Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 294

Thread: What if Nixon Succeeded

  1. #61
    Military Professional Deltacamelately's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Sep 07
    Posts
    1,662
    Quote Originally Posted by anil View Post
    That is no answer.

    If they backed down albeit capability, what does that mean? What are they thinking?
    Reading up on the Cuban Missile crisis will give you some of their thought processes.
    And on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

  2. #62
    Contributor anil's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Sep 12
    Location
    Mumbai
    Posts
    720
    Quote Originally Posted by Deltacamelately View Post
    Reading up on the Cuban Missile crisis will give you some of their thought processes.
    The objective was fulfilled

  3. #63
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,091
    Quote Originally Posted by anil View Post
    The objective was fulfilled
    Broadly speaking both sides had different objectives. The USSR was more heavily focussed n protecting its territory & immediate surrounds. The US had a much wider 'perimeter' if you will. It also had dramatically better power projection. Provided that any given dispute didn't actually threaten the USSR or its immediate region and the US held its nerve the US had an advantage. Didn't mean a guaranteed win, but it did confer an edge.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  4. #64
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    From the Soviet perspective, they won.

    The Cuban Missile Crisis - it was a tit for tat. Missiles were withdrawn from Turkey.
    Arab-Israeli War - Israel chickened out.
    Bay of Bengal - the USS ENTERPRISE was deterred (yes, yes, that's not what happened but Moscow didn't know that, all they saw was that their task force stopped the Americans cold).

  5. #65
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    From the Soviet perspective, they won.

    The Cuban Missile Crisis - it was a tit for tat. Missiles were withdrawn from Turkey.
    Arab-Israeli War - Israel chickened out.
    Bay of Bengal - the USS ENTERPRISE was deterred (yes, yes, that's not what happened but Moscow didn't know that, all they saw was that their task force stopped the Americans cold).
    Arab-Israeli War - Soviets won?? No I do not think so for you were not looking at Soviet's pile before the game started. If you get millions but you had billions, it certainly does not mean you won. The Soviet lost a very important client - the Egyptians and another one, Jordan. The Soviets lost more than they won, hence an overall loss.

    Sino-Soviet conflict - America won.

    Cuban Missile crisis - A draw because US was getting its submarine ICBMs and Soviets were not getting its submarine ICBMs until much later and US was going to withdraw the missiles from Turkey anyway so US technically still had the upper hand.

    Bay of Bengal - a Soviet victory.

    So the final tally - one win, 2 losses, one draw. Not good winning percentage.

  6. #66
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    Arab-Israeli War - Soviets won??
    I was speaking of the immediate results. Israel did chicken out before the Soviet threat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    Sino-Soviet conflict - America won.
    We all did. That was a nuclear war waiting to happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    Cuban Missile crisis - A draw because US was getting its submarine ICBMs and Soviets were not getting its submarine ICBMs until much later and US was going to withdraw the missiles from Turkey anyway so US technically still had the upper hand.
    The Soviets did not know it at the time and the POLARIS was in no way a good replacement for Turkey.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    So the final tally - one win, 2 losses, one draw. Not good winning percentage.
    Again, lacking the proper information, look at it from their perspective.

  7. #67
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Turkey was still a major NATO country and a nuclear-armed country at that so the effects of removing the missiles were negligible and the missiles themselves were not reliable. Cuba was nuclear free and there was an American base on Cuba.

  8. #68
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    And Cuba became a staging ground for Soviet boomers.

  9. #69
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    And Cuba became a staging ground for Soviet boomers.
    And became easy targets for American subs since now we know where the Soviet boomers were headed and mapped out their sonar characteristics.

  10. #70
    Officer of Engineers
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    And became easy targets for American subs since now we know where the Soviet boomers were headed and mapped out their sonar characteristics.
    You forget how Soviet boomers were to operate. A destroyer screen pinging the hell out of nearby waters, forcing USN task groups to blast their way through that screen before they can get to the boomer which by that time, already tossed her nukes.

    Cuba offerred such a staging ground. USN task groups would have to blast their way through the destroyer screens in Cuba before they can get to the boomers.

  11. #71
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    You forget how Soviet boomers were to operate. A destroyer screen pinging the hell out of nearby waters, forcing USN task groups to blast their way through that screen before they can get to the boomer which by that time, already tossed her nukes.

    Cuba offerred such a staging ground. USN task groups would have to blast their way through the destroyer screens in Cuba before they can get to the boomers.
    That means the boomers were blind and can no longer use sonar to navigate their way out so had to use presribed routes and pinging the hell out just alert the USN to where the boomer groups are and localize the boomers to a search area. Not an effective strategy.

