Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

world war 3

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 347
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2004, 13:24
Komsomol
Post 02 Oct 2004, 08:01
Stealth wrote:
The Americans would have at least nucked Moscow and Leningrad...


By the mid 80's CCCP already had integrated anti-ICBM deffence system
( powerful radars,missile silos,command centre,etc... ) which was fully capable of shutting-down all the balistic missiles launched to CCCP.
However this system no longer exists because of the nuclear disarment treaty.


btw Americans are building similar anti-ICBM deffence now , based on the Russian experience
Image
Soviet cogitations: 226
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Aug 2004, 14:50
Pioneer
Post 02 Oct 2004, 14:37
These anti-nuclear defences are not very reliable. First, it's almost impossible to stop ALL the missiles and bombers, if you miss even one you've got a disaster on your head. Second, there is no effective way to actually stop an ICBM... I think (I'm not very sure though) the only way to do it is to blast it in the air. But the radioactive fallout will still be deadly.
If it was a conventional war, I fully agree with comrade Vlad: "The USSR would totally and utterly devour america!"
Soviet cogitations: 347
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2004, 13:24
Komsomol
Post 02 Oct 2004, 15:17
Quote:
These anti-nuclear defences are not very reliable

Nothing build by the Russians is "unreliable".Plus I doubt you're qualified enough to give opinion on this.Just wait for Chernobog's answer.

Quote:
there is no effective way to actually stop an ICBM

There is
Image
Soviet cogitations: 226
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Aug 2004, 14:50
Pioneer
Post 03 Oct 2004, 00:57
Look, I totaly agree with you! But as far as I can tell you think that the Americans are some sort of barbaric idiots. They have stealth bombers, submarines with hundreds of nuclear missiles on them, military bases all over the world and even IMO (although it's forbidden and they deny it) satellites with nuclear weapons on them. You think that it's possible to stop them ALL? I reming you again - only one bomber/ICBM reaches Moscow and this war may be consideed as lost (figuratively)!
Besides the statement that "nothing built by Russians is unreliable" seems a little childish to me and reminds me of the "no russian soldier has ever killed a man for no reason" thesis.
And yes, there is no way to stop a flying missile. They are build for that purpose - the impossibility to be recalled or stopped. The bombers can be stopped, but the only way to stop an ICBM is to detonate it.
Again yes, I'm nt a rocket scientist, but I know some things about the nuclear weapons and the military strategy in the nuclear age.
Still, theoretically, let's accept that the USSR isn't harmed by any US bomb and America is totaly destroyed by soviet nukes. That's gonna be one hell of a victory! The radiation will sooner or later reach the eastern hemisphere and eventually exterminate all human life there. How could you stop that? And, according to some soviet scientists, if even 10 % of the nuclear weapons in the world are detonated a nuclear winter will occur - the smoke from the flames and the dust from the detonations will be so dense that it'll cover the Earth's sky for quite a long time, stopping solar rays from reaching the surface, thus the temperatures all over the world will fall under the zero and all the plants and animals will die. The post-war world will be nothing but a shadow of it's former self. The Soviet buildings will be standing forever, but the people won't be there.
There can't be a winner in a full-scale nuclear war! People much more intelligent than the two of us were trying to find a way to eliminate their adversary without killing themselves - without success.

Sorry about my grammar.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2507
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 May 2004, 21:17
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Bureaucrat
Post 03 Oct 2004, 02:31
(In response to the first post)
The Soviet Union would most likely be superiour with military size. Rescouces would most likely be plentiful, as the government would make the people help out the war cause as much as possible. Food....that's a given. With all of the workers, how could the country run out of food?

The United States would most likely be best at production, as they have capitalism and imperialism. I think, though, that it would be very close.
Soviet cogitations: 13
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Sep 2004, 03:05
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 04 Oct 2004, 04:41
Missile Defense systems look really good on paper, but they dont work. That is the bottom line. It has been described as trying to hit a bullet with a bullet. For example, the American missile defense system is nothing but a bunch of hot air. I am sure the soviet system isnt any better.
No, I'm not a rocket science, but I am an engineer, and that makes me at least semi-qualified to give an opinion on this.

-RYS
труд и доверие
Soviet cogitations: 347
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2004, 13:24
Komsomol
Post 04 Oct 2004, 13:24
Quote:
I am an engineer, and that makes me at least semi-qualified to give an opinion on this.



