StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Spending an extra half trillion a year while greatly increasing the risk of war is not a winning strategy. The nuclear option kept costs reasonable while making it impossible for the Soviets to risk war for limited goals. Nothing stupid there.

True to an extent, if you assume that the Soviets would play for limited objectives. Trouble is, do you risk the results of MAD in a more protracted conflict? It is all very well to say the plans called for use of nuclear waepons, but their use of is political desition, and politians may well not want to go down that route, and why should they? look at what the result would be.

I spoke with my flatmate, who served in the Red army during the 70's and he feels that at that time the chance of a Soviet attack into Germany/Western Europe was about that of NATO attacking the Warsaw pact, and that most of the Soviet posturing was bluster and nothing more.
He also made the comment that the Soviets felt somewhat intimidated by the American/NATO technogical superiority and economic strength.
They had no real desire for war, any more than we did.
Take from that what you will.

The chance was minimal precisely because the Western defense hinged completely on nuclear weapons. The Soviets could not fight without offering massive damage win or lose. With an all-conventional approach they could piss away 30 divisions, lose, but never really be in danger. Quite simply it made war not worth the risks.

Really, the whole point of the Soviet 70's conventional buildup was to allow for the overrunning of NATO tactical nuclear weapons before they could be used. That’s also why they so hated the cruise missiles and IRBM's, most where to far away to be overrun.

The Western conventional build up's main purpose was to protect the nukes for the opening hours so they could be used, and have bunched up defined targets. Later it became apparent that NATO didn't need the nukes to win, but of course the Soviets noticed that as well and went right back to the 320 nukes on Germany in the first 30 minutes option.

Well then its a good thing that war never occured, is it not? For seldom have I seen such fucked up thinking, logical as it might be from a perverted point of veiw. Given the cost of a irradiated europe or 6 years of conventional warfare along WW2 lines I think I might prefer the 6 years if I lived in europe, better survival chances.
BTW where do you get you info?

Much of the information that Sea Skimmer & I get are posts from people who had experience in this area during the Cold War (on another board). One person on it did nuclear targetting, for one.

Stuart Mackey wrote:Well then its a good thing that war never occured, is it not? For seldom have I seen such fucked up thinking, logical as it might be from a perverted point of veiw. Given the cost of a irradiated europe or 6 years of conventional warfare along WW2 lines I think I might prefer the 6 years if I lived in europe, better survival chances.
BTW where do you get you info?

Ah, but fielding the armies for that six years of conventional war might make World War III more likely (as Sea Skimmer noted, and also at which point the strategic arsenals go flying, since the tactical arsenals do not exist in this alternate timeline), whereas in the original timeline no-one would dare try as it was quite clear the results.

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote: True to an extent, if you assume that the Soviets would play for limited objectives. Trouble is, do you risk the results of MAD in a more protracted conflict? It is all very well to say the plans called for use of nuclear waepons, but their use of is political desition, and politians may well not want to go down that route, and why should they? look at what the result would be.

I spoke with my flatmate, who served in the Red army during the 70's and he feels that at that time the chance of a Soviet attack into Germany/Western Europe was about that of NATO attacking the Warsaw pact, and that most of the Soviet posturing was bluster and nothing more.
He also made the comment that the Soviets felt somewhat intimidated by the American/NATO technogical superiority and economic strength.
They had no real desire for war, any more than we did.
Take from that what you will.

The chance was minimal precisely because the Western defense hinged completely on nuclear weapons. The Soviets could not fight without offering massive damage win or lose. With an all-conventional approach they could piss away 30 divisions, lose, but never really be in danger. Quite simply it made war not worth the risks.

Really, the whole point of the Soviet 70's conventional buildup was to allow for the overrunning of NATO tactical nuclear weapons before they could be used. That’s also why they so hated the cruise missiles and IRBM's, most where to far away to be overrun.

The Western conventional build up's main purpose was to protect the nukes for the opening hours so they could be used, and have bunched up defined targets. Later it became apparent that NATO didn't need the nukes to win, but of course the Soviets noticed that as well and went right back to the 320 nukes on Germany in the first 30 minutes option.

