Cold War Gone Hot

[timshatz]

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 !

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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