The Cold War

[Boomtown Rat]

The Cold War was essentially the war that never happened, if that war was to happen - and lets pick a random date that it would have happened, like the 70s or 80s - what do you think would have happened, and who would've won?

Now try not to to make this some kind Good vs. Evil thread, because I know there will be someone going "We would've kicked those commies A**es!" and another going "Communism Rules, Warsaw Pact forever!"  So please, none of that.

Personally, I believe both sides were well matched, with NATO having really good technology, whereas even though the Warsaw Pact technology was good, but not as good as NATO's, it had huge amounts of forces, and it would've at least taken awhile for America to ship in troops to counter the Soviets if they had launched a surprise attack.

So yeah, i'm a little partial to the USSR and Warsaw Pact.

[H]

It was a "cold war" only as long as it didn't turn "hot". Most of the preparations were toward mutual nuclear destruction. A successful invasion by either side wasn't feasible; if anything, it would have been self-destructive. As daft as it is to initiate a nuclear strike, it's no less so to send your own troops into it (even could they all be given radiation suits, they can't stay in those suits forever any more than they could efficiently fight in them ).

[SilverFox441]

14 days would have been the turning point.

If the WARPAC could have taken the prepositioned stores and/or taken the required landing ports in the first 14 days it would be over.

Given that same 14 days as a grace period and fresh US troops would have mated up with their gear...and would be facing 2 or third line WARPAC forces. Meat for the grinder, nothing more.

I think in the 70s it would be a very near thing...advantage WARPAC.

In the 80s, advantage NATO.

[WebbPA]

I agree with H and with the premise of "WarGames".  Global thermonuclear war would be horrible beyond imagination.

The only way to win is to avoid it at all costs.

[Felix/FFDS]

It's an interesting supposition -

In that stratified pre-personal computer games era, there were quite a number of board games dedicated to simulations - Companies like Avalon Hill put our games of the tactical and strategic level (Ex. operation Barbarossa - where each counter represented a divisionl ... "Panzer Squad" - each counter represented a platoon) and magazines that regularly put out a full game in their issues (how do you think I REALLY learned about history)

There were a series of games on posited "Cold War turned hot" scenarios - one of them being called "FULDA GAP".

It appears that the main axis of WARPAC attack would have been through central Germany - in the Fulda Gap area, straight into the area where the main US forces were arranged.

The ultimate impression that I got from many of these games is that the Western forces were in a no-win situation.  While there was some technological advantage to the Western arms, the WARPAC had good weapons and numbers.  There would have been reluctance to fight a delaying action, giving up land for time until reinforcements started arriving.

In the grand strategic view, one would have to consider the impact of convoy interception by then Soviet submarines and maritime aviaion.

From a non-nuclear point of view, it was easily a toss-up.

[Flt.Lt.Andrew]

Hey,

I beleive that conventional warfare would have been more prevalent than the British idea of a "broken backed"war, that being a war based on economic recovery, although this theory is most feasable.

Data, you imply that what would have followed would have been a land war and so what I say here will be based on that premis.

a) Due to a good level of technological development and an advantage, numerically speaking, WARPAC could have afforded to fight a one front war/naked front war, with troops being focussed mainly on the western front, the eastern part of the Eurasian continental plate being dominated by the Asian communists at that point.
So, it could be seen that before the times of economic hardship set in for the countries of WARPAC (although, one could argue that there was always a sense of economic disparity in these countries) WARPAC would have had a clear tactical advantage.

However,

b) Had conflict broken out in the 70s and or 80s, Britain's then theory of "Broken Backed War" would have stood true, with Britain being the clear winner, not just because Britain and The Empire rules, and is superior to all...
Britain, by that stage was almost as unrestricted economartially as the USA and therefore it could be seen that economically, they would have won a broken backed war, which would have centred on nuclear strikes and economic strength, as opposed to pure military might and power, which would have been altogether more nessesary than in the scenario previously mentioned. The nature, also, of the highly mobile nature of the British nuclear deployment capability, i.e the Polaris submarines, and V-Force, would have played a large role in the overcoming of the WARPAC forces, V-Force constantly being able to use alternate tactics that would have constantly bested the WARPAC air defences, and the general difficulty of trying to find a black submarine in the black sea....

In conclusion, it can be stated that, even though WARPAC would have had a considerable advantage in the early stages of the war, or the conventional phase, it can be seen that NATO and its allies, primely Britain, would have been much more effective and had a bigger (comparable) advantage, than WARPAC in the mid to late stage of the war, which would have involved considerable militio-economic tactics and organization, which the British Empire had control over, and skill in managing.
So, it can be seen that the NATO powers would have, a considerable advantage over the WARPAC countries than previously seen on the surface.


A.

[H]

Hey, I believe that conventional warfare would have been more prevalent than the British idea of a "broken backed"war, that being a war based on economic recovery, although this theory is most feasable.
Data, you imply that what would have followed would have been a land war and so what I say here will be based on that premis.
a) Due to a good level of technological development and an advantage, numerically speaking, WARPAC could have afforded to fight a one front war/naked front war, with troops being focussed mainly on the western front, the eastern part of the Eurasian continental plate being dominated by the Asian communists at that point.
So, it could be seen that before the times of economic hardship set in for the countries of WARPAC (although, one could argue that there was always a sense of economic disparity in these countries) WARPAC would have had a clear tactical advantage.A.

As Data "picked", the time set was the 70s or 80s. Elsewise, Patton's threat to ram right into Moscow "and make it look like they started it," may have been a precurser to any of it:P. i.e., the setting is quite different and full-scale, nuclear threats quite a ways off.

[Flt.Lt.Andrew]

You forget, H, that Britain had launched its first H bomb, using a Valiant, if I remember correctly, back in the 50s...so nuclear technology on an industrial scale WAS! present....


A.

[Boomtown Rat]

You forget, H, that Britain had launched its first H bomb, using a Valiant, if I remember correctly, back in the 50s...so nuclear technology on an industrial scale WAS! present....


A.

I believe H isn't mentioning lack of nukes, but for the fact that at that point most nations in the "Nuclear Club" (if not just the US and Soviet Union) had agreed that a Nuclear war would be catastrophic on both sides, as in MAD, and would be completely unfeasible, being that either way, both sides would lose if the Nukes were unleashed.

[Scorpiоn]

At least the nutballs had enough sense to do that...