Well then its a good thing that war never occured, is it not? For seldom have I seen such fucked up thinking, logical as it might be from a perverted point of veiw. Given the cost of a irradiated europe or 6 years of conventional warfare along WW2 lines I think I might prefer the 6 years if I lived in europe, better survival chances.
BTW where do you get you info?

Your strategy makes war a near sure thing. The Western economies would be near collapse at several points in history under such spending and the Soviet planning called for a attack at such times to collapse the whole house of cards.

However the result would be a massive conventional gridlock, or a Soviet victory. In the latter all is lost anyway, in the former the war simply results in aimmediate hop up to strategic strikes to break the dead lock. In such a scenario Europe gets just as many nukes rained down in it, only rather then small devices aimed at airports and tank brigades its multi megaton bombs raining down on cities. Much better for the population I'm sure

Even if a war could drag on for the length of WW2 conventionally, the devastation and loss of life would easily become comparable to a short tactical nuclear war. Hell fighting house to house in most German cities would likely result in far more death and devastation then a couple small nukes going off.

There's also one little thing you're forgetting. The if NATO built a huge conventional army, the Soviets will just use there own tactical and theater nuclear forces on it, while the NATO forces would be unable or severely hampered in there own ability to reply both by the proximity of friendly forces and a lack of weapons.


Logic is against your plan. You'd Increase the risk of war, and the chances it will go strategic nuclear, while removing the strategy that won for no loss from the equation. Real great Logic.

And NATO is the orginaztion with the morons you say?

Soviet Union, if it dosen't turn into a nuke war

If nuke war the rats and roaches are the real winners

It's no win for NATO, but they will go down fighting

Mike_6002 wrote:Soviet Union, if it dosen't turn into a nuke war

If nuke war the rats and roaches are the real winners

It's no win for NATO, but they will go down fighting

Actually it a win for the 20 or so nations too underdeveloped to be nuked. The rat are in deep shit as there will be 200 odd million people whose main source of protein will be wild life, and unlike deer and rabbits rats come to humans.

Good point

But then again we can pull a Strangelove with irrading every weapon with Cobalt-60 and then we get the real high death count and alot of mutant rats (Hope there like Master Splinter, real smart and wise and can kick serious ass) And no I'm not a creationist, I support evolution (I'm not joking) Getting off-topic must hurt self <Hits self with a CD>

Mike_6002 wrote:Good point

But then again we can pull a Strangelove with irrading every weapon with Cobalt-60 and then we get the real high death count and alot of mutant rats (Hope there like Master Splinter, real smart and wise and can kick serious ass) And no I'm not a creationist, I support evolution (I'm not joking) Getting off-topic must hurt self <Hits self with a CD>

No-one is going to lace their warheads with Co-60. It's senseless.

Not normally but if your a nihilist..............

phongn wrote:

Mike_6002 wrote:Good point

But then again we can pull a Strangelove with irrading every weapon with Cobalt-60 and then we get the real high death count and alot of mutant rats (Hope there like Master Splinter, real smart and wise and can kick serious ass) And no I'm not a creationist, I support evolution (I'm not joking) Getting off-topic must hurt self <Hits self with a CD>

No-one is going to lace their warheads with Co-60. It's senseless.

Also not nearly as effective as its made out to be in many cases.

Hmmm...................If it kills lots of people works for me

God I'm pulling a MKSheppard

Mike_6002 wrote:Hmmm...................If it kills lots of people works for me

God I'm pulling a MKSheppard

In that case, use big ground bursts at the head waters of rivers, then use ICBM deliver bio weapons to take care of the population. Also target a bunch of little bombs at power plants, city centers and water works.

The idea being not to kill people directly but to further the work of the bio.

