Discussion in 'History' started by fedr808, Feb 24, 2009.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
The U.S. It had more allies around the world.
The Australians would have held the line in Indonesia, Island hopping and Guerrilla action,
Japan and New Zealand would help.
China would then enter the war, but the U.S. Would nuke it.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Red Army, the country is way too difficult to invade and they are better at brainwashing their masses to mercilessly defeat the fascist bandits.
The chinese don't have the tech to create their own beachhead.
Black lotus is online!.
Don't forget, the US had the B-2 bomber which could blow up their factories undetected.
and who says Soviet Union did not have rockets at that time, just like the ones that got U-2? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! dont be pathetic. Soviet Union had as much of advanced technology at that time as United States, it was just well hidden.
How hard do you think it would be to shoot down a couple of cruise missiles?
Also, what makes you think those cruise missiles have that kind of rangePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!?
What makes you think that the Soviets have stealth bombers? They don't.
But if you want to use that sort of logic that they have them but we havent seen them because they are hidden.
Than the USA has super lasers, alien technology, Light speed space ships. Theyre just hidden.
So lets stick with thing that actually exist.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Aircraft wise, The soviet union couldn't hold a candle to the U.S. Afterburner.
First soviet jet with an afterburner: 1952. First american jet: 1956. I love the way people don't let the fact that they don't actually know about stuff stop them from having a strong opinion about it.
Shoot down the U-2 .. yeah in 1960Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As id heard, the U-2 was flying lower than it shouldve been.
If it were true that the Soviets could shoot down U-2's whenever they felt like, than the real question is, why didnt they?
My answer is: because it was a fluke and dumb luck.
Oh great so now they are changing history and adding myths that U-2 was just flying lower...how pathetic.
If they did shoot down U-2 at that time than they would reveal their technology capable of doing so. Sometimes you got to sacrifice one thing for another.
Okay Draqon, if they could shoot down the U-2's one hundred percent of the time, than why did they only shoot down one?
Why not shoot down more?
Actually the Russian launched over 17 missiles and none of them made a direct hit, and they shot down one of their own Mig's.
Perhaps the best part of The U-2 Spyplane: Toward the Unknown is the author's treatment of the long controversial Soviet shootdown of the U-2 piloted by Francis Gary Powers on May Day 1960. Using newly available Soviet material and interviews as well as US records, Pocock carefully lays out the events of that fateful day. He begins with the long delays in the approval process before the flight could take off from Pakistan. He traces the early Soviet radar detection of the intruder and the frantic attempts to shoot it down. According to Pocock's account, the Soviets launched several MiG interceptors and several SAM missiles at the US spyplane. The first missile exploded some way behind the aircraft, disabling it. As the U-2 spun out of control and descended to about 34,000 feet, Powers bailed out. With his faceplate frozen over, however, he was unable to pull the destruction switches. The Russians, meanwhile, unsure whether the dissolving image on their radar screens signified a kill or the deployment of electronic countermeasures against their radar, continued to fire missiles at the target. In the confusion, one of the missiles destroyed a MiG-19 interceptor.
that is hilarious.
To anyone who actually answered the question I have this to say...your full of shit. The human mind would be incapable of dealing with the amount of factors involved in this.
STFU and GTFO. PJ keep your mouth shut and go bitch about it in some other pathetic lame ass thread.
I'm sorry you don't like the fact that it humanly impossible to realisticly answer your question accurately.
the one who attacks first would lose.
read your history.
If it were to happen in the 1980s or 90s then the Soviet union would steam roll most of Europe while the US would be trying to fight a defensive war until they could go to a full war time tempo and start training a larger army.
The US would lose a few carriers to soviet attack subs but overall the US navy would be dominating the soviet navy.
There would not be too much action going on in the Pacific unless china decided to enter the war on the soviet side but that would be unlikely due to the large amount of trade that china has with the United states.
I am not exactly sure on who would dominate the skies because i have no idea of the number of 4th generation fighters that the Soviets had built.
But none of this takes into account the trained armed forces of the western European nations.
If the united states still has a beachhead to land troops on in Europe after a year or so, then the USSR would be screwed.
If we are going for a non nuclear war then the United States would win because it has untouchable production facilities.
Also to my knowledge the US navy was much larger then the Soviet navy and had a much considerably larger surface fleet. But attack subs are still a big problem because of how far both sides got with silenced subs.
Overall the United States would win in a non nuclear war.
Separate names with a comma.