What If?

[[GG]Olaf_Rassmussen]

www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html

Worst case scenario. Discuss

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

In response, I will start another post.

[[GG]Buxford]

The author of this scenario vastly overestimates Soviet military capabilities. He also doesn't give enough credit to American military and nuclear power. If this had really happened, the SU would've been the country with 110 million casualties, not the US. This author assumes that the Americans would just sit on their asses in the event of a nuclear war and just "take it." This is preposterous.

This author's speculation is bunk. Nato forces in West Germany and surrounding areas would've driven the Soviets back into East Germany and Poland. The Russians wouldn't have had the chance to make a preemptive nuclear strike. With air and naval superiority, the Americans and other allies would've been able to bomb Russian nuclear weapons depots into oblivion. And even if the Soviets were able to launch their nuclear warheads, the Allies would've launched countermeasures within seconds, and not just sit there. Russia, as well as most of western Europe and parts of North America, would've been a barren wasteland within minutes.

I'm not saying this because I'm "pro-American." I'm saying this because, contrary to popular belief, the Soviet military never came CLOSE to the US military. The US Navy and Airforce ALWAYS had more planes, better technology, and more, better trained pilots and sailors, even during the height of the Cold War. Even the army had better technology and better quality soldiers than the Soviets. Most important, American nuclear capabilites ALWAYS surpassed Soviet capabilities.

[[GG]SirDabrowski]

He does not mention pre-war Soviet Spetsnaz operations, which the USSR would banked upon.

They did not mention US-made Kill-sat's.

They did not mention the NATO doctrine that associates Chemical weapons with Nuclear weapons.

They did not mention NATO chemical retaliatory strikes.


It's completely and utterly biased towards the USSR. The Soviet Navy could never have hoped to beat the US Navy ( And Soviet doctrines admitted to this. The Soviet Navy merely had to 'hold off' US-reinforcements from Europe. ), even if it managed to surprise the US.

That, and it doesn't even bare mention of the Los-Angeles-Class submarines which would have been working off the Peninsula of Kamchatka, nor near Murmansk.

They did not mention the SOSUS Line.

They did not mention that Soviet-Doctrine called for Chemical-Warhead attacks ONLY when it was of the upmost need, and if Russian land ( Note, not Poland or the Eastern Bloc ) was in danger. They knew better then to use Chemical Weapons so prematurely.

That, and US Missile silos were bombed? With what? Magical bombers? Their longest range fliers, the Backfires, could travel, at the most extreme distances, to the Azores. Soviet conventional missiles were relatively 'dumb' and stood no chance hitting a Missile Silo dead on, much less hitting one then destroying it..

[[GG]Buxford]

Not to mention the fact that the US Airforce could literally fly rings around the Soviets. The Soviet bombers wouldn't have made it past France...

[[GG]SirDabrowski]

buxford said:

Not to mention the fact that the US Airforce could literally fly rings around the Soviets. The Soviet bombers wouldn't have made it past France...

No.

The Soviet Air Force WAS a force to be reckoned with. Would it have been easy? No, but they certainly wouldn't of flown 'rings' around the Soviets. It'd depend on who destroyed whose radar aircraft first.

Fighter's can not operate efffectively without radar aircraft. Either the Bear-D for the Soviet's or the AWACS for the United States. If one side does not have proper radar coverage, then that side is doomed to have a complete lack of air superiority, and hands it to the others.

However, we also have to take in to account Soviet Anti-Air capabilites, which would've made NATO Attack Aircraft pay a hard toll for attacking Soviet formations.

[[GG]Olaf_Rassmussen]

True we gotta remember that NATO and Soviets were pretty much in same line with conventional arms, but NATO had more nukes by looking to records. (But both sides had enought to bomb eachother in oblivion)

[[GG]SirDabrowski]

olafrassmussen said:

True we gotta remember that NATO and Soviets were pretty much in same line with conventional arms, but NATO had more nukes by looking to records. (But both sides had enought to bomb eachother in oblivion)

Again, nope. NATO had more "High-Grade" conventional arms then the Soviets did. The Soviet's based their Military on 'grades'. A-Battle group, B-Battle Group, C, etc, all with varying levels of training and equipment. An "A-Grade" division would be equipped with advcaned T-80U's, very good air support, etc, etc. Whileas a C-Grade division might be armed with decrepit T-62's, and very little training.

Whileas NATO predominately relied on large quantities of high-grade equipment and training. The M1A1 Abrams and the T-80U could be considered near equals, but we simply had more high-grade tanks, fighters, attack aircraft, bombers, small arms, etc, to beat the Soviets back in a conventional War.

However, that all relies whether US Reinforcements can get across the Atlantic with prowling Backfires and Russian Fast-Attack submarines, both diesel, and nuclear.

[[GG]Buxford]

It'd be possible.