I don't want to argue with such "specialists"
.
I'll be expecting the posts from either Chernobog or Nair.
Then you'll recognize your mistake
Image
Soviet cogitations: 568
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Sep 2004, 17:54
Komsomol
Post 04 Oct 2004, 18:53
Dzhigarov wrote:
Quote:
I am an engineer, and that makes me at least semi-qualified to give an opinion on this.



I don't want to argue with such "specialists"
.
I'll be expecting the posts from either Chernobog or Nair.
Then you'll recognize your mistake


Really, I'd be interesting in knowing how you can defend yourself from ICBM's without making them explode. If there is a way, it would be interesting to hear, maybe you have a link or something? Do you have any reasoning to support this, or are you just standing by the opinion that Russia is all-knowing and does everything flawlessly?
Soviet cogitations: 37
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 09 Oct 2004, 01:10
Pioneer
Post 09 Oct 2004, 21:23
But if the ICBM's explode the nuclear fallout will affect a much larger area than if it actually hit say, moscow.
"Comrades, we're retaking Red Square!!"
Soviet cogitations: 2775
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Sep 2004, 23:23
Party Bureaucrat
Post 14 Oct 2004, 22:41
What's up with the US singning an anti-balistic missile treaty. Why is it so bat for people to develop weapos to try to take out nukes before they hit?
Am I getting the treaty wrong, or am I missing something else, Or is anyone with me in thinking that it's really wierd to ban Anti-Ballistic missiles? Does it have anything to do with fallout?

Whoppee for Comrade Sergei.
Soviet cogitations: 568
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 02 Sep 2004, 17:54
Komsomol
Post 15 Oct 2004, 00:07
I'm not sure, but I might have an idea. By having an anti-ICBM system a country might feel cocky and launch their own ICBM's in belief that any ICBM's launched in retaliation could be stopped. Just an idea, I don't really know anything of this anti-ballistic missile treaty.
Soviet cogitations: 2775
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Sep 2004, 23:23
Party Bureaucrat
Post 20 Oct 2004, 21:50
Yeah, that might be it.
Whoppee for Comrade Sergei.
Wu
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 206
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Nov 2004, 16:51
Pioneer
Post 15 Nov 2004, 15:07
The Conqueror wrote:
I know for a fact the USSR had more people than USA in the 80's. Was this not the case in WW2?[/img]


China has more and more people than USSR in the 80's.
Image

Enjoy our Socialist Weekend!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4478
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 15 Nov 2004, 17:02
Comrade Sergei wrote:
What's up with the US singning an anti-balistic missile treaty. Why is it so bat for people to develop weapos to try to take out nukes before they hit?
Am I getting the treaty wrong, or am I missing something else, Or is anyone with me in thinking that it's really wierd to ban Anti-Ballistic missiles? Does it have anything to do with fallout?



The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was designed to prevent either side (the Soviet Union or the United States) from developing anti-missile shields. It was designed to prevent an escalation of the arms race, and in the longer-term, to keep an equilibrium between the two nations in terms of capabilities to destroy each other (both nations figured that it would be better to sign a treaty preventing the development of such a shield than to be the loser in the race to develop it). That is why George W Bush has stopped abiding by the rules of that treaty: he knows that Russia does not have the resources (nor the will) to try to counter that shield.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4478
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 15 Nov 2004, 17:09
And by the way, in terms of my personal belief on who would win such a war, assuming that the US allies also fought: is that the USSR would take over all of Europe (perhaps not Britain), and it would turn into a stalemate from there (assuming nuclear weapons aren't used). The Russians would have to develop quite a huge naval capacity to counter the US. While the USSR had more naval capacity (in tonnage) than the USA, the US's allies (France, England, Japan, little allies) would overpower the Soviets in the long-run. I think in terms of a marginal victory, though, the Soviets would win. And if they got the Chinese on their side, all of Asia, the Middle East, and eventually maybe even Africa would become communist (either by force, intimidation, or desire based on the results in Europe). Without these productive capacities at their disposal, the America that is in modern times (economically) wouldn't exist (there would be any cheap labour, except maybe from South America).
Soviet cogitations: 60
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Jul 2004, 17:05
Pioneer
Post 15 Nov 2004, 18:46
In a nuclear war, there is no winner. simple.

