How do you imagine a superpower shooting war in the 80s?

[Barnabas]

europe would have fallen fore sure, better red than dead was the english policy in case of russians having overwhelmed west europe and threatening their islands.

But I think once commies fell, everybody noticed their power was a little overrated, no one doubted in the 80´s a sea of russian tanks would easily have conquered west europe, now that is not sure

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
europe would have fallen fore sure, better red than dead was the english policy in case of russians having overwhelmed west europe and threatening their islands.

not sure thats the case

[Tattila the Hun]

Like this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5Vmf3u0D1A

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
But I think once commies fell, everybody noticed their power was a little overrated, no one doubted in the 80´s a sea of russian tanks would easily have conquered west europe, now that is not sure

I think it was commonly feared in the west, but as LOTM said, if they really could have advanced so far that they reached the Atlantic is hard to say ...

[Saras]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Like this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5Vmf3u0D1A

must... have... preciousssss....

[rah]

I enjoyed the book, but as with most of the stuff I read, I had to suspend believe over certain things.

[Saras]

Sir John I think more realistically attributed the soviet defeat to internal unrest in WP and USSR proper.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by BeBro

Finally, US economic power would be able to replace the losses, unless the USSR really manages to degrade this economic power (strategic bombing? - difficult; maybe missiles? - don't have to be nuclear)



No idea

Any missiles or strategic bombers approaching the US would almost certainly be interpreted as nuclear and trigger a full scale nuclear exchange.

[BeBMan]

Yeah, I think you're right. Maybe there was no way to limit the conflict to conventional means, since the USSR would certainly have thought the same way....

[TCO]

We would have cleared the decks at sea. No contest.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by TCO
We would have cleared the decks at sea. No contest.

I can see that someone didn't pay attention to the whole John Walker=Traitor thing.

[GePap]

The whole thing would not have gone very far before going all out nuclear. Either side would have probably started lobbying tactical nukes, the Soviets to open a gap, or NATO to stem soviet advances, and once tactical nukes atrted flying, strategic nukes would not have been far away.

[Zkribbler]

I did read the book. Probably Clancy's weakest.


Commies aren't always the bad guys. Rent:
The Russians are Coming! The Russians are Coming! with Alan Arkins and Jonathan Winters.
and of course....
Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love to Bomb

[snoopy369]

Strangelove

[Patroklos]

I can see that someone didn't pay attention to the whole John Walker=Traitor thing.

That would have had limited use, the Russians still had to intercept the comms and break them before knowing where anything was, that means being in range to intercept and then getting the info broken in time to tell where the vessels were before they moved in a very dynamic North Atlantic. While it certaintly would have helped at the very beginning to get initial locations, after that the Russians would have know exactly one place where the Americans weren't.

That being said, the second Battle of the Atlantic would hardly be a clean sweep, but I suspect the majority of NATO naval casualties would be the shipping vice the warships, as Red Storm Rising has it, which was in fact the purpose of the Russian submarine fleet of that day. It would have inevitable ended in NATO victory due to distance to freindly bases alone.