. You just painted the majority of conservatives perfectly. They are too busy WORKING to participate in organized protests or rallys.

Good post.


----------



## stasoid (Aug 18, 2008)

Matt, that's what I'm doing in Canada - too busy, working hard, paying my taxes, never participating in any anti-war... etc activities, I always vote for Conservatives, but that doesnt mean I support all of their hard-line initiatives in foreign affairs.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 18, 2008)

It wasn't an accusation. Relax.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 18, 2008)

So what brings you up north, to British Columbia?


----------



## JugBR (Aug 18, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Actually Jug, I think you would've probably survived it. South American was not nuclearized and really had a limited threat to anyone. Same with Africa and the middle east. Being that most weather paterns stay north and south of the equator, even nuclear fallout would've been (probably, but not definitely) limited in your end of the world.
> 
> Instead of being destroyed by a Nuclear war, odds are Brazil would've probably come out as some kind of regional superpower. Not because of anything she did, but because she wasn't in it at all.



i dont like that "superpower" stuff, it gives too much problems... better would be brazil, argentina and the others joint to make another kind of political order or civilization. maybe come back to the past and starts where incas stopped then carry on.

but i still believe if ussr and usa would declare war to each other, the world would be destroyed as a whole. the only survivors would be the roaches and some politicians, wich is almost the same, instead roaches have 6 legs and politicians 4.


----------



## stasoid (Aug 18, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> So what brings you up north, to British Columbia?



I found it a perfect retreat in case of a full scale nuclear exchange


----------



## timshatz (Aug 19, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> in the early -to mid 1980ies at least three or four subs were on patrol at one time in the Northern Atlantic.



Have heard and read the number was larger. Combining Fast Attack with Boomer numbers. Both were out on two different missions. Boomers went out to hide and prep for the big one. Fast Attack went out to find the boomers (Nato navies) and find Nato boomers and protect their own boomers (Soviet navy). Also, both sides were using their Fast Attacks for odd jobs (espionage, recon, ect).

Soviets, to my understanding, had a lot of subs out at any given time, most staying north, up in the Arctic. Not saying they didn't come down into the North Atlantic, plenty did. But the Soviet Intell on Nato detection was very good. Their spies were better (or at least their security services were further into the Nato system). 

Knew all about SOSUS.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 19, 2008)

JugBR said:


> i dont like that "superpower" stuff, it gives too much problems...QUOTE]
> 
> Most people don't! Too expensive and pisses everyone off.
> 
> ...


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 19, 2008)

Yep... 4 legs and all.


----------



## RabidAlien (Aug 20, 2008)

The only thing wrong with politics is there's too many politicians involved.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 20, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> I knew Germans of pretty all social levels and they expressed pretty various opinions.



Ditto!

You just helped prove my point!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 20, 2008)

stasoid said:


> Agree, but on the other hand, that silent majority of ordinary people who never participate in any kind of organized protests or rallys wouldnt be automaically counted as pro- nuclear/military/american etc... either



You are correct, but again a minority can not speak for a country as a whole, therefore your arguement and example have no merit.

Please dont take me wrong. All I am saying, is that it is nothing more than an opinion and therefore when used in this arguement has no merit.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 20, 2008)

Actually, if taken to an ideological level, a democratic society is a situation where the "silent majority" does speak for the will of the people by voting. That vote and the party that it brings in represents the will of the people. 

However, for the vote to be truely democratic, there has to be parties representing the will of the people and not just a vote to validate the existence of a Totalitarian state (be it Socialist, Facist or Communist).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 20, 2008)

timshatz said:


> However, for the vote to be truely democratic, there has to be parties representing the will of the people and not just a vote to validate the existence of a Totalitarian state (be it Socialist, Facist or Communist).



I love how you use Socialism in the same way as you do Facism... 

_"Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, central state-controlled economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics."_

So please explain how they are close to each other?


----------



## timshatz (Aug 20, 2008)

Using Socialist more along the lines of a very lite variety of Communism. What really matters is the totalitarian state. They call themselves everything under the sun except a Democracy. No way they can get that one past. 

For example, the Soviet Union was closer to a socialist state (IMHO) than a communist state. For a true communist state, I would look at something like the Khymer Rouge. 

A true communist state is almost unrecognizeable to our eye. It would be almost a bee hive (sans queen) in terms of equality in all facets of the word. The KR attempted to move towards that end and the results are the true (again, IMHO) results of a human attempt at communism in it's most pure form. Beyond slaughter as humans have no value beyond their existence as workers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 20, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Using Socialist more along the lines of a very lite variety of Communism. What really matters is the totalitarian state. They call themselves everything under the sun except a Democracy. No way they can get that one past.