But if your talking about convential (Blitzkreig tactics), then the USSR would steamroller the USA.

Im not saying there wouldnt be Soviet casualties. In any war there will be casualties. But the USSR would have allies like China (a superpower in itself), and Cuba on which to use as a launch pad for attacks on the mainland america.

It is clear that in convential warfare, the USSR and its allies would win. i doubt that Britain and the rest of europe would even be stupid enough to get involved.
Flying the red flag over the virtual battlefields
Image
Soviet cogitations: 20
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Nov 2004, 14:26
Pioneer
Post 22 Nov 2004, 21:00
If war is to happen, both of the countries, will use MASS DESTRUCTION WEAPONS ON EACH OTHER, and their allies. I guess the post is to be diferent, world war 3, if to be fought (hope not) it will be China, against any capitalist nation, (brits beware). And I FEAR CHINA, they have the largest air force in the world, their army is a 10% of their population, estimated in 2002 of 2.000.000.000 people. so, if my calculations are right, their army is 200.000.000 troops. In this case, it depends on who atacks who first, because the first attacker is always the villain. If USA is to be in war, they will make use of all their resources arround the world, but they cant fight them all at the same time (HITLER´s MISTAKE). In equal conditions, one on one, RUSSIA vs USA, I guess due to better tecnology implements the winner would be USA, but if Russia makes advances on the next years, it would be the winner for sure.
"A single death is a tragic event, a millon deaths is stadistic." Joseph Stalin
Soviet cogitations: 16
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Sep 2004, 04:25
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 23 Nov 2004, 10:04
When i first posted this, i had a conventional war (no nukes) in mind, as i do not belive that either side would have used nukes, even in the case of war.

The reason...well the MAD doctrine still applies in war time; neither side would be so stupid as to use nukes, as the other side would immeadiatly retaliate with nukes, and then its "goodbye world".

Anyway, i belive that the U.S.S.R could have beaten America because it had (in the 1980's at least) an approximatly equal population, greater natural resources than the U.S, a bigger country, the Russian winter (if Napolean and Hitler failed, the U.S.A has no hope), and a much bugger armed forces.

In fact, one of the reasons the U.S kept developing such huge stockpile os nukes was because Russia had such massive conventional forces.

Finally, ever since Vietnam (maybe earlier), the Americans have never been able to cope with a war that actually resulted in casulties. Not saying that casulties are a good thing, but if your fighting a war, your going to get casulties.
Long live the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics!
Soviet cogitations: 869
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Sep 2004, 03:25
Komsomol
Post 23 Nov 2004, 13:45
The United States mostly feared Russia's tank divisions. It would have used tactical nukes to remove their conventional forces. Russia of course would respond, probably nuking US airfields and then hell freezes over. We're all dead.
Image
Avi
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 44
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 May 2004, 07:05
Pioneer
Post 10 Dec 2004, 14:04
Comrade Sergei wrote:
Very True, Comrade. If such a war would have occcured between the Soviet Union and The United States, we would probably all be dead by now. I wish that the Soviet Union and America could have put asside their differences and joined together to pool their knowledge and resources to assist all the struggling third-world countries and lead Humanity into a golden age.
Boy, Am I Outrageously Optomistic Or What?


HEY!! You stop Hating on the Yanks!! Im a American, and a Capitalist!!
- For now.


That would be perfect, capitalism and communism working for almost what seems to be a communist goal, Equality for Everyone....

What would have happened if Russia rebuilt and used its BURAN Shuttles along with american so we could complete the ISS faster, and what about a united moonbase, this can all be done once the world is under a SINGLE power...

Anyways, The US/NATO Forces ina "Convetional War" would most likely be overrun by soviet human wave attacks and the use of their massive amount of tanks...and upuntill the 1980s Russia had a advantage in this...

but it would be highly likely that American tanks etc would move though siberia and assault From the rear as The European theatre heated up and of course forced Soviet forces (after presumably HIGH casualties) to retreat if they fail, plus the fact that every country wouldn't surrender to communism they'd fight to the death.

Most likely what would happen is American forces defeat the russian army, and in a last strike, russia opens a nuclear salvo on the world.....

If russian troops did the same, we'll push the Button...

In the end of a conventional war, there will be a nuclear revenge....that leaves us all to die.
"The death of one man is tragic, the death of millions is a statistic" - Josef Stalin
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.