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

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Sava

It's nice to know you are on the same level as me when it comes to trolling and insults.

Cat fight!


Jelly wrestling!


Oops, wrong thread, thought you were Oncle Boris and Imran.


Enter the chill out zone chaps and have an iced coffee, avoid the nuclear fallout.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
And the most willing to use them? You may have wanted to demonstrate the new weapon...but the words of threat to 'totally and utterly devastate your country'. Couldn't you have dropped them on a non-urban area? Was it necessary to drop two? And since then your country seems to have been relatively trigger happy with the things. What was McArthur's proposal in 1948? To nuke every major Soviet city preemptively - at the loss of million and millions of life...

What's your point? Of course we threatened to use them the most - the others didn't have them. By the time everyone had them, the rhetoric was at the same level on both sides, roughly.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ming
Sigh... enough with the personal stuff...

I am sorry, but this "personal stuff" is so inocous, I don;t see why this even warrants a warning. I called him a troll, he called me a troll..wow.Earthshatering.

[Sava]

Originally posted by 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.

Soviet submarine technology was also more advanced at some stages early in the Cold War...

if you want to support your assertions with something, be my guest... I'm just telling you what I have learned. If I am wrong, direct me to information so I can correct myself.

[Sava]

Originally posted by GePap


I am sorry, but this "personal stuff" is so inocous, I don;t see why this even warrants a warning. I called him a troll, he called me a troll..wow.Earthshatering.

heh... I Gepap... it's just normal 'Poly banter... but 'nuff said Ming.

[Kuciwalker]

God, Sava, this is absolutely pathetic.

[Sava]

sigh, does anyone have any information to contribute? I'm not getting into a flame war with you skywalker

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sava
Soviet submarine technology was also more advanced at some stages early in the Cold War...

Any evidence of this whatsoever? Remeber early cold war would be 1946-1958 for by then the US develops nuclear subs, well ahead of the soviets.

if you want to support your assertions with something, be my guest... I'm just telling you what I have learned. If I am wrong, direct me to information so I can correct myself.

Last time I looked, I have been the only one to give any evidence of my claims yet.

number of links for evidence Sava has had? 0.

[Dr Strangelove]

In terms of conventional weapons the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies held a vast commanding lead in Europe from the end of WW2 until the end of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. In terms of quality Russian tanks were better than Allied tanks at the end of WW2. The US did not have superior armored forces until the latest generation of tanks and AFVs came along in the late 1970s. In terms of quantity the Warsaw boys held the lead until the end. From 1945 to 1975 the two sides competed closely in terms of the quality of their fighter aircraft, with sometimes Russian craft being better, and sometimes western planes being better. After 1975 Western fighters were technologically superior, but in some regions the copmmunists held sufficient numerical superiority to give the free world a run or their money.
Western bombers were superior throughout the era. At the time of the first Berlin crisis the communists were willing to bet that the US wouldn't risk destroying precious western European territory in order to engage the Russian armies. The US managed to convince Stalin that American bombers did indeed have the capability of reaching deep into Russian territory, a capability which the Russians could not reciprocate. As long as the US was the primary adversary during this conflict the Soviets were forced to contemplate the very distasteful prospect of coming against a foe whom they could not touch, but whom could hurt them dearly.
Without nukes the Warsaw Pact forces could very likely have taken the rest of continental Europe any time they had pleased, but the US held an overwhelming nuclear trump card right up to the mid-1970s. There were points during the cold war when the US and its NAYO allies didn't know with certainty how much a lead in nuclear forces they had. The days of the Cuban missle crisis were one of them. The US sincerely did not know what a hollow threat the Soviet ICBMS were. After the fall of the Soviet Union Yeltsin admitted that they had only a paltry dozen operational missles in 1962. The US OTOH had hundreds of srtrategic bombers capable of reaching the USSR and had even equipped their bombers with nuclear anti-aircraft missles to clear a path to their targets.
Had nuclear weapons not been available after WW2 I think that WW3 might have broken out in 1948, 1950, or 1962.

[Sava]

Originally posted by GePap
number of links for evidence Sava has had? 0.

I'm just telling you AFAIK... if you don't have any information to contribute to this discussion, I ask you to not respond. I'm not going to waste my time with some pathetic pissing contest. I want to learn! I'm not making a case, I'm not debating... I'm TELLING YOU WHAT I HAVE COME TO UNDERSTAND. IF I AM WRONG EDUCATE ME.

jesus ****ing christ

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I also don't really see the problem with the US threatening the Soviets over the Soviet occupation of Persia.

I wasn't making a moral judgement, just stating a fact. The U.S. threatens other countries with nukes explicitly. If the government doesn't, the media will do so implicitly, asking the military during briefings if "the nuclear option will be excercized" during military operations. The message is to the other side that nukes are always on the table as an option. From a power politics stand point, it's perfectly legit. From the stand point of these weapons being the most horrible thing we've ever invented, with the possible exception of the Spice Girls, it's a really awful thing to do.

[Kuciwalker]

with the possible exception of the Spice Girls

POSSIBLE?!

[Sava]

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
In terms of conventional weapons the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies held a vast commanding lead in Europe from the end of WW2 until the end of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. In terms of quality Russian tanks were better than Allied tanks at the end of WW2. The US did not have superior armored forces until the latest generation of tanks and AFVs came along in the late 1970s. In terms of quantity the Warsaw boys held the lead until the end. From 1945 to 1975 the two sides competed closely in terms of the quality of their fighter aircraft, with sometimes Russian craft being better, and sometimes western planes being better. After 1975 Western fighters were technologically superior, but in some regions the copmmunists held sufficient numerical superiority to give the free world a run or their money.
Western bombers were superior throughout the era. At the time of the first Berlin crisis the communists were willing to bet that the US wouldn't risk destroying precious western European territory in order to engage the Russian armies. The US managed to convince Stalin that American bombers did indeed have the capability of reaching deep into Russian territory, a capability which the Russians could not reciprocate. As long as the US was the primary adversary during this conflict the Soviets were forced to contemplate the very distasteful prospect of coming against a foe whom they could not touch, but whom could hurt them dearly.
Without nukes the Warsaw Pact forces could very likely have taken the rest of continental Europe any time they had pleased, but the US held an overwhelming nuclear trump card right up to the mid-1970s. There were points during the cold war when the US and its NAYO allies didn't know with certainty how much a lead in nuclear forces they had. The days of the Cuban missle crisis were one of them. The US sincerely did not know what a hollow threat the Soviet ICBMS were. After the fall of the Soviet Union Yeltsin admitted that they had only a paltry dozen operational missles in 1962. The US OTOH had hundreds of srtrategic bombers capable of reaching the USSR and had even equipped their bombers with nuclear anti-aircraft missles to clear a path to their targets.
Had nuclear weapons not been available after WW2 I think that WW3 might have broken out in 1948, 1950, or 1962.

Interesting assertion. Can you point out some source material to substantiate that the Soviets would have seriouslyembraced such a conflict? What would the motivation have been?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


From the stand point of these weapons being the most horrible thing we've ever invented, with the possible exception of the Spice Girls,

You've skipped over M.C. Hammer, Vanilla Ice and the Smurfs.

Although that may be because of the hasty revisions to the Geneva Convention, banning their use in heavily populated areas.