Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: A non-nuclear USSR

  1. #1
    Contributor VarSity's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jun 07
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    666

    A non-nuclear USSR

    Consider this; the Soviet Union fails to develop a nuclear weapon by 1956 when it expands to include a dozen other states.

    Do you think the West would have confronted the USSR with nuclear weapons? Would they have gone so far as to use them?

    I know this is a very broad and difficult question, was just interested in people’s opinions, especially after reading somewhere that some high up US officials wanted to put off dropping the bombs on Japan so they could build more and confront Russia.

  2. #2
    Contributor TTL's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Oct 07
    Location
    ANKARA
    Posts
    345
    If they could have built enough bombs in time, they would use them without even blinking I think. It is not much different than firebombing cities afterall.

  3. #3
    Senior Contributor Triple C's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Apr 06
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    2,397
    It is possible. If the Russians attacked rashly and did not have their nuclear option they would have gotten nuked. Without answering nukes, atomic bombs are perfectly good equalizers for enemy numbers.
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

  4. #4
    Regular
    Join Date
    19 Oct 08
    Posts
    28
    Would the Soviets have ABM capablities?

    Would that even matter at all?

  5. #5
    Contributor NUS's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Aug 08
    Posts
    581
    Quote Originally Posted by Soul_Killa View Post
    Would the Soviets have ABM capablities?

    Would that even matter at all?
    No, becouse there was no ballistic missiles able to carry nuclear warhead in 1956. First space flight was in 1957, remember?

    From wiki:
    The first nuclear-tipped rockets, such as the MGR-1 Honest John, first deployed by the U.S. in 1953 , were surface-to-surface missiles with relatively short ranges (around 15 mi/25 km maximum) with yields around twice the size of the first fission weapons. The limited range of these weapons meant that they could only be used in certain types of potential military situations—the U.S. rocket weapons could not, for example, threaten the city of Moscow with the threat of an immediate strike, and could only be used as "tactical" weapons (that is, for small-scale military situations).

    Long-range bomber aircraft, such as the B-52 Stratofortress, allowed for a wide range of "strategic" nuclear forces to be deployed.
    For "strategic" weapons—weapons which would serve to threaten an entire country—for the time being, only long-range bombers capable of penetrating deep into enemy territory would work. In the U.S. this resulted in the creation of the Strategic Air Command in 1946 , a system of bombers headed by General Curtis LeMay (who had previously presided over the firebombing of Japan during WWII), which kept a number of nuclear-armed planes in the sky at all times, ready to receive orders to attack Moscow whenever commanded.
    I dont know much about soviet air defence in 1956...

  6. #6
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 08
    Posts
    1,960
    Quote Originally Posted by NUS View Post

    I dont know much about soviet air defence in 1956...
    They had Mig-15s and -17s, more than enough to shoot down the B-47 and B-36. The B-52 started showing up in '56, but even it would have been hard-pressed. However, it these bombers started from Europe, then they could have been escored, so they'd probably reach their targets.

  7. #7
    New Member buttercorpse's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Nov 08
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by jlvfr View Post
    They had Mig-15s and -17s, more than enough to shoot down the B-47 and B-36. The B-52 started showing up in '56, but even it would have been hard-pressed. However, it these bombers started from Europe, then they could have been escored, so they'd probably reach their targets.
    good point

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Lies about the USSR
    By agent09 in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 06 Jun 08,, 15:55
  2. China, USSR, N Korea planned Japan invasion in Korean War
    By Francois in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 22 Feb 07,, 01:56
  3. Nagasaki Bomb, threat to USSR?
    By Ziska in forum The World Wars
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 26 Jan 07,, 01:49
  4. Nuclear War Plan : the nuclear option in Global Strike
    By Ray in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01 May 06,, 00:44
  5. Nuclear war at sea
    By sw55 in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 01 Feb 05,, 23:12

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •