If the cold war had gone hot.....

Originally posted by TheButcher
If the cold war had gone hot, would NATO have won. Say no nukes were used because both sides agreed it would be the end of humanity.

possibly. its quality (NATO) over quanity (USSR) but it would be a bitch of a fight. probally end up like korea and have the orginal pre war borders reestablished

Originally posted by f16falcon
well I just read "Red Storm Rising" by T. Clancy and NATO without the use of nukes granted it's only a novel

you for get that the Commies though about using nukes. i think on line went.

"...and they [soviet brass] want to tactacal nuclear waepons as if they were fire crackers!"

i think the commies would have won a victory over europe mabye get like a mile into alaska wi infantry but britain would hav held out so would the sweeds

Everything that has a begining has an end

Originally posted by nathraq
Scandanavian countries: another, forget about it.

Well for one, the Scandiavian countries have were and most likely will be neutral in a war like that. But if it would come to war finland would be a stick in your ass for a long time. look at WW2 and how long we held of the russians..
ignorant. dont underestimate.

thank you.

Originally posted by TheSwordMaster

Originally posted by nathraq
Scandanavian countries: another, forget about it.

Well for one, the Scandiavian countries have were and most likely will be neutral in a war like that. But if it would come to war finland would be a stick in your ass for a long time. look at WW2 and how long we held of the russians..
ignorant. dont underestimate.

thank you.

Yes, the Finns are a force to be reckoned with!! How could I forget all their military achievements? Thank GOD they were there at Normandy, Sicily and North Africa! If it wasn't for them, all of Europe would have been under Nazi, and later, communist control!!!!

Originally posted by nathraq
Yes, the Finns are a force to be reckoned with!! How could I forget all their military achievements? Thank GOD they were there at Normandy, Sicily and North Africa! If it wasn't for them, all of Europe would have been under Nazi, and later, communist control!!!!

What, 1 war and a defence victory against The Soviet Union.
www.winterwar.com...
Please compare?
And if i remember correcntly it was the russians who did most of the work destroying Germans forces..
and please, italian forces werent much help.
you great american warrior


*cough* viet *cough* nam

Quoted from TheSwordMaster:

What, 1 war and a defence victory against The Soviet Union.
www.winterwar.com...
Please compare?

Good stance by the Finns.Well deserved respect to them. But we are talking about the 'Cold War', The Soviet army in 1940 was quite different than during the Cold War.

And if i remember correcntly it was the russians who did most of the work destroying Germans forces..

The Russians destroyed most of the german forces?? They did a fine job on the Eastern Front, but there was more than one Front

and please, italian forces werent much help.

And the Italians have what to do with this?? They are another fine specimen of military achievement. I mean, at least they conquered Ethiopia, hehe

you great american warrior

This is just an ignorant remark. Never said I was great.

*cough* viet *cough* nam

And Viet Nam has what to do with the topic? We could have obliterated the NVA/Viet Cong at any time. Politics and the anti-war movement pretty much put a kabbash on all that. (BTW, America never lost a single battle in Viet Nam. That wasn't the cause of our eventual withdrawl. I'm sure the Finns would have done much better)

"Good stance by the Finns.Well deserved respect to them. But we are talking about the 'Cold War', The Soviet army in 1940 was quite different than during the Cold War."
"Bulgaria and Rumania: (remember these 2 from the big one, WWII.) A platoon of U.S. forces could have broken through a battalion of them."

Uhm? And so Bulgaria and Romania couldnt be any different from WWII?

"The Russians destroyed most of the german forces?? They did a fine job on the Eastern Front, but there was more than one Front"

The germans concentrated ALOT, more than half of their forces on the eastern front since hitler was obsessed with beating russia... Based on a biography on hitler..

"Yes, the Finns are a force to be reckoned with!! "

And this wasnt an ignorant remark? Or to begin with saying that the scandinavian countries were just "another forget about it"


And well Vietnam was below the belt... but
"We could have obliterated the NVA/Viet Cong at any time. Politics and the anti-war movement pretty much put a kabbash on all that."

Why didnt you then do it before it got so much attention?

