Cold War Gone Hot

Discussion in 'Post-War' started by DerAdlerIstGelandet, Aug 12, 2008.

?

Who would have been victorious?

  1. USA and NATO.

    15.6%
  2. Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact.

    3.1%
  3. NATO but with total destruction of Europe.

    31.3%
  4. Warsaw Pact but with total destruction of Europe.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. No victor, the world ends in nuclear holocaust.

    25.0%
  6. Stalemate after almost complete destruction of USA, Soviet Union and Europe.

    15.6%
  7. Other.

    9.4%
  1. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,775
    Likes Received:
    687
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    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?
     
  2. timshatz

    timshatz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    MGR
    Location:
    Phila, Pa
    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.
     
  3. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,209
    Likes Received:
    791
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    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."
     
  4. rochie

    rochie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Head chef
    Location:
    billingham nr middlesbrough uk
    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
     
  5. timshatz

    timshatz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    MGR
    Location:
    Phila, Pa
    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.
     
  6. rochie

    rochie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2006
    Messages:
    14,640
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Head chef
    Location:
    billingham nr middlesbrough uk
    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
     
  7. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,775
    Likes Received:
    687
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    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...
     
  8. The Basket

    The Basket Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,318
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well...be careful what you wish for!

    The Russian bear is still swinging!
     
  9. JugBR

    JugBR Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    t.i.
    Location:
    Campinas - SP
    the roachs...
     
  10. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,775
    Likes Received:
    687
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    :lol:
     
  11. Amsel

    Amsel Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    1,857
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  12. SoD Stitch

    SoD Stitch Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Occupation:
    Heavy Equipment Rental
    Location:
    Pine Mountain Lake, California
    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.
     
  13. DerAdlerIstGelandet

    DerAdlerIstGelandet Der Crew Chief
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    41,775
    Likes Received:
    687
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    A&P - Aircraft Technician
    Location:
    USA/Germany
    That I do not see happening. I think in the end it would have returned to pre war borders.
     
  14. Flyboy2

    Flyboy2 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    676
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    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
     
  15. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    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
     
  16. Ramirezzz

    Ramirezzz Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2006
    Messages:
    354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Moscow, Russia
    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.
     
  17. timshatz

    timshatz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    MGR
    Location:
    Phila, Pa
    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.
     
  18. JugBR

    JugBR Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Occupation:
    t.i.
    Location:
    Campinas - SP
    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 !

    [​IMG]
     
  19. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2008
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    16
    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
     
  20. timshatz

    timshatz Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    MGR
    Location:
    Phila, Pa

    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).
     
Loading...

Share This Page