Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Red Storm Unleashed: 1953, 1963, or 1973

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

  • #16
    Also, one might try Michael Palmer's The War that Never Was.

    Of course, I might be biased because it's written by the head of History Department where I'm a student.

    To me the Soviet Union in a heating up of the Cold War would have initially rolled over the top of the NATO forces, before the NATO forces finally stepped up and pushed them back, not all the way. Then the threat of nuclear weapons and the fact that they hadn't pushed the NATO troops into the sea would force the Soviets to come to the negotiating table.

    Consul
    Sapere aude
    Ship of the Month: USS McFaul (DDG 74)
    Click Here for More Info

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Consul
      To me the Soviet Union in a heating up of the Cold War would have initially rolled over the top of the NATO forces, before the NATO forces finally stepped up and pushed them back, not all the way. Then the threat of nuclear weapons and the fact that they hadn't pushed the NATO troops into the sea would force the Soviets to come to the negotiating table.
      I suspect we would have nuclear early.

      It's about 100miles from Eisenach (aka 1GTA) to Frankfurt am Main, as the crow flies. That's not much maneuver room before they get within artillery range of the airports and river ports of that key city.

      It's less than 40 miles to Hamburg and about 80 miles to Bremen, from the former boundary between East and West Germany. That's virtually no room at all before the critical North German ports are within range.

      The Soviets wouldn't have had to push us into the sea -- 20 miles or so in the north and about three times that towards Frankfurt would have been a crisis.
      Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
      Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


      "Never pet a burning dog."

      RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
      http://www.mormon.org
      http://www.sca.org
      http://www.scv.org/
      http://www.scouting.org/

      Comment


      • #18
        How many nukes would we have had to spare, and how many of them would be readily deployable in Europe? I know one of Truman's main problems with MacArthur in Korea was that the US did not have many nukes, an so using them would have taken them away from possible use in the USSR.

        So we decide to concentrate US efforts in Europe? We also have to watch out for a communist China going through the straits of Taiwan to try and take that over, and we have a resurgent North Korea coming past the DMZ. Would we be able to deal with a three front war?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Larkin
          How many nukes would we have had to spare, and how many of them would be readily deployable in Europe? I know one of Truman's main problems with MacArthur in Korea was that the US did not have many nukes, an so using them would have taken them away from possible use in the USSR.
          We had sufficient Nukes to stop any conventional attack into Europe as well as prevent any attack against the U.S. by the USSR in 1953. In fact I doubt that the USSR could have delivered any kind of weapon to the U.S. at that time. The bombs were still very large and the Soviet bomber force not that well developed at that time.

          Originally posted by Larkin
          So we decide to concentrate US efforts in Europe? We also have to watch out for a communist China going through the straits of Taiwan to try and take that over, and we have a resurgent North Korea coming past the DMZ. Would we be able to deal with a three front war?
          An attack on Taiwan could have been stopped by simply putting a couple of carrier battle groups in the area. The Communist amphibious capability was practically non-existent, and is even now only marginally able to make an invasion of Taiwan.
          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

          Comment


          • #20
            So the battle of Taiwan isn't all that exciting, and WW3 is now reduced to two fronts. What about Korea?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Larkin
              So the battle of Taiwan isn't all that exciting, and WW3 is now reduced to two fronts. What about Korea?
              China tried a couple of times to push back the UN after the lines stabilized. They discovered that infantry–even a lot of it-doesn’t overcome massed artillery and napalm. The Korean front would have remained fairly stabile so it would have come down to Europe.
              Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

              Comment


              • #22
                China tried to push us back but couldn't. We never tried to start pushing them after the DMZ was established. We could have used the chance to roll back the communists and get Russia to fight two fronts. Would we have?

                Comment

                Latest Topics

                Collapse

                Working...
                X