Who would've won the cold war if it went hot

Discussion in 'History' started by fedr808, Feb 24, 2009.

  1. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Anything goes.

    Only one rule and that is, no nukes count. No making any arguements that one side owuld defeat the other by just nuking them.

    Lets assume that they cant use any of their nukes. Who would win and why.

    Hope you guys have fun

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Okay, because of the fact that time epriod is making a serious impact on the results aparrently.

    Make an arguement for any of the below time periods and label them

    1950's

    1960's
    1970's
    1980's
    1990's
    2000 (imagine that the cold war was still going on)

    lable which time period
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Reds.

    WWII proved numbers win.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    true.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Those that refrain from combat will be the true winners for they lose nothing!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,631
    What would the objectives be? You can't just have a war that has no objectives. Total annihilation? In that case, I assume the soviets would have won.
     
  9. countezero Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,590
    The Soviet delivery systems were very much inferior to the West's. That is, less efficient warheads, less efficient targeting, poorer airplanes, etc. So it's more than likely that the West would have won a full-on exchange. Plus, unless the Soviets went first, Western missiles from Europe had less distance to travel, so it's possible they would take out some of the Soviet response on the ground.
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Who is more willing to die?
     
  11. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,204
    Can't use nukes? That was the whole point. No one would win.
     
  12. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Their weapons were inferior to German's also. Numbers + industry win. Americans were shit at fighting with large numbers at the time. Americans could not stomach a war with Russians in Europe, they would not be able to stomach the losses. Russians didn't give a shit, this is why communism is a great system under prolonged warfare. Americans woudl not have much help from allies whom were mostly exhausted from 6 years of world war rather than just 3.

    I like Georgie Patton, but he would have been slaughtered under the treads of a JS MKIII tank.

    Taking such a conventional war to North American soil is pretty ridiculous. I don't think the Russians (or anyone else) could, or can take North America by force. We are talking about fighting in Europe obviously.
     
  13. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    Maybe when you're fighting a land neighbor...

    WWII also proved intelligence in Naval battles is key, would Russians have ever made it to American soil?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    They could sail out of St. Petersburg but would be in a canal and heavily vulnerable, getting out navally would be difficult. This was the mass concentration of military. In the East, America had hundreds of Island Naval/Airforce bases scattered through the Pacific. What is disadvantage from offensive Russia doesn't inherently become advantage defensive Russia in this case.
    America is allied with most of Europe moreso than Russia, and at this time Japan has no military, and is under American defense...give them a huge hopping island that's politically tricky.

    Short and sweet; if the Pacific is defended well America is untouchable by Russia. However; with the mass military of Russia...America would have been more than hard pressed to make a drive into mainland.
     
  14. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    nietzschefan, there was the little fact that about 1/2 of the German Army was occupied with dealing with the rest of the Allies.

    If Germany had been able to bring to bear 1/2 the Divisions committed to defense in the west the Russian would have lost.

    The Russian weren't capable of defeating the Russian on their own, the most important thing we sent the Russians were trucks to transport their armies to the front, and trains to get the Army's from the west to the east.

    Other wise the Russian Army was nothing but foot slogging infantry, to slow by half against mechanized warfare.

    The ISIII, didn't do to well against the M-26s and M-46s they came up against in the Korean War, the 90mm gun was more than capable of dealing with the ISIII, and both tanks developed about the same time.

    The 26 and the 46 carried more ammo, and were just as heavily armored, and more reliable in action.
     
  15. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Also, there werent as many specialized vehicle launched anti infantry weapons, a cluser bomb would take out a crapload of Russian infantry in one pass. And the fact that the Russians have never dared to use their one single aircraft carrier means that American could attack them from the east and west.
     
  16. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    On top of that, American fighter pilots were a ton better than Russian pilots, WWII in the pacific against the zeros is the greatest fighter training you can get.

    In Korea the Air Force had a 10 to one kill/death ratio. The American plane was only slightly better than the Russian, but the pilots were incredibly good.

    We know how to dogfight, they don't
     
  17. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    You guys are gonna attack Russia through Siberia? Not even the Marines man...

    I will restrain myself from commenting on details such as skill of pilots and comparing Zeros to IL-2 Sturmoviks.

    There were German aces with hundreds of Kills, every time they went up they could fight as many of planes as they wanted. Skill simply does not matter in industrial warfare, numbers and resources matter only. Soviet and U.S gearing was pretty close, any edge the U.S might have had would be subtracted easily due to long supply routes.

    That leaves numbers. Russia wins.
     
  18. eddie23 information sponge Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    It truly depends on WHEN this war happens.
    If it were imediatly after wwII we would have won, their population had been desimated.
    19 70's I think they would have won, They would have over whelmed us with sheer numbers.
    80's or 90's we would have won our military tech. had out grown so ahead of theirs as to make it very uneven.( The stealth is one example.).
     
  19. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    It's a good point and that's why Patton wanted to immediately attack, as he did feel the war was inevitable and it would have given the U.S the best chance of victory. At the time they also had nukes and some strategic advantages.

    Thank fate for Eisenhower and Marshall.
     
  20. CheskiChips Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,538
    Neither side could win, as I demonstrated above. It'd be impossible.
     
  21. Anti-Flag Pun intended Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,714
    Is that why America made the mistake of starting to design naval planes exclusively with sidewinders and without guns? That's hardly dogfighting.
     
  22. eddie23 information sponge Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    230
    Nice theory but not acurate. You left out a key facter.
    Timeperiod. It makes a big differance as to when it happens due to poulations and military technologies.
    Just after WWII we would have been able to take them due to them not haveing enuff people to defend that land mass.
    In the 1970's they had much more military hardware and a larger population so they could have broken any blockade we put up in the pacific.
    In the 1980's and 1990's we had developed our militry to a point that I beleive it would have been a stalemate, Our better technoloy v/s their overwhelming numbers would cancel each other out.
     
  23. PieAreSquared Woo is resistant to reason Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,144
    Exactly.. when is this?
     

Share This Page