Ok, TheSwordMaster, I give up.


You proved your point

Really depends on the logistics, and the goal of either side. Let's say USSR had the goal of "unifying" all of Germany to the motherland, this could have been acheived. Let's say they wanted to absorb all of Europe into the motherland? Impossible. Let's say NATO wanted an end to communism dominated East Germany and Poland. Impossible. An end to Russia itself? Don't even think about it. Russia had more options than Nato did during the cold war. They were a volcano awaiting to erupt.

Originally posted by Johnny

who knows what other weapons the USSR and US had, it's hard to tell.

Super secret and deadly WMDs would do as good as atomics... stuff like scalar EM weapons... pretty scary.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Johnny]

yup but the USSR would of never won

the loosing side would have launched its nukes, even it agreed not to, it was a war after all and they wouldnt like loosing nicely.

Originally posted by TheButcher
Say no nukes were used because both sides agreed it would be the end of humanity.

Impossible. Nuke would have been used. At least nuclear tactics weapons. A Soviet Cder didn't have to ask permission to his HQ to use a tactical nuke. I.e, if a Soviet Unit ( division, regiment, or even a battalion ) was surrounded, the Unit Cder didn't have to ask Moscow permission to use a tactical nuke.

Listening to pro Russians speak is almost embarassing... Fearing a country whos space program is funded partly by Pizza Hut *RUSSIA* It's almost as if they want to grasp more then anything that Russia is important but the sad fact is France has more say and influence. I'm sorry China is the new Soviet Union and Eurasia is never going to have the power it once had. Just keep dreaming that your Migs, Tu-95's are thought to be more advanced then western technology but you are sadly wrong if you know anything about the American war machine. You are just a giant iraq with nukes.

yeah american "WAR" machine! some "WAR" machine you have air control with your fancy aircraft but 1 stinger and that babys dead (1 tiny fact you also "borrowed" most designs off other countries *cough british harrier*cough) . also the US hasnt the ground troops to win a war over the USSR.also whats wrong with a space programe partialy funded by pizza hut at least there food would be deceint compared to the US version.
also what has thier space programe got to do with the cold war?
face it russia would have wiped the floor with you land wise i mean.but the US air power would have been a serios problem.

Originally posted by Johnny

who knows what other weapons the USSR and US had, it's hard to tell.

Super secret and deadly WMDs would do as good as atomics... stuff like scalar EM weapons... pretty scary.

[Edited on 3-1-2004 by Johnny]

Yeah i agree

also what has thier space programe got to do with the cold war?

You have just made your point void/invalid... You obviously have a lack of knowledge on anything beyond that of the wheel. When you learn more and create fire then debate.

Originally posted by DaRAGE
the USSR would have won. They havn't been defeated in ages. They know how to win wars.

What they got sent packing by a bunch of Islamic goat herders with some stinger missiles. The USSR lost its aura of invincibility in Afghanistan.

I would say the Soviets would have won a convential WW3. They always had better numbers in men and equipment and the best tanks in the world for most of the coldwar.

Ho hum... If nothing is nuclear.

NATO in the Cold War was a defensive force and the Soviet Union would have failed to get very far. Defence is easier than offence and I think the Warsaw Pact would have ground to a halt against the First World military doctrine and quality.

We all know that Soviet equpiment has been a tad over-rated (see Iraq annialiation as a case in point). We know that massed ranks of conscript soldiers do not have the imagination or motivation of the professional soldier found in the democracies.

Crucially, NATO had defence in depth, technological and doctrinal superiority and the motivation not to lose. The population of Western Europe and the US was (and is) sophisticated and motivated to fight for their freedom - I do not see a German population giving up their freedoms under the jack-boot of communism.

I see Chieften tanks running out of ammunition; Soviet advances stopped by unassailable defensive positions and the smoke from their burning armour; Soviet planning unwinding due to doctrinal shortcomings; etc...

Warsaw Pact dies. Warsaw Pact collapses. Soviet Union disintergrates. World in turmoil for a few years. Different world - same outcome in that the First World prevails.

If it went nuclear then we all die!

Regards