Did nukes prevent WWIII? ...erm, up to now that is.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Sava
you're a lying commie traitor liberal pinko lefty!#$^@#$&^@#$

Thankyou! Acknowledgement at last

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava
are you forgetting sputnik? the Soviet's rocket technology was better than America's up until the late 60's.

Not really. The missile gap was a pipe dream. The fact was that in the early 60's the US was FAR ahead in number of warheads and our ability to deliver them, since Strategic Air Command was in business BEFORE the soviets got ICBM's;

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/nd02nukenote.html

note, in 1960 the US had 20,000 nuclear warheads, the Soviets 1,600. In 1968 it was the US 28,880 to USSR 9,399. IN fact, the Soviets did not surpass the US in actual warheads until 1978. By which time both side had more than dequate delivery systems.

there's always books you could read.

Given what you said, I am sure I have read far mnore book on the subject that you. Heck, it took a simple google search to prove you wrong.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Thankyou! Acknowledgement at last

It's that glow of contentment that only Strontium 90 can provide.


Or a post phaal dump.

[Sava]

Gepap: all right, whatever you say... I better go throw out my cold-war era history books that lied to me...

I'm not talking about a numerical missile gap... but more of a capability gap. Plus, Soviet jet technology was much more advanced up until Korea. Oh wait, that must be another lie.

edit: damn X-posting

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava
Gepap: all right, whatever you say... I better go throw out my cold-war era history books that lied to me...

Actually, yes you should, as they would be inherently one sided and alarmist-but a brilliant histiographer like you would know, right?

I'm not talking about a numerical missile gap... but more of a capability gap. Plus, Soviet jet technology was much more advanced up until Korea. Oh wait, that must be another lie.

Actually, yes. The saber was just as good as mig-15, and after that, the US was ahead all the time.

God, too easy.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sava

... but more of a capability gap.

Unfortunately your credibility gap has infilled your capability gap via Pine Gap.

Beware the Gepap Gap, everyone's favourite historical outfitters.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Or a post phaal dump.

Ooooh, now there's an agony that takes me back to my uni days

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Ooooh, now there's an agony that takes me back to my uni days

Mmmm.....


"Rosebud."

[Sava]

Originally posted by GePap
Actually, yes. The saber was just as good as mig-15, and after that, the US was ahead all the time.

unfortunately for you, the Saber came out after the US was getting pwned in the air war early on.

God, too easy.

yup, ignorance is easy...

you see folks, I don't start with the personal crap... I just respond to it.

[David Floyd]

che,

The first time was immediately after WWII, when the U.S. ambassador told the USSR it must end its occupation of Northern Persia or the U.S. would let the USSR have it "with both barrels." IIRC, the US threatened the USSR with nuclear war directly on five seperate occassions.

Well, I don't know about "five separate occasions". I DO know that the US threatened the PRC with nuclear weapons in order to get China to the negotiating table in Korea, to stop China from shelling Quemoy and Matsu, and to keep China out of Vietnam.

I also don't really see the problem with the US threatening the Soviets over the Soviet occupation of Persia. The US would have been in the wrong to attack, but the Soviets were CERTAINLY in the wrong to continue their occupation.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Sava
are you forgetting sputnik? the Soviet's rocket technology was better than America's up until the late 60's.
there's always books you could read.

Not really. Or rather, the alleged missile gap was exaggerated.

It is true that Korolev's R-7 was the first ICBM. In many ways, it was an excellent rocket ... for satellite launches. R-7 was reliable and reasonably powerful; its derivatives are still used to launch satellites.

It completely sucked as an ICBM, though. R-7 used non-storable liquid fuel and it took ~24 hours to prepare it for launch. If the launch did not take place, the fuel had to be dumped within the next 24 hours to prevent corrosion and then the whole refueling/launch preparation thingy had to start all over again. In other words, it could never be put on full-time alert. Military actually hated Korolev (Soviet leading rocket designer)because they thought that he takes money away from them with his expensive space toys.

American rockets took longer to develop but (iirc) it was planned from the beginning to use storable fuel. When Atlas bugs were ironed out, it could serve both as a satellite launcher and as ICBM. Meanwhile, USSR did not really have a practical ICBM until the mid-60s.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava
unfortunately for you, the Saber came out after the US was getting pwned in the air war early on.
yup, ignorance is easy...

Unless you think the Saber went from design to full scale production in under a year (answer:no it didn;t), all you can claim for your entire point is that the Soviets got online a swept back wing fighter a couple of years before the US. The fact the US was curshing all NK infrastructure through most of the war with its airfoce belies your notion of the uS getting 'pwned' in the air.

you see folks, I don't start with the personal crap... I just respond to it.

And your book comment was, what?

So again, your entire arguement for some soviet superiority is based on? That the soviets came out with the Mig-15 before the Us came out with the Saber..which of course has NOTHING to do with your original strategic abiltiies post, which you had to abandon after it was shown to be totally wrong.

But a master troll all the way Sava, a master troll.

[Sava]

And your book comment was, what?

a legitimate suggestion because your opinions of cold-war era technology are different from what I have read...



It's nice to know you are on the same level as me when it comes to trolling and insults. Although you really shouldn't pretend to not be a troll.

[Ming]

Sigh... enough with the personal stuff...

[GePap]

The cold hard fact is that there was no weapon systems in which the soviets ever held a significant lead for more than say 3 years, and even then, it was only becuase they were more willing to take huge risks with tech while the US was more than willing to take it stime developing this thoroughly.

Not in the air, not at sea, and not on land.