  12. #72
    Senior Contributor Doktor's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 Aug 08
    Location
    Skopje, Macedonia
    Posts
    13,668
    Who cares after the nukes are lobed?
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

  13. #73
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Doktor View Post
    Who cares after the nukes are lobed?
    How long does it take for the boomers to unload all of their missiles? Soviet boomers, IIRC, have not mastered of firing all of their missiles in quick succession such as within less than a couple minutes without stabilizing the buoyancy and center of gravity factor. If the destroyers are pinging like hell, then it is easy to see where the group is and the hunter subs can hone in on the sound of missiles launching quite quickly for it is damn impossible to mask the sounds of missiles launching.

    Even more so, you could position an THAAD equipped Aegis destroyer to take out the missiles as they are being launched and have not reached their maximum velocity.

  14. #74
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,401
    Quote Originally Posted by anil View Post
    Why did they back down?
    Because the Soviets thought we were serious about popping atomic tops and starting a deadman's party where everyone was invited. They called us Cowboys, but Cowboys with a history of slaughtering our enemies on a truly massive scale and no real personal experience of what it was like to be on the receiving end. The Soviets were terrified of us and were absolutely convinced that we were willing to fight a nuclear war. They never were, not against us. Every time push came to shove- Israel, China, Cuba, Turkey the Soviets backed down as soon as it looked like America was going all in.

    Hand Nixon moved rapidly in 71 the Soviets would have backed down and left India hanging. India would have backed down too. Yankee Station was too close and Yankee Station had a good chunk of the US 17 carriers (12 large/super carriers, 5 Essex angled deck CV, 1 CVN) and 27 mostly gun cruisers. Some of the carriers would ahve to remain on Yankee Station but not all of them so there was nearby help for the Big-E. In addition there was a large force of B-52's in Thailand.

    Given that against Pakistan alone the IAF suffered 10% losses to its pre-war strength in just 2 weeks. Add in USAF/USN/USMC aircraft to the mix which, with the exception of the Mig-21 totally outclassed everything India had.... Not a war India could win.

    But to win it, Nixon had to be winning to eat higher ground losses in Vietnam as carriers left the area, the chance that the Soviets would send even more and different SAMs to Vietnam or stir up North Korea and a risk of cooling relations with China if the US was seen by the Chinese leadership as endangering China. Finally, to beat India, Nixon had to be willing to take his lumps in the street protests and Congressional debates inside America itself and he wasn't. Pakistan, then as now was a vassal not an ally.

  15. #75
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by zraver View Post
    Because the Soviets thought we were serious about popping atomic tops and starting a deadman's party where everyone was invited. They called us Cowboys, but Cowboys with a history of slaughtering our enemies on a truly massive scale and no real personal experience of what it was like to be on the receiving end. The Soviets were terrified of us and were absolutely convinced that we were willing to fight a nuclear war. They never were, not against us. Every time push came to shove- Israel, China, Cuba, Turkey the Soviets backed down as soon as it looked like America was going all in.

    Hand Nixon moved rapidly in 71 the Soviets would have backed down and left India hanging. India would have backed down too. Yankee Station was too close and Yankee Station had a good chunk of the US 17 carriers (12 large/super carriers, 5 Essex angled deck CV, 1 CVN) and 27 mostly gun cruisers. Some of the carriers would ahve to remain on Yankee Station but not all of them so there was nearby help for the Big-E. In addition there was a large force of B-52's in Thailand.

    Given that against Pakistan alone the IAF suffered 10% losses to its pre-war strength in just 2 weeks. Add in USAF/USN/USMC aircraft to the mix which, with the exception of the Mig-21 totally outclassed everything India had.... Not a war India could win.

    But to win it, Nixon had to be winning to eat higher ground losses in Vietnam as carriers left the area, the chance that the Soviets would send even more and different SAMs to Vietnam or stir up North Korea and a risk of cooling relations with China if the US was seen by the Chinese leadership as endangering China. Finally, to beat India, Nixon had to be willing to take his lumps in the street protests and Congressional debates inside America itself and he wasn't. Pakistan, then as now was a vassal not an ally.
    There was no way that US could alter the ground realities. yes the naval scene but not the ground realities or even aerial realities. And India was not going to back down in any case not especially after millions of refugees flooding into India.

    Despite your belief in US, US is not the omnipotent power as you make it out to be.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Only Nixon can go to China
    By gunnut in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 20 Sep 10,, 20:54
  2. Richard Nixon Good or Bad President?
    By Freeloader in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 156
    Last Post: 16 Sep 09,, 15:56
  3. Troopergate : When Nixon met Sarah
    By Traps in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12 Oct 08,, 07:36
  4. Great Rulers Succeeded by Nincompoops
    By Amled in forum Ancient, Medieval & Early Modern Ages
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07 Jun 06,, 01:48
  5. Nixon's approach to cold war
    By Hindle in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15 May 06,, 20:57

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
  •