Holocaust Denial....

[Steve]

Even Patton wouldn't have been able to prevail against the Red Horde, they simply had too many numbers to go with excellent equipment.

To destroy them you need nukes. If it was to be done, it should've been done in '46-'49, before the USSR got nukes.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

On the world stage though, we mighth vae seen a much lower death toll for the next couple decades.

Precisely. I don't think we would have seen as much terrorism or evil bastards in the Middle East if there never was a Cold War. And such wars as Korea and Vietnam might have been completely avoided.

To destroy them you need nukes. If it was to be done, it should've been done in '46-'49, before the USSR got nukes.

Yes, I agree that would have been the best way to do it.

[Darth Wong]

On the world stage though, we mighth vae seen a much lower death toll for the next couple decades.

Precisely. I don't think we would have seen as much terrorism or evil bastards in the Middle East if there never was a Cold War. And such wars as Korea and Vietnam might have been completely avoided.

I don't see how Middle East fanaticism is related to the Cold War. And such wars as Korea and Vietnam could just as easily have been avoided if the United States did not try to interfere in other countries' internal affairs. To blame them entirely on the existence of the Soviet Union is self-serving and dishonest.

To destroy them you need nukes. If it was to be done, it should've been done in '46-'49, before the USSR got nukes.

Yes, I agree that would have been the best way to do it.

America would be hated even more than it is now. Osama still uses Hiroshima and Nagasaki for rhetorical gain, imagine what rhetoric he could spin out of America attacking its own WW2 ally with nuclear weapons!

Not to mention the questionable morality of using nuclear weapons indiscriminately.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

I don't see how Middle East fanaticism is related to the Cold War. And such wars as Korea and Vietnam could just as easily have been avoided if the United States did not try to interfere in other countries' internal affairs. To blame them entirely on the existence of the Soviet Union is self-serving and dishonest.

Well, if the Soviet Union was no more, there wouldn't have been a long drawn out Cold War. The U.S. wouldn't have supported the terrorists that we are against today. I'm not blaming the Soviet Union for terrorists. I'm just saying that if the U.S. went to war with Russia, Russia wouldn't have had the chance to develop nukes, meaning no Cold War. All history past WWII would have been completely different.

America would be hated even more than it is now. Osama still uses Hiroshima and Nagasaki for rhetorical gain, imagine what rhetoric he could spin out of America attacking its own WW2 ally with nuclear weapons!

Not to mention the questionable morality of using nuclear weapons indiscriminately.

Europe did not hate America, and at that time, that was all that mattered. We made the terrorists that threaten us today. If we never made the terrorists, the Middle East wouldn't have hated us like it does today.

[Mr. B]

Well, if the Soviet Union was no more, there wouldn't have been a long drawn out Cold War. The U.S. wouldn't have supported the terrorists that we are against today. I'm not blaming the Soviet Union for terrorists. I'm just saying that if the U.S. went to war with Russia, Russia wouldn't have had the chance to develop nukes, meaning no Cold War. All history past WWII would have been completely different.

After WW2 the US dismantled most of it's conventional military in favor of a atomic based defence. The USSR still had it's massive military in place. We would not have been able to invade, and we wouldn't have had enough bombs to stop them since all we had for a delivery system was through a bomber.

If the cold war had not happened and the USSR had dissolved we would still have problems with terrorism because of the massive collapse of the USSR. There were so many ethnic groups suppressed and displaced, the economic collapse of the region would have led to massive poverty and they would likely have blamed the US for it's problems even though it was the Soviet system.

[phongn]

Even Patton wouldn't have been able to prevail against the Red Horde, they simply had too many numbers to go with excellent equipment.

To destroy them you need nukes. If it was to be done, it should've been done in '46-'49, before the USSR got nukes.

The Red Army can be destroyed in conventional combat as their logistics network is rather fragile. RAF and USAAF bombers should be able to destroy the railways that their advance will depend upon. In addition, with the Soviet logistics net dependant on Americans goods, their advance will slow once everything starts breaking down.

The B-29 should be able to penetrate the USSR's air-defense network - I don't know of the Reds have anything capable of effectively intercepting it (and the first person who posts maximum altitude of a fighter gets hit.) At that point Soviet industry might start disappearing, and when mass production of nuclear warheads kicks into gear in late 1945/early 1946 it's all over.

[phongn]

Well, if the Soviet Union was no more, there wouldn't have been a long drawn out Cold War. The U.S. wouldn't have supported the terrorists that we are against today. I'm not blaming the Soviet Union for terrorists. I'm just saying that if the U.S. went to war with Russia, Russia wouldn't have had the chance to develop nukes, meaning no Cold War. All history past WWII would have been completely different.

After WW2 the US dismantled most of it's conventional military in favor of a atomic based defence.

And for good reason. Attempting to counter the Soviet military forces in a conventional method would have led to unacceptable levels of defense spending. Nukes are cheap and have the added advantage of making the other guy think twice before invading (since it will automatically escalate).

