NATO vs. Warsaw Pact

[gunnut]

conquer eastern Germany?? i,m not sure i read you right. east germany was under ussr control from1945 to 1991 or something.
why they woudn't use nukes in the ground war? cuz that would make entire europe and may be even asia uninhabitable for at least 250000 years, sea on the other hand is not where people live ,and there were untill recantly many nuke tests done under water by both russia and usa, didn,t affect none of us to much.
if ww3 ever takes place, it'll be bye bye earth.

Thermonuclear devices don't leave much fallout that stay radioactive for 1/4 million years.

Even if it did, you'll be surprised at how fast the earth can cleanse itself. Chernobyl, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, all had uncontrolled fission reaction that produced large quanties of radioactive fallout. All recovered in less than 25 years. In fact, scientists were shocked to see wild life moving back to the Chernobyl site just a few years after the accident when they though no life could exist for hundreds of years.

A full nuclear exchange between NATO and Warsaw Pact will not wipe out the human race. It might set us back a few decades, but the survivors will recover and repopulate this earth in no time.

[zraver]

Thermonuclear devices don't leave much fallout that stay radioactive for 1/4 million years.

Even if it did, you'll be surprised at how fast the earth can cleanse itself. Chernobyl, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, all had uncontrolled fission reaction that produced large quanties of radioactive fallout. All recovered in less than 25 years. In fact, scientists were shocked to see wild life moving back to the Chernobyl site just a few years after the accident when they though no life could exist for hundreds of years.

A full nuclear exchange between NATO and Warsaw Pact will not wipe out the human race. It might set us back a few decades, but the survivors will recover and repopulate this earth in no time.

IIRC if at the height of the CW all the worlds nukes were fired at their targets it would cover 2% of the earths surface and fallout would cover anoither 20%. The problem is that 22% is where 80% of us lived. your chances if you live North of the Equator were many times worse than those South of the Equator: target density.

Omon, nuclear tests on the atolls where never done under water for the sake of doing them underwater. They were either surface burst or after the moratorium on surface testign was called they were buried.

[ColSherman82]

NATO vs. Warsaw 1974

NATO in 1974 is nothing and USSR in 1974 is everything. Military to military NATO would be wiped out over the course of a few weeks. Although a possible scenario their would be at some point a NBC intervention in this type of situation. But in the 1980s it was a different story -- NATO technology overtook the Soviets and would have proven very deadly for them in a NATO vs. Warsaw 1980s scenario. Operation Able Archer. :))

[militarymafia]

Warsaw Pact would have defeated and overtaken not just European NATO nations, but the USA as well.

But then again nukes were more of a threat then than they are now if there ever is a total war, because now everyone has smart weapons, so no need to wipe out a whole nation with a 1940s primitive weapon of mass destruction.

1973 - NATO/USA defeated, Warsaw Pact wins.
1983 - NATO/USA still defeated, but the war is longer and bloodier.
1993 - Russia is weakened, so it would use nukes here no problem.
2003 - Russia starts to rebuild and become what the USSR used to be.
2013 - Russia is what the USSR used to be, and it has China and India along with it.
2023 - By this time World War 3 would have either already happened, or is happening or starts to happen.

[Officer of Engineers]

Stop insulting our intelligence!

[Stan187]

Warsaw Pact would have defeated and overtaken not just European NATO nations, but the USA as well.

I know Red Dawn is a fun movie and everything, but you need to come back to the real world, Patrick Swayze.

[zraver]

Warsaw Pact would have defeated and overtaken not just European NATO nations, but the USA as well.

But then again nukes were more of a threat then than they are now if there ever is a total war, because now everyone has smart weapons, so no need to wipe out a whole nation with a 1940s primitive weapon of mass destruction.

1973 - NATO/USA defeated, Warsaw Pact wins.

The spring of 75 is a better bet. Nixon is gone, Ford's a lame duck and America can't find its feet, Siagon's fall in April 74 proves the Democrats have no intention of going back to war. The US Army is beset by low morale, worn out equipment and is trying not to choke on the M60A2. In the air the USAF and USN naval arms are superbly trained, combat veterans and equipped with the F-4 phantom and a few new F-111's and F-14's but the F-15 is still in pre-service testing.

[zraver]

1983 - NATO/USA still defeated, but the war is longer and bloodier.

By 1983 the door is all but shut on the Soviets. Thanks to the fall of the Shah and German-American collaboration 3 of the 4 strongest armies in NATO are rapidly re-arming their armored forces making current Soviet reliance on HEAT obsolete. On top of that the US now has the Apache, MLRS and M2?M3 Bradley in service. In the air, the F-15 and F-16 are in service as is the first squadron of the F-117. Reagen has restored American pride and Lehman is rapidly rebuilding the navy from a fleet of WW2 cast offs into one of modern ships and electronics.

[cuba]

I'm sure the soviets would have annihalated the NATO armies but the USA would always triumph over the Soviets, albiet after a long and bloody campaign.

[Officer of Engineers]

I'm sure the soviets would have annihalated the NATO armies

Not by a long shot even by the Soviet own admissions.

[cuba]

Not by a long shot even by the Soviet own admissions.

So then why all this paranoia about the soviets in the first place?

[Officer of Engineers]

Because the admission came Dec, 2007.

[cuba]

Because the admission came Dec, 2007.

Well, i think that the Soviets could have used this element of fear to their advantage and of course circumstances were far different then than they are now. It's fine for a country to admit something like this decades after it was relevant.

Are they saying this based on their military capabilities alone?

[Officer of Engineers]

The details here

From Military Planning for European Theater Conflict in the Cold War

The Operational Plans

The conference began with a detailed overview of the NATO plans in the early 1980s. Th e plans assumed that the Warsaw Pact had numerical conventional superiority and anticipated a gradual improvement of its armament. Th e plans, it was repeatedly emphasised, were fi rst and foremost intended to deter the Warsaw Pact from attacking. Should deterrence fail, they were to serve as a guide for the defence of the territory of the NATO member countries. Th e plans were therefore of purely defensive nature. Counterattacks were only intended to recapture lost territory. All NATO representatives confi rmed this; the German representative pointed out the catastrophic consequences of any alternative for the civilian population of his country. A very important new element in the planning, in the event of the Warsaw Pact opening the attack, was attacking enemy troops assembling on the territory of the member states of the Warsaw Pact – the AirLand Battle /Follow-on Forces Attack, or FOFA, concept.

The representatives of the former Soviet Union then made it clear
that the Warsaw Pact had never had plans to be the fi rst to attack either. It would not even have been able to do so, as too many Soviet troops were stationed along the border with China, and the fi ghting in Afghanistan required the deployment of a great many troops as well. It was mainly for that reason, it was said, that the Soviet Union also halted plans for military intervention in Poland.25

The Soviet Union considered the United States to be the main opponent in the European theatre of war. If NATO had attacked, the Pact would have therefore launched nuclear missiles at America almost immediately. It would have attacked on the notion, based on past experiences, that attack was the best form of defence. Like NATO, it had stationed its troops as far forward as possible in order to be able to carry out such an attack. However, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the military leadership assumed that there would be no hostilities in Europe because they would almost certainly lead to a world war. These revelations surprised the NATO participants, who in those days had assumed that the Soviet Union was prepared to limit a possible war to Europe, to prevent American retaliation.

[cuba]

The details here

Okay. Thanks mate.

I will attempt to digest this and then decide whether to continue arguing over a topic which i am not qualified for.