Originally posted by drhuy
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
What Could've Provoked A Soviet Invasion of West Germany?
Collapse
X
-
Last edited by clackers; 30 Mar 09,, 11:51.
-
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.
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
-
Originally posted by KRON1 View Post
He was most likely referring to nuclear tipped SAMs. All in all, it is a feasible boast.
Comment
-
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
-
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
-
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 ...
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
-
Originally posted by astralis View Postthere'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..."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
-
-
Originally posted by drhuy View Posti'm not sure in which way they were "more advanced".
Originally posted by drhuy View PostAnd the ABM ring was just for showing, up to now there is operational technology dealing with icbm, let alone in 60s.
Originally posted by drhuy View PostEven the nuclear tipped sam idea wouldnt be as useful as it may sound.
Nuclear tipped ABMs were set up to defend Moscow and the ICBM silos in North Dakota.
Comment
-
Originally posted by KRON1 View PostBut we aren't talking about 70's or 80's. The report is from 1964.Last edited by clackers; 01 Apr 09,, 13:57.
Comment
-
Originally posted by clackers View PostYes, 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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View PostYou were not the intended audience of this report.
Comment
Comment