Going to bed.....yeah groundburst looks good but not as powerful

Good Night people if want to respond to any of my threads really seriously or want flame PM or contact me at Clan_MTG@Yahoo.ca

"Good Night Ladies" (Gunnery Sargent Hartman, Full Metal Jacket)

snip

Stuart Mackey wrote:Well then its a good thing that war never occured, is it not? For seldom have I seen such fucked up thinking, logical as it might be from a perverted point of veiw. Given the cost of a irradiated europe or 6 years of conventional warfare along WW2 lines I think I might prefer the 6 years if I lived in europe, better survival chances.
BTW where do you get you info?

Sea Skimmer wrote:Your strategy makes war a near sure thing. The Western economies would be near collapse at several points in history under such spending and the Soviet planning called for a attack at such times to collapse the whole house of cards.

However the result would be a massive conventional gridlock, or a Soviet victory. In the latter all is lost anyway, in the former the war simply results in aimmediate hop up to strategic strikes to break the dead lock. In such a scenario Europe gets just as many nukes rained down in it, only rather then small devices aimed at airports and tank brigades its multi megaton bombs raining down on cities. Much better for the population I'm sure

Even if a war could drag on for the length of WW2 conventionally, the devastation and loss of life would easily become comparable to a short tactical nuclear war. Hell fighting house to house in most German cities would likely result in far more death and devastation then a couple small nukes going off.

There's also one little thing you're forgetting. The if NATO built a huge conventional army, the Soviets will just use there own tactical and theater nuclear forces on it, while the NATO forces would be unable or severely hampered in there own ability to reply both by the proximity of friendly forces and a lack of weapons.


Logic is against your plan. You'd Increase the risk of war, and the chances it will go strategic nuclear, while removing the strategy that won for no loss from the equation. Real great Logic.

And NATO is the orginaztion with the morons you say?

First, I was operating under the assumption that a conventional war has broken out ands the politians do not authorise nuclear release for the strange reason that they object to having their nations irraidiated and themselfs killed. I was not assuming or proposing that NATO try and maintain huge conventional forces as the soviets did.
The nature of the western NATO nations has always been to have smaller forces for economic reasons, granted, and this is something that would not change in any senario, but to assume that that politians, who ultimatly controll the use of nuclear forces and not the millitary, would allow the use of these weapons just because the generals say so, or because they just happen to be in the arsenal, is ridiculous.
That plans would and did exist for the use of these weopons is beyoned doubt, that these plans must be adhered to is patently stupid given the cost of their use.

Stuart Mackey wrote:snip

Stuart Mackey wrote:Well then its a good thing that war never occured, is it not? For seldom have I seen such fucked up thinking, logical as it might be from a perverted point of veiw. Given the cost of a irradiated europe or 6 years of conventional warfare along WW2 lines I think I might prefer the 6 years if I lived in europe, better survival chances.
BTW where do you get you info?

Sea Skimmer wrote:Your strategy makes war a near sure thing. The Western economies would be near collapse at several points in history under such spending and the Soviet planning called for a attack at such times to collapse the whole house of cards.

However the result would be a massive conventional gridlock, or a Soviet victory. In the latter all is lost anyway, in the former the war simply results in aimmediate hop up to strategic strikes to break the dead lock. In such a scenario Europe gets just as many nukes rained down in it, only rather then small devices aimed at airports and tank brigades its multi megaton bombs raining down on cities. Much better for the population I'm sure

Even if a war could drag on for the length of WW2 conventionally, the devastation and loss of life would easily become comparable to a short tactical nuclear war. Hell fighting house to house in most German cities would likely result in far more death and devastation then a couple small nukes going off.

There's also one little thing you're forgetting. The if NATO built a huge conventional army, the Soviets will just use there own tactical and theater nuclear forces on it, while the NATO forces would be unable or severely hampered in there own ability to reply both by the proximity of friendly forces and a lack of weapons.


Logic is against your plan. You'd Increase the risk of war, and the chances it will go strategic nuclear, while removing the strategy that won for no loss from the equation. Real great Logic.

And NATO is the orginaztion with the morons you say?