I am not a big fan of socialism either, but I do not see your comparison. To say that the socialist regimes of Western Europe are a lighter form of communism is a very uninformed conclusion.



timshatz said:


> For example, the Soviet Union was closer to a socialist state (IMHO) than a communist state. For a true communist state, I would look at something like the Khymer Rouge.



If that is the case, then what are the governments of England and Germany for example? They are even farther removed from communism than the Soviet Union was (in using your conclusion here).

Both have multiple parties (more parties than the United States has). Both allow free elections. Both allow the people to speak up against the government. Both have just about the same amount of freedoms (minus the right to bear arms) that "Democratic" regimes such as the United States have.

The only big difference is the amount of taxes (which is why I do not like Socialist governments) and health care. 

I am sorry, but I do not agree with your statement here. I think it is rather uninformed. Not trying to insult you however...


----------



## timshatz (Aug 20, 2008)

No offense intended and none taken. No worries on that score. Good back and forth has this in it.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 20, 2008)

Don't put the countries in Western Europe in the Socialist line. Didn't say that. At least I don't think I said that. Apologies if I did but they really aren't socialist (no matter what Americans toss back and forth when they call the CAC and DAX workers "the Socialist"). I would consider them an odd case but definitely Democratic. A flavor definitely imparted by their history.

Western Europe, is, again IMHO, a Democratic confluence with Socialist aspects to it and a weird leftover of Monarchism in there as well. But they change Govts way too often (via open and fairly effective voting processes) to be considered anything but Democracies. Also, they are responsive to the will of the people. The Socialist aspects are the welfare state perspectives of a safety net in various forms, accross all aspects of life (Workers Rights, Healthcare, Social Security, ect). These aspects have roots back in the Monarchies of the Second Riech (a version of Social Security being available to the German workers as far back as the turn of last century).

The Monarchist aspect is something that will take generations to remove. But the Ruling Class is still evident (in a much reduced form) in Europe. It will eventually go away, but there is a "us/them" mentality in Europe that I see solidifying now in the Ratification of the EU Constitution. Plenty of the rank and file of Europe don't seem to like the idea of the EU (as the Governing body) while the elected officials seem to be solidly behind it. 

But back to the point. Don't see Western Europe (and, in fact the vast majority of Europe itself) as being Socialist. Not even close. Socialist countries are not particularly common today. Cuba would be a rough example of it. Venezuela seems to be heading that way. But most of them are pretty much gone.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 20, 2008)

Okay I see where you are coming from, and I now agree with you.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 20, 2008)

Cool.

The only real question I have is how is the EU going to work in Europe. In an odd way, it really got the name right. It is a Union. Much like a Labor Union, a layer of management on top of the various Govts. It hands down edicts on how the interactions between the various Govts will work and how the various peoples will interact. It really has all the aspects of becoming a sprawling, all encompassing beaurocracy. I am very interested in seeing how it shakes out, especially with the French and more recently, the Irish turning it down. 

Further, and this was a sticking point in American Federalism, can a country leave the EU if it wants? The American Civil war was fought based on the idea that a State couldn't leave the Union of it's own design. Once your in, you're in forever. How will the EU handle this when it comes up?

Plenty of interesting questions that have yet to be solved. Interesting to see how it plays out and what outside forces will affect it.


----------



## mkloby (Aug 20, 2008)

One crucial area where European communist and socialist parties diverged was in the implementation of the means to establish a socialist society. Ultimate theoretical end state may have been the same, but the method was different. Socialist parties worked within the established democratic mechanisms, whereas many communist believed that this was the antithesis of their goal and incompatible with the acheivement of the end-state; they sought to erase the institutions of democratic government and start anew. Many communists believed that this would not be possible without armed insurrection. This conundrum appears to be one of the major points of contention among socialists since the beginning.

The history of socialism is very interesting and filled with irony - and very worthy of study regardless of your opinion.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 20, 2008)

Good post Matt.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 21, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Cool.
> 
> The only real question I have is how is the EU going to work in Europe. In an odd way, it really got the name right. It is a Union. Much like a Labor Union, a layer of management on top of the various Govts. It hands down edicts on how the interactions between the various Govts will work and how the various peoples will interact. It really has all the aspects of becoming a sprawling, all encompassing beaurocracy. I am very interested in seeing how it shakes out, especially with the French and more recently, the Irish turning it down.
> 
> ...



