3 ms·

> Given the size of the Soviet Union, how far it is from the United States, the available spying and reconnaissance technology (no satellites, no stealth aircra

by cat199 9y ago

> Given the size of the Soviet Union, how far it is from the United States, the available spying and reconnaissance technology (no satellites, no stealth aircraft), and that the US was only four years out of World War II, I don't think there is any way the US could have made a creditable threat to use military force to stop the Russians. That whole 'massive military presence in western europe and asia minor' thing notwithstanding of couse..

throwanem 9y ago
Less so than you might think. We brought our forces home after WWII, which put them on the wrong side of the Atlantic to mount a defense against a Soviet invasion of Europe. That's actually where a lot of the early urgency originated in nuclear weapons development - not just to stay ahead of the Russkies, but to as quickly as possible mount a credible deterrent to precisely that potential Soviet war plan.
- adventured 9y ago
  > We brought our forces home after WWII We brought some of them home. The US still had a quarter of a million troops in Germany in the late 1980s. In the 1950s, there were still 300,000 to 400,000 across all of Europe (eg 50,000 in the UK in the mid to late 1950s).
  - throwanem 9y ago
    That's not but about a sixth of what the tank-heavy Red Army had at the time - a sixth which in a new war would have no hope of timely reinforcement, because of the aforementioned ocean. A nuclear deterrent was still seen as valuable, even necessary, and I think not wrongly so.
    - adventured 9y ago
      The US forces obviously were not the only counter forces in Europe. It wasn't just ~300,000 US troops vs the entire Red Army. It was: the US, the UK, France, Western Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Portugal, Greece, Turkey. Russia also very likely would have lost several of its western post WW2 Soviet Union territories in the chaos. The US could bomb Russia from all over Europe. Russia couldn't sustain a meaningful bombing campaign against the US mainland. Russia also had a mediocre navy compared to the US. Rapid attrition would have guaranteed a Russian loss. Russia was very weak for 30 years after WW2 (really their entire existence except for the brief oil boom of 1974-84). While the US was in the exact opposite position. Timely US reinforcement probably would not have been necessary. That's a war that would have gone on either for years, or for a few weeks. Russia also would have had few allies in a European war. The US had the manpower, financial and manufacturing ability to stay in a long-term fight with Russia, whereas Russia could not have afforded to stay in it. They could have never replaced their war manufacturing after the US destroyed it with aerial bombing, and the war would have ended there (in the non-nuclear scenario). Russia would pull out the nuclear card, an equivalent of suing for peace, and that would have been that.
    - gmueckl 9y ago
      Some of the NATO plans for a Soviet attack were pretty crazy. They had plans where they would not start any real defensive action until the enemy reached the Rhine, hoping to trade almost all of West Germany for time so that US reinforcements could cross the Atlantic and deploy. Major bridges and railway lines in Germany were designed with ways to block or destroy them to deny then to the enemy. Even the smaller roads near the border had holes in them for explosive charges (sometimes allegedly even pre-placed to save time). I grew up at the Czech border and have seen these. All of this was done to slow any invasion force that might enter the country from the east. After the fall of the iron curtain all of this was removed. Also, Germany until 1990 was hardly in a political position to deny its western Allies the stationing of more troops if they had really wanted. Formally, provisions from the WW2 surrender were still in place that would have allowed the disbanding of the West German government and placement under allied control (this finally ended with the 2 plus 4 treaties). Thankfully, the defense plan never needed to be tested, so there is no telling if it would have worked.

by cat199 9y ago

throwanem 9y ago

Less so than you might think. We brought our forces home after WWII, which put them on the wrong side of the Atlantic to mount a defense against a Soviet invasion of Europe. That's actually where a lot of the early urgency originated in nuclear weapons development - not just to stay ahead of the Russkies, but to as quickly as possible mount a credible deterrent to precisely that potential Soviet war plan.

adventured 9y ago
> We brought our forces home after WWII We brought some of them home. The US still had a quarter of a million troops in Germany in the late 1980s. In the 1950s, there were still 300,000 to 400,000 across all of Europe (eg 50,000 in the UK in the mid to late 1950s).
- throwanem 9y ago
  That's not but about a sixth of what the tank-heavy Red Army had at the time - a sixth which in a new war would have no hope of timely reinforcement, because of the aforementioned ocean. A nuclear deterrent was still seen as valuable, even necessary, and I think not wrongly so.
  - adventured 9y ago
    The US forces obviously were not the only counter forces in Europe. It wasn't just ~300,000 US troops vs the entire Red Army. It was: the US, the UK, France, Western Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Portugal, Greece, Turkey. Russia also very likely would have lost several of its western post WW2 Soviet Union territories in the chaos. The US could bomb Russia from all over Europe. Russia couldn't sustain a meaningful bombing campaign against the US mainland. Russia also had a mediocre navy compared to the US. Rapid attrition would have guaranteed a Russian loss. Russia was very weak for 30 years after WW2 (really their entire existence except for the brief oil boom of 1974-84). While the US was in the exact opposite position. Timely US reinforcement probably would not have been necessary. That's a war that would have gone on either for years, or for a few weeks. Russia also would have had few allies in a European war. The US had the manpower, financial and manufacturing ability to stay in a long-term fight with Russia, whereas Russia could not have afforded to stay in it. They could have never replaced their war manufacturing after the US destroyed it with aerial bombing, and the war would have ended there (in the non-nuclear scenario). Russia would pull out the nuclear card, an equivalent of suing for peace, and that would have been that.
  - gmueckl 9y ago
    Some of the NATO plans for a Soviet attack were pretty crazy. They had plans where they would not start any real defensive action until the enemy reached the Rhine, hoping to trade almost all of West Germany for time so that US reinforcements could cross the Atlantic and deploy. Major bridges and railway lines in Germany were designed with ways to block or destroy them to deny then to the enemy. Even the smaller roads near the border had holes in them for explosive charges (sometimes allegedly even pre-placed to save time). I grew up at the Czech border and have seen these. All of this was done to slow any invasion force that might enter the country from the east. After the fall of the iron curtain all of this was removed. Also, Germany until 1990 was hardly in a political position to deny its western Allies the stationing of more troops if they had really wanted. Formally, provisions from the WW2 surrender were still in place that would have allowed the disbanding of the West German government and placement under allied control (this finally ended with the 2 plus 4 treaties). Thankfully, the defense plan never needed to be tested, so there is no telling if it would have worked.