Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Could've Provoked A Soviet Invasion of West Germany?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by drhuy View Post
    they were still talking nonsense like ... USSR was more advanced in anti-balistic sphere (!?) the fact that even now intercepting a short or medium bm is a real headache for rus, then how on earth back in 60s they could be so confident in intercepting an atlas or polaris. So on and so forth.
    The Soviets were more advanced, Drhuy ... they did the first successful ABM interception, and deployed an experimental ABM ring around Moscow from 1966 onwards ... because ABMs are a can-of-worms as far as Balance of Power goes, Nixon and Kissinger were keen to put them on the table at the first SALT talks in 1969 ...
    Last edited by clackers; 30 Mar 09,, 11:51.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by drhuy View Post

      http://www.php.isn.ethz.ch/collectio...&navinfo=15365

      I dont know why in such document, which was not meant to be used as propaganda, they were still talking nonsense like western nations were more vulnerable to nuclear war than socialist ones, USSR was more advanced in anti-balistic sphere (!?) the fact that even now intercepting a short or medium bm is a real headache for rus, then how on earth back in 60s they could be so confident in intercepting an atlas or polaris. So on and so forth.
      From the document...

      Senator Strom Thurmond has warned U.S. military that "the Russian defense systems have reached such a level that the Russians could destroy our Polaris and possibly even Minuteman missiles in the air." . . .


      He was most likely referring to nuclear tipped SAMs. All in all, it is a feasible boast.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by KRON1 View Post

        He was most likely referring to nuclear tipped SAMs. All in all, it is a feasible boast.
        Yes, Kron, they found nuclear SAMs were more likely to do the job ... but in the 70's and '80's, MIRVs and medium range missiles further complicated proceedings ...

        Comment


        • #34
          Astralis,

          Thanks. I am still shaking my head at how close that was. Fainting security officers and freaked out captains. Great.

          Purity... Bodily... Fluids.
          All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
          -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

          Comment


          • #35
            It was all just scaremongering, I wonder if the Soviets used the same tactics on their fellow citizens. You know, "The West will invade the glorious USSR, watch out for the capitalist dogs, they will invade from West Germany at any moment" and so on and so forth in said Cold War manner...

            Not that I would know, I'm just saying from what I've seen about it, It seemed that Western leaders were just talking about the "Soviet Invasion of the world" to enhance their political careers like any normal politician would

            Comment


            • #36
              The Soviets were more advanced, Drhuy ... they did the first successful ABM interception, and deployed an experimental ABM ring around Moscow from 1966 onwards ... because ABMs are a can-of-worms as far as Balance of Power goes, Nixon and Kissinger were keen to put them on the table at the first SALT talks in 1969 ...
              i'm not sure in which way they were "more advanced". And the ABM ring was just for showing, up to now there is operational technology dealing with icbm, let alone in 60s. Even the nuclear tipped sam idea wouldnt be as useful as it may sound.

              but it was not technology aspect that i mentioned, it was the tone of underestimating your enemy throughout the whole document that surprised me. Its always a fatal mistake no matter what.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by astralis View Post
                there's an interesting site out there,

                http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/wrjp205.html

                US total number of warheads, October 1962 (Cuban Missile Crisis)
                28,000

                total yield
                13,900 mt

                USSR, total number:
                3,400

                total yield:
                4,500 mt

                not sure how accurate this is, but taking stuart slade's nuclear 102:



                and that's assuming pretty good CEP. back then the soviet SLBMs they had a CEP of 1.5-2 miles, while their ICBMs were 3-5 miles. they'd need to expend a LOT of nukes to hit what they wanted...
                So just aim a few miles off the city center and you'll hit it. :))
                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by clackers View Post
                  Yes, Kron, they found nuclear SAMs were more likely to do the job ... but in the 70's and '80's, MIRVs and medium range missiles further complicated proceedings ...
                  But we aren't talking about 70's or 80's. The report is from 1964.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by drhuy View Post
                    but it was not technology aspect that i mentioned, it was the tone of underestimating your enemy throughout the whole document that surprised me. Its always a fatal mistake no matter what.
                    You were not the intended audience of this report.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by drhuy View Post
                      i'm not sure in which way they were "more advanced".
                      I'll give you two ways, drhuy. Nobody did a successful ABM to kill test until they did in 1961. And they began constructing a 16 site system in the same year.

                      Originally posted by drhuy View Post
                      And the ABM ring was just for showing, up to now there is operational technology dealing with icbm, let alone in 60s.
                      The Moscow ring was operational, drhuy, and still is today.

                      Originally posted by drhuy View Post
                      Even the nuclear tipped sam idea wouldnt be as useful as it may sound.
                      I don't know what you're talking about, it's how both the Soviet Union and the United States did it, drhuy.

                      Nuclear tipped ABMs were set up to defend Moscow and the ICBM silos in North Dakota.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by KRON1 View Post
                        But we aren't talking about 70's or 80's. The report is from 1964.
                        Yes, Kron, but drhuy was wondering why the nuclear tipped ABMs of the day weren't developed further ... the expensive research made it hard to justify in the 70s and 80s as amongst other reasons ICBMs grew multiple warheads and a new generation of medium missiles appeared which were harder to react to in time.
                        Last edited by clackers; 01 Apr 09,, 13:57.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by clackers View Post
                          Yes, Kron, but drhuy was wondering why the nuclear tipped ABMs of the day weren't developed further ... the expensive research made it hard to justify in the 70s and 80s as amongst other reasons ICBMs grew multiple warheads and a new generation of medium missiles appeared which were harder to react to in time.
                          That didn't stop the Soviets from nuclear tipping thousands of S-300 missiles.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            But they're SAMs, not ABMs, right?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by clackers View Post
                              But they're SAMs, not ABMs, right?
                              With a nuclear tip they could get close enough to act as ABMs. Once they came out with the 48N6E missile it was no longer the preferred choice.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                                You were not the intended audience of this report.
                                :)) that's exactly why i'm surprised. If i (outsider) were the targeted audience, boasting would be understandable and desirable. you dont need to be a military expert to know that never to underestimate your enemy.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X