Cold War Strategy: You Decide.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-02-24 08:47pm

Assume, for a moment, that you can dictate Cold War policy for the United States from 1945 on, and that successive presidents will follow your plan (generally speaking, allow for some flexibility). What would your overall plan be for the containment and reduction of the Soviet Union?

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-02-24 08:57pm

Surrender to the glory that is Mother Russia and embrace the true path that is Communism.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-02-24 08:58pm

I wait for a brief moment, for everything to die down.

I then invade the USSR from every angle I can see. I start to systematically bomb strategic locations.

Heil US!

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2004-02-24 08:59pm

Nuke them before they get one.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-02-24 09:02pm

fgalkin wrote:Surrender to the glory that is Mother Russia and embrace the true path that is Communism.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

What better way to do that than nuking the USSR? Stalin was doing little to promote revolution worldwide. An oppressive US will incite revolution, thus restart the communistic process.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-02-24 09:04pm

That's why you wait until he dies and THEN surrender.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-02-24 09:05pm

Buttloads of nuclear deterrent, pro-Nuclear power campaigns, construction of simple space habitats under the glorious campaign power that is 'We must have the high ground!'.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-02-24 09:06pm

Let Gen. Patton roll on towards the Soviet Union like he wanted to, instead of causing him to have an 'accident'...

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-02-24 09:25pm

Mayabird wrote:Let Gen. Patton roll on towards the Soviet Union like he wanted to, instead of causing him to have an 'accident'...

And meet the zillions of Russian tanks awaiting him?

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-02-24 09:43pm

I do the same thing that was done historically, except that I avoid the commitment of American ground forces to Vietnam. Bomber support for the French in the 50s is a possibility, however. I also don't do the Reagan spend-race in the 80s, because it only made a couple years' difference anyway.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-02-24 09:46pm

Blow up the moon.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-02-24 09:46pm

Gandalf wrote:
Mayabird wrote:Let Gen. Patton roll on towards the Soviet Union like he wanted to, instead of causing him to have an 'accident'...
And meet the zillions of Russian tanks awaiting him?

How dare you defame Patton! He's INVINCIBLE! (j/k)

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-02-24 09:46pm

Gandalf wrote:And meet the zillions of Russian tanks awaiting him?

One must consider how enthusiastic John Q. Taxpayer is going to be about finishing off one mortal enemy and immediately picking a fight with a much bigger and stronger nation which was an ally until just that moment. American airpower and nuclear armament would make it all but impossible for the Soviets to win, but every American advance would be paid for in blood. The battle would be far more costly than any against the Third Reich. And for what? A hazy political objective.

I'm sure every red blooded American's gonna get on board for that.

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2004-02-24 09:52pm

Rather than wait for the Korean war, I'd hit Berlin and keep going. The second it became clear that Uncle Joe wasn't going to stick to Yalta, I would have called him on it and confronted him. With near parity in numbers in Europe, and the Bomb, I am confident that America could have either forced Stalin to fold and retreat back to pre-WW2 borders, or defeat him in a conflict on the matter.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-02-24 10:05pm

Pablo Sanchez wrote:I do the same thing that was done historically, except that I avoid the commitment of American ground forces to Vietnam. Bomber support for the French in the 50s is a possibility, however. I also don't do the Reagan spend-race in the 80s, because it only made a couple years' difference anyway.

As for myself, I'd probably try and stick with some varient on the Eisenhower Doctrine. Thailand will be the regional ally to take care of SEA (if they can) while the US attempts to buildup an insurmountable offensive and defensive strategic arsenal.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-24 10:48pm

No difference from historic actions except I'd not have let the military wither for a while resting on the laurels of nukes. And I'd not have gone into Vietnam, although I might have bombed the North if the French asked me real nicely (conventional only of course). And I'd not have worried about the B-2, instead replacing the B-52 with another bomb truck. And no Star Wars.

That's really about all. I think we played our hand pretty well, all things considered.

justifier · Post by **justifier** » 2004-02-24 11:19pm

Joe wrote:Blow up the moon.

Would anyone miss it?

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-02-24 11:28pm

Attacking the Soviets in 1945 would've been politically untenable. It's total fantasy.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-02-25 12:11am

Vympel wrote:Attacking the Soviets in 1945 would've been politically untenable. It's total fantasy.

Indeed. I was asking for realistic solutions, not silliness like "have Patton head East and stop at the Pacific Ocean."

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-02-25 12:14am

justifier wrote:Would anyone miss it?

Yes, the Russians, because of their secret Communist Moon Bases.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-02-25 12:19am

Gil Hamilton wrote:
justifier wrote:Would anyone miss it?
Yes, the Russians, because of their secret Communist Moon Bases.

Someone's been playing Yuri's Revenge

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-02-25 12:35am

Howedar wrote:No difference from historic actions except I'd not have let the military wither for a while resting on the laurels of nukes.

To what end?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-02-25 12:38am

I thought we kinda slacked off conventional development in the Eisenhower era.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-02-25 12:48am

Howedar wrote:I thought we kinda slacked off conventional development in the Eisenhower era.

Yes. The Army was reduced to a tripwire force that would have to use nuclear weapons just to defend itself ... instantly escalating any conflict. And when one flies, they all fly, so it was a very pointed message.

It also held costs down in that it was a lot cheaper to mass produce nukes than it was to create Army divisions to counter the Red Army.

The Last Rebel · Post by **The Last Rebel** » 2004-02-25 07:36pm

I would try to maintain parity in conventional forces with the Red Army in Europe, instead of the thin green line we had in Western Europe. Match them man for man, tank for tank, plane for plane.
Have theatre nukes on standby just in case they use theirs first, though. We are not going to let them bastards sack Bonn or Amsterdam.
Make the best tanks we can. Try to develop gunships faster.
Keep the BUFFS, build the B-70 Valkyries instead of the B1s or 2s.
If a Mach 3 capable bomber can`t penetrate Soviet airspace, I don`t know what could.
Develop a decent ABM system that works. Make it a act of treason, punishable by death, for ANYONE to give any support for the Soviet Union and its leaders, be it financial, *VOCAL*, technological,
or otherwise.