Most of the people I know can not stand the EU. They do not like anything about it.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

A hot war with nuclear weapons... = MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction)


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 7, 2008)

IMHO, the problem with the EU is that it occupies a very unclear position in European politics. Edicts are handed down from Brussels, but the EU cannot enforce them in the way the US federal government try to could enforce a statute against a state. Indeed, it is proverbial here in the UK that the closer one gets to Brussels, the less EU regulations are adhered to. 

However, I don't think that the EU is as despised as it was back in the 90s. With no disrespect intended, I believe that there is a growing feeling, in the UK at least, that we should be aware of alternatives to the post-1945 alliance with the US. The UK has now completed repayment of it's war debts to the US, freeing us of a large financial obligation. And I have to agree with other posters that NATO has done next to nothing to help it's European members when attacked. While Canada and Portugal offered basing rights during the Falklands conflict, this could have been achieved without NATO - Canada after all has close historical ties with the UK and Portugal had nothing to gain by refusing assistance. The real 'benefit' of NATO - having a superpower to back you up when threatened, has never been made available to European members - Georgia is a stark example of this. On the other hand, there is a perception that when the US went to war in Afghanistan and especially Iraq, European members were expected to provide troops, although the wars were deeply unpopular in Europe. Certainly, very few people in the UK supported the Iraq invasion at the time, and it is now known that the intelligence used to justify deployment was inaccurate and had been altered to support a deployment that the government knew had no popular support.

I think the development of the European rapid reaction force is a positive step, and it will eventually supplant and then replace the NATO alliance, Europe is increasingly acting in concert with itself and seeing it's foreign policy as being separate from that of the US for the first time in 60 years. It is only logical that the transatlantic alliance system will dissolve, as the reality it was designed to meet no longer exists.

BTW, before someone jumps on me, I am not anti-American, pro-terrorist, or anything else of the king. I think we are seeing a major shift in global politics, with Europe rising as a power in it's ow right. Inevitably, that means there will be substantial change in political alignments.


----------



## Amsel (Dec 7, 2008)

Times have changed. The European countries do not need our assistance right now. But when assistance was needed we helped. And I can imagine if they are ever needed again we will send millions of our boys into harms way.


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 7, 2008)

That's the point, Amsel - when Georgia needed help, NATO looked the other way. If America is serious about maintaining it's European alliance, it needs to offer something tangible. European troops are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan in wars that have very little popular support. There doesn't seem to be any gain to this - bin Laden has not been caught, the Taliban has not been crushed, and there still aren't any WMDs in Iraq. That is how a lot of people over here perceive the situation. Yet when Russia attacks a European NATO state... like I say, NATO looked the other way.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 7, 2008)

Georgia is/was NOT a NATO state. The list of NATO nations is on the NATO website:
NATO Member Countries

NATO did not "look the other way" as you say. If you expected NATO to go in there, guns blazing, then you are also expecting to create an international incident of unprecedented danger.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 7, 2008)

BombTaxi said:


> . European troops are fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan in wars that have very little popular support. There doesn't seem to be any gain to this - bin Laden has not been caught, the Taliban has not been crushed,.


I think that the US has let down NATO in Afghanistan however most of the NATO nations in Afghanistan are bogus and are hiding out in safety . Belgium , Germany, Spain , Italy they have big numbers of personel but lack political or military balls . 

http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/isaf_placemat_081201.pdf


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I think that the US has let down NATO in Afghanistan


And how is that????? Right now, from what I understand all forces are under a central NATO command. It wasn't that bleak of a picture when there was a sole US commander running the show.

Folks - don't think for one second those running the war in Afghanistan ever think they are going to entirely eradicate the Taliban. That mission will be left to left the Afghanistan Government do that and eventually we will pack our bags and leave. This was echoed by our President elect this morning on a TV show here in the US.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2008)

BombTaxi said:


> when Georgia needed help, NATO looked the other way.


Georgia got what it deserved and they are lucky they are still in tact as a country. The leader of Georgia is a loose cannon and now Georgia should never be part of NATO.

Why even have NATO? It's an obsolete concept.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 7, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And how is that????? Right now, from what I understand all forces are under a central NATO command. It wasn't that bleak of a picture when there was a sole US commander running the show.


can't ever recall our guys ever wanting to be under US control usually the opposite, and if you weren't farting around in Iraq maybe mo one would be in this situation


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> can't ever recall our guys ever wanting to be under US control usually the opposite, and if you weren't farting around in Iraq maybe mo one would be in this situation


And again what situation is this??? Flat out, the US turned the operation over to "NATO" and its gone to sh!t, and that's not taking anything away from the guys on the ground. Sorry but some of the NATO leadership running the show are nothing more than a bunch of whiny pansy asses and the US involvement in Iraq has nothing to do with this.