First, I was operating under the assumption that a conventional war has broken out ands the politians do not authorise nuclear release for the strange reason that they object to having their nations irraidiated and themselfs killed. I was not assuming or proposing that NATO try and maintain huge conventional forces as the soviets did.
The nature of the western NATO nations has always been to have smaller forces for economic reasons, granted, and this is something that would not change in any senario, but to assume that that politians, who ultimatly controll the use of nuclear forces and not the millitary, would allow the use of these weapons just because the generals say so, or because they just happen to be in the arsenal, is ridiculous.
That plans would and did exist for the use of these weopons is beyoned doubt, that these plans must be adhered to is patently stupid given the cost of their use.

In that highly limited scenario, yeah the politicians might accept the destruction of NATO and defeat of the western way of rather then use nuclear weapons. But in reality there would be no question about it, simply because the Soviets would open any attack with 320 nuclear strikes on Germany. At that point there's not much to be gained by not deploying what's left of the western arsenal but a damn lot to be lost.

Thats the problume with spinning impossibul senarios. You often get impossibul answers because questions must be answered that cant happen.

Sea Skimmer's right, and he outlines exactly what irritated me about this thread from its inception: nukes were so integral to the WARPAC/NATO balance that you might as well subtract the internal combustion engine from both militaries for an equally meaningful and equally ludicrous Alternate History.

Sea Skimmer wrote:snip

In that highly limited scenario, yeah the politicians might accept the destruction of NATO and defeat of the western way of rather then use nuclear weapons. But in reality there would be no question about it, simply because the Soviets would open any attack with 320 nuclear strikes on Germany. At that point there's not much to be gained by not deploying what's left of the western arsenal but a damn lot to be lost.

Thats the problume with spinning impossibul senarios. You often get impossibul answers because questions must be answered that cant happen.

But this ignores the politics for both sides, and you simply cannot do that, because there are levels above that of the operational, and strategic.
There is such a fuzzy line between the use of tactical weapons and strategic that it makes no difference politically, which is one reason why such weapons have been and will be controvercial. By saying that the soviets will use nuclear wepons in an attack on NATO as a justification for only planning for Nato's use of such weapons is something I cannot imagine any politians, from either side, tolerating.
Also, to the point of a strictly conventional war over europe, well that has been done before and the use of what are now known as WMD, was such as to encourage nations, even the Nazi's, from not useing them even in extrimis, and since with the nulclear variety. And from what we know of the Soviet Union and its allies it is no mean certain that they could sustain and win a longterm conventional war, in fact I would say that they definatly could not. This however does not mean certain Soviet use of stratigic WMD's .

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Sea Skimmer's right, and he outlines exactly what irritated me about this thread from its inception: nukes were so integral to the WARPAC/NATO balance that you might as well subtract the internal combustion engine from both militaries for an equally meaningful and equally ludicrous Alternate History.

Skimmer is not, nessasarily right, as no politian would limit themselves like that, and that is the context that must be considered when useing what are, and must be, political weapons. Of course, this is hypothetical but to look at this froma strictly millitary perspective, which is what I sence, is foolish, to say the least, as war is a political tool.

Stuart Mackey wrote:But this ignores the politics for both sides, and you simply cannot do that, because there are levels above that of the operational, and strategic.
There is such a fuzzy line between the use of tactical weapons and strategic that it makes no difference politically, which is one reason why such weapons have been and will be controvercial. By saying that the soviets will use nuclear wepons in an attack on NATO as a justification for only planning for Nato's use of such weapons is something I cannot imagine any politians, from either side, tolerating.
Also, to the point of a strictly conventional war over europe, well that has been done before and the use of what are now known as WMD, was such as to encourage nations, even the Nazi's, from not useing them even in extrimis, and since with the nulclear variety. And from what we know of the Soviet Union and its allies it is no mean certain that they could sustain and win a longterm conventional war, in fact I would say that they definatly could not. This however does not mean certain Soviet use of stratigic WMD's .

Red herring and you know it. Both nations' strategic warplans had nukes intimately involved. Politics is nonexistant when everyone dies in 45 min tops. The simple truth is it is unavoidable to get a nuclear exchange.

Stuart Mackey wrote:Skimmer is not, nessasarily right, as no politian would limit themselves like that, and that is the context that must be considered when useing what are, and must be, political weapons. Of course, this is hypothetical but to look at this froma strictly millitary perspective, which is what I sence, is foolish, to say the least, as war is a political tool.