Secondly, this radical shift began during Eisenhower's administration (and was halted in the Kennedy Administration), so let's go from here...

The USSR still had it's massive military in place. We would not have been able to invade, and we wouldn't have had enough bombs to stop them since all we had for a delivery system was through a bomber.

Balance of Power, 1953

On Soviet Air Defense

Re: Lets see could Russia stop the bombers .... The SA-1 entered service about 1955; it was virtually ineffective (the US ECM gear had its measure long before it entered service). The V-750 (SA-2) came in around 1958. The P-5 (Shaddock wasn't deployed operationally until around 1960 - 61 and the chances of a submarine getting to within launching range of the US were minute. The only Soviet SLBMs in the 1950s had explosive warheads, not nuclear.

Guns were pretty well obsolete in the strategic environment by the 1950s. A combination of altitude and speed made their chances of hitting things pretty remote. The US was phasing its guns out in favor of missiles in this period (the last US AA guns were 120 mm weapons) protecting the locks at Sault St Marie. The real problem the Soviets has wasn't the assets for air defense, it was getting them to work together. In the 1950s, the Soviet air defense system was technically comparable with that used by the British in 1940. Certainly throughout the 1950s, if recon aircraft (RB-36s, RB-45s, RB-47s, U-2s etc) could get into the USSR they could go where they wanted in relative safety. We did lose aircraft now and then but the loss rate was low (some RB-47s made it back badly shot up but thats another story).

The problems the Soviet fighters had were legendary; a combination of short range and elusive targets (plus on the B-36, a really nasty defensive firepower) gave them little chance of making an intercept. The experience of the US B-29s over Korea probably gives us an idea of what was waiting for the Soviet bombers over the US.

USAF

United States - Offensive

6 Heavy Bomb Wings with 185 B-36
4 Heavy Strategic Wings with 137 RB-36
7 Medium Bomb Wings with 329 B-47
4 Medium Strategic Wings with 99 RB-47
3 Medium Bomb Wings with 138 B-50
5 Medium Bomb Wings with 110 B-29
1 Medium Strategic wing with 38 RB-50 and 8 RB-29
5 Strategic Fighter Wings with 235 F-84G
20 Medium Air Refuelling Squadrons with 359 KC-97
8 Medium Air Refuelling Squadrons with 143 KB-29

Total stock of nuclear weapons - approximately 1,200 all fission devices

Its often assumed that the "strategic fighters" were intended to escort the B-36s. This isn't quite true. They were intended to "escort" them but in the sense of using nuclear weapons to blast a hole in the outer shell of the Soviet defenses. It was assumed that once the bombers were through the outer crust they could go more or less where they wanted.

United States - Defensive

600 F-86D, 37 F-89B, 31 F-89C, 109 F-94A, 356 F-94B. Large numbers of old piston engined fighters including F-47N and F-51D and H in the Air National Guard. Five Nike-Ajax battalions were formed but would not be operational until mid-1954.

USSR

Soviet Union - Offensive

1 Long Range Aviation Corps with 100 Tu-4A
18 Long Range Aviation Regiments with 1,100 Tu-4

The Tu-4A desigantion indicated that these aircraft were the only ones that were atmomic-weapons capable. At least some of these aircraft were configured to act as tankers. The Soviet Union had a stockpile of around 30 nuclear weapons in 1953, all fission devices.

Soviet Union - Defensive

Details are very unclear and contradictory but it appears that there were a mixture of around 1,000 fighters including MiG-15s and MiG-17s, Yak-23s and La-15s as jetfighters and La-11 piston-engined fighters.

A few things pop out of the pageon this. One is that the war is still largely a conventional one - the US has a ferocious atomic arsenal for its first blow but therafter bombing would be largely conventional. The Soviet Union has virtually no nuclear strike capability in terms of reaching the US.

[phongn]

Now, if we deeper in, where the US Army is quite weak (1957), the correlation of forces becomes even more one-sided.

USA

4 heavy bomb wings with 127 B-36,
7 heavy bomb wings with 243 B-52
28 Medium bomb wings with 1,285 B-47s
4 strategic recon wings with 216 RB-47s
5 heavy air refuelling squadrons with 24 KC-135
35 air refuelling squadrons with 742 KC-97
3 Atlas-D squadrons with 18 missiles (marginally operational)
5 units with 16 Regulus-1 missiles.

USSR

12 Tu-20 Bear-A
10 M-4 Bison-A
72 Tu-16 Badger-A*
800 Tu-4 Bull**

*Could only reach the US coast on a one-way mission. More probably targeted on the UK

** Copy of US B-29 bomber. Could only reach the US on a one-way mission. Very few of these aircraft (probably no more than 36 - 108 ) were nuclear-capable.