Bottom line, some those in NATO running the show in Afghanistan shouldn't be there.


----------



## Amsel (Dec 7, 2008)

The war against the terrorists has proved to be tougher then most people can handle. It is a just conflict and worthy of support within our alliance. If the world stood up together against these secret organizations they could be erradicated much easier. For political reasons this has proved to be impossible. I for one am proud that the United States has the fortitude to combat the jihad against the West. There have been some mistakes made but that is war and the fog of war is always there.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 7, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And again what situation is this??? Flat out, the US turned the operation over to "NATO" and its gone to sh!t, and that's not taking anything away from the guys on the ground. Sorry but some of the NATO leadership running the show are nothing more than a bunch of whiny pansy asses and the US involvement in Iraq has nothing to do with this.
> 
> Bottom line, some those in NATO running the show in Afghanistan shouldn't be there.


The situation where by the Taliban is gaining control , the US controls 14 of the 27 zones take a look at the map on my link . 
We up here are taking more casualties in proportion then you guys


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> The situation where by the Taliban is gaining control , the US controls 14 of the 27 zones take a look at the map on my link .
> We up here are taking more casualties in proportion then you guys


And why is that? The Taliban has regrouped and there were warnings about that happening as early as 2006. In October US General David McKiernan also warned the situation could get worse and that was to be expected in this conflict, Between 2002 and 2005 when the Taliban previously regrouped and were beaten back and this must be done again, its that simple.

Right now the US has about 30,000 troops in Afghanistan and you're probably going to see more after Obama gets into office. We lost about 130 troops this year, over 600 since 2002. Canada has about 3000 troops deployed and lost about 100 since 2002! If any country who deploys troops to the region are doing so under the premise that they, by proportion are loosing too many troops or taking too many casualties, then maybe they shouldn't be there in the first place - this is exactly what I'm talking about. For the most part the losses taken by the entire coalition is remarkably low considering the size of the operation, the length of time it has been going on and the end results achieved. 

Enduring Freedom Casualties - Special Reports


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I think that the US has let down NATO in



How do you figure?






pbfoot said:


> Afghanistan however most of the NATO nations in Afghanistan are bogus and are hiding out in safety . Belgium , Germany, Spain , Italy they have big numbers of personel but lack political or military balls .
> 
> http://www.nato.int/isaf/docu/epub/pdf/isaf_placemat_081201.pdf



 

PB, I really like you, but I am sick and tired of these very uninformed and ignorant (I am not saying you are ignorant, I have too much respect for you to say that) posts in this regard.

You need to learn something about the laws in some of the nations, the constitutions in these nations and why these laws and consitutions are in place (especially which countries i.e. England, USA, France, Russia... all require some of these countries to have these laws and consitutions) before you make such stupid comments.

Sorry pB. Like I said, I have nothing but respect for you and think you are a great member of this forum, but these posts from you are getting real tiresome...

It is rather obvious to me that you do not know anything about why this is the case. You just spout off and do not care to learn why. It has been repeated to you on many occasions. You choose not to learn why, or you do not care. Pretty sad if you ask me.

*I also find it very very insulting to anyone who wears the uniform (I do not care what country) and is serving and risking thier life in Iraq or Afghanistan.*


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 7, 2008)

I've stated this several times > The US screwed the pooch in attacking Iraq while leaving Afghanistan unfinished . 
I understand casualties are to be expected some one should inform the Germans , Belgians , Spanish and Italians and maybe if everyone pulled their weight we wouldn't be in this predicament


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I understand casualties are to be expected some one should inform the Germans , Belgians , Spanish and Italians and maybe if everyone pulled their weight we wouldn't be in this predicament



There you go again. Did you not read my post? You need to do some research on why things are this way instead of spouting off your mouth.

I am getting really tired of this...


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 7, 2008)

so am I


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 7, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I've stated this several times > The US screwed the pooch in attacking Iraq while leaving Afghanistan unfinished .
> I understand casualties are to be expected some one should inform the Germans , Belgians , Spanish and Italians and maybe if everyone pulled their weight we wouldn't be in this predicament


Afghanistan was NEVER left unfinished - from the beginning it was stated than when the Taliban was removed from power an occupation was going to take years before the Afghan people could form a government that would not sanction radical Islamic terrorists within their borders and allow those same terrorists to export their campaign.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> so am I




Then do not bring that crap up again...


----------

