4 ms·

> new cold-war weapon intended to give the upper hand in a full-scale invasion of the U.S. This is not true. For one, the Soviet Union never had any plans for

> new cold-war weapon intended to give the upper hand in a full-scale invasion of the U.S. This is not true. For one, the Soviet Union never had any plans for the invasion of the U.S. One thing they did better in the cold war was understanding the political results of potential military actions. Because of this, they never had any misconceptions of a major conventional war directly between superpowers that lasts more than two weeks before either being resolved or going nuclear. This informed everything about how they built up their military, from the tiniest piece of equipment to overall doctrine. Once you understand this, a lot of their equipment and thinking is a lot more sensible. (For example, the way their logistical organization is set up. A tank division, and the tanks in it, are supposed to give maximum possible effort for about two weeks after which it doesn't matter what shape they are in.) Any concept of a Soviet invasion of the US is fanciful to the point of being stupid. Just because if the Soviets somehow attain the necessary conventional superiority to attempt it, and then push it, why exactly wouldn't the Americans just nuke them?

mapt 6y ago
The US military maintains plans for invading Canada, defending Puerto Rico against alien attack, and flooding the Netherlands to deny them to the militant Tibetan Buddhist cult which has discovered an effective indoctrination-hypnosis video and is conquering Europe. Plans are just plans. Lots of them are stupid. Planning officers often make strategic plans as simple exercises in considering all factors. You can be assured that Soviet invasion of the US mainland was hardly one of the more farfetched ones, as such things go, though the conditions never came close to presenting themselves. Nuclear weapons make most military plans "fanciful to the point of being stupid". We've been in a state of unavoidable mutually assured destruction since the late 1960's. This hasn't stopped weapons development. Being able to move large amounts of soldiers and weaponry around at high speed is a generally useful thing.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  But you do not develop a new weapons system just to run a speculative planning exercise. If this was not just a military-industrial complex boondoggle - which I suspect it was - I imagine there were some somewhat realistic plans around what it might actually be useful for.
  - mapt 6y ago
    I'll give you one right off the bat where something like this might be useful, in antiship or transport roles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Straits_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Straits_crisis Russia has a lot of inland lakes, and has always defined its empire with non-negotiable geopolitical requirements for blue-water ports on all sides. The countries that pose a threat to those ports generally have a lot of vulnerable coastlines. Fly an ekranoplane empty to a staging area, fill it with a regiment, fly it in boost mode over any land obstacles, and you can rapidly drop significant troop numbers at any point on the coast without control over the body of water. Larger ekranoplanes that can operate higher off the water are more useful as transports, and things plausibly get much bigger than the KM.
  - Yizahi 6y ago
    Incompetent bureaucracies do exactly this - "you do not develop a new weapons system just to run a speculative planning exercise". One of significant reasons why USSR failed as a state.

mapt 6y ago

The US military maintains plans for invading Canada, defending Puerto Rico against alien attack, and flooding the Netherlands to deny them to the militant Tibetan Buddhist cult which has discovered an effective indoctrination-hypnosis video and is conquering Europe. Plans are just plans. Lots of them are stupid. Planning officers often make strategic plans as simple exercises in considering all factors. You can be assured that Soviet invasion of the US mainland was hardly one of the more farfetched ones, as such things go, though the conditions never came close to presenting themselves. Nuclear weapons make most military plans "fanciful to the point of being stupid". We've been in a state of unavoidable mutually assured destruction since the late 1960's. This hasn't stopped weapons development. Being able to move large amounts of soldiers and weaponry around at high speed is a generally useful thing.

mannykannot 6y ago
But you do not develop a new weapons system just to run a speculative planning exercise. If this was not just a military-industrial complex boondoggle - which I suspect it was - I imagine there were some somewhat realistic plans around what it might actually be useful for.
- mapt 6y ago
  I'll give you one right off the bat where something like this might be useful, in antiship or transport roles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Straits_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Straits_crisis Russia has a lot of inland lakes, and has always defined its empire with non-negotiable geopolitical requirements for blue-water ports on all sides. The countries that pose a threat to those ports generally have a lot of vulnerable coastlines. Fly an ekranoplane empty to a staging area, fill it with a regiment, fly it in boost mode over any land obstacles, and you can rapidly drop significant troop numbers at any point on the coast without control over the body of water. Larger ekranoplanes that can operate higher off the water are more useful as transports, and things plausibly get much bigger than the KM.
- Yizahi 6y ago
  Incompetent bureaucracies do exactly this - "you do not develop a new weapons system just to run a speculative planning exercise". One of significant reasons why USSR failed as a state.