[Darth Wong]

Well, if the Soviet Union was no more, there wouldn't have been a long drawn out Cold War. The U.S. wouldn't have supported the terrorists that we are against today. I'm not blaming the Soviet Union for terrorists. I'm just saying that if the U.S. went to war with Russia, Russia wouldn't have had the chance to develop nukes, meaning no Cold War. All history past WWII would have been completely different.

Yes, but I don't see why you can blame the existence of the Soviet Union for American actions. Americans are responsible for their own actions.

Europe did not hate America, and at that time, that was all that mattered. We made the terrorists that threaten us today. If we never made the terrorists, the Middle East wouldn't have hated us like it does today.

And you figure they hate the US because it funded them during the Cold War, rather than the fact that it used its weight and military muscle to forcibly shoehorn Israel into their midst? Are you serious? I can't believe you can actually say that with a straight face.

[starfury]

Originally posted by Steve:
I've always said that, when it comes to massacres, the Communists went for quantity of death, the racists/fascists went for "quality" of death (ie more painful and cruel).

that is so true, mao/stalin actually killed more people but they had nothing like the rape of Nanking, or the Japanese chemical warfare in manchuria, or the the Holocaust.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Yes, but I don't see why you can blame the existence of the Soviet Union for American actions. Americans are responsible for their own actions.

Ok, I see what you mean. Better put: If the Soviet Union never existed, or didn't spread communism around, the U.S. wouldn't have tried to stop them, meaning no Cold War. No Cold War means that the U.S. and Russia wouldn't have done anything to manipulate other countries, which created terrorist organizations and generally a strong hatred for America that we see today.

And you figure they hate the US because it funded them during the Cold War, rather than the fact that it used its weight and military muscle to forcibly shoehorn Israel into their midst? Are you serious? I can't believe you can actually say that with a straight face.

I did say the Middle East hated the U.S. because it made the ME terrorists. That, I admit, was stupid. Let me rephrase: If the U.S. never made terrorists in the ME, they couldn't terrorize us today. I'm not trying to shift the blame on someone else. It was OUR fault for making the terrorists in the first place. All I'm saying is that if the Soviet Union was never a threat to us, we would have had a completely different foreign policy. We probably would have went back to becoming isolationists as we did when WWI ended.

[Steve]

Mike, how was the war in Korea interfering in the affairs of a sovereign nation? North Korea invaded South Korea, and we came to South Korea's defense.

Vietnam is another matter, true, although still a case of an aggressive Communist north seeking control over the south.

[Darth Wong]

Mike, how was the war in Korea interfering in the affairs of a sovereign nation? North Korea invaded South Korea, and we came to South Korea's defense.

Steve, let's be honest; America has no policy of protecting other nations' sovereignty, and it has demonstrated this lack of policy by sitting on its hands when it felt it has no direct stake in the matter. America interfered because they feared the spread of communist ideology. Protection of national sovereignty didn't mean shit to the people running your government, and it still doesn't (ironically enough, we discuss this while America stands on the precipice of invading another sovereign country).

Vietnam is another matter, true, although still a case of an aggressive Communist north seeking control over the south.

And again, a case of Americans intervening not because they felt a great urge to protect another sovereign state, but because they feared the spread of an ideology.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Steve, let's be honest; America has no policy of protecting other nations' sovereignty

Not only does America not protect other countries' sovereignties, it actively crushes democracy worldwide when it doesn't suit its interests. Cases in point: the U.S. supported such illustrious figures as the Shah of Iran, Marcos in the Phillipines (nevermind the fact that America executed tens of thousands of Phillipinos upon takeover just to put them in their place), Pinochet in Chile, Saddam Hussein, Batista in Cuba, and even our old friend Osama bin Laden himself. What a "great" foreign policy!

[Peregrin Toker]

[quote="Darth Wong]Steve, let's be honest; America has no policy of protecting other nations' sovereignty, and it has demonstrated this lack of policy by sitting on its hands when it felt it has no direct stake in the matter. America interfered because they feared the spread of communist ideology. Protection of national sovereignty didn't mean shit to the people running your government, and it still doesn't (ironically enough, we discuss this while America stands on the precipice of invading another sovereign country).[/quote]

Wouldn't it be isolationism if a state did not interfere in outside affairs??

[Steve]

Then at best, it would be selective application of proper interventionism (protecting another state against the aggressor), which is still not the equivalent of some of the depths we went to in Vietnam and other states which were true acts of interference. And, I would say, it was a justified act, and a necessary one to uphold the Truman Doctrine.

From a realpolitik point of view, there is nothing wrong with selective application; you do what your interests, long-term and short-term, demand. Morality, ethics, they do not enter into it.

This is not an excuse, merely an explaination. The problem with a government such as our's is that no Administration lasts more than eight years, so they have a little trouble seeing long-term because they will only have power over the short-term.

As for Iraq, we were legally opened to invading them again when Hussein kicked out the weapons' inspectors, and he's still open to it because the bastard is putting all those damned "conditions" after promising unconditional inspections.