He is right. Why? Because you're right, it was a political tool. The Cold War itself and the threat of force is a political tool. Since both powers knew that they'd both be destroyed in a war made war only feasable by a mistake since neither power could claim a political advantage from it because everyone would be dead. WWIII would not be a war as a political tool.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:But this ignores the politics for both sides, and you simply cannot do that, because there are levels above that of the operational, and strategic.
There is such a fuzzy line between the use of tactical weapons and strategic that it makes no difference politically, which is one reason why such weapons have been and will be controvercial. By saying that the soviets will use nuclear wepons in an attack on NATO as a justification for only planning for Nato's use of such weapons is something I cannot imagine any politians, from either side, tolerating.
Also, to the point of a strictly conventional war over europe, well that has been done before and the use of what are now known as WMD, was such as to encourage nations, even the Nazi's, from not useing them even in extrimis, and since with the nulclear variety. And from what we know of the Soviet Union and its allies it is no mean certain that they could sustain and win a longterm conventional war, in fact I would say that they definatly could not. This however does not mean certain Soviet use of stratigic WMD's .

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Red herring and you know it. Both nations' strategic warplans had nukes intimately involved. Politics is nonexistant when everyone dies in 45 min tops. The simple truth is it is unavoidable to get a nuclear exchange.

Red Herring? I think not. Divorcing war from politics, and the political control
of the millitary, from a debate on NATO vs WARPact, now thats a red herring or actually its a strawman. You are trying to force onto the politians of the 80's your point of veiw, and a your point of veiw is not determined by the facts and probably never will be unless you gain Top Secret clearance.

Stuart Mackey wrote:Skimmer is not, nessasarily right, as no politian would limit themselves like that, and that is the context that must be considered when useing what are, and must be, political weapons. Of course, this is hypothetical but to look at this froma strictly millitary perspective, which is what I sence, is foolish, to say the least, as war is a political tool.

He is right. Why? Because you're right, it was a political tool. The Cold War itself and the threat of force is a political tool. Since both powers knew that they'd both be destroyed in a war made war only feasable by a mistake since neither power could claim a political advantage from it because everyone would be dead. WWIII would not be a war as a political tool.

Nuclear weapons were and are a constant threat, however their use, or rather, the political determination to use them is unknowable by anyone on this board and I would suggest any other {unless Maggie Thatcher is lurking somewhere..}, you cannot prove a negative, esp in this instance when there is some historical insight as other possibilitys.

NATO can't win because of it's poltical differnces and constant bickering, and the polticans would be to scared to launch the nukes at the ruskie lines fearing that Armmagadon would start, and I still would lace my bombs with Co-60 because i'm evil baby

Bleh NATO would win

Yeah, NATO would he Soviet non changing horde clean with a little inguenity.

Stuart Mackey wrote:Nuclear weapons were and are a constant threat, however their use, or rather, the political determination to use them is unknowable by anyone on this board and I would suggest any other {unless Maggie Thatcher is lurking somewhere..}, you cannot prove a negative, esp in this instance when there is some historical insight as other possibilitys.

Grasping for a hold on the argument? Just admit it that in all practical purposes, its virtually useless to wonder about a conventional war because it would simply not happen. Someone, somewhere would launch even if the crews everywhere refused or something, and then you'd have it. Just admit the idea of conventional war is ludicrious, because it is.

Captain Lennox wrote:Yeah, NATO would he Soviet non changing horde clean with a little inguenity.

That's a western misconception of Soviet tactics. Much has been made of Soviet military art as 'science', but this is just yet another mirror-imaging by the West (a classic example is the MiG-25 Foxbat/ F-15 Eagle mistake).

Read this http://www.battlefront.com/resources/ta ... sovtac.zip

It's an extremely STUPID misconception considering WW2 ... a lot of people think the Eastern Front was some sort of Great German Shooting Gallery, where the Soviet human waves just overwhelmed the superior German forces ... bullfuck.