5 ms·

Despite having this inside info on Soviet military, the US experts drastically overestimated Soviet capabilities, and spent an enormous amount keeping up with a

Despite having this inside info on Soviet military, the US experts drastically overestimated Soviet capabilities, and spent an enormous amount keeping up with an opponent over whom they were already far ahead.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
Some of that was to goad them into wasting their own resources and of course to float the MIC jobs program.
ilammy 6y ago
> over whom they were already far ahead When you're ahead, get more ahead. Wouldn't hurt you if the opponent is still losing more.
cameldrv 6y ago
What do you mean by "far ahead?" Yes, U.S. technology was generally superior to Soviet tech. If you look at the two point scenarios that were generally talked about -- general nuclear war, and conventional war in Europe (with the Soviets attacking), I don't see a very clear advantage on either side. In the general nuclear war scenario, I don't think it's likely that either side would have been able to conduct a first strike without retaliation, at least from say, 1970 onward. By the 70s, that retaliation would have meant severe damage to all of the major cities on both sides, and neither side would have been in a position to invade the other in the aftermath, so the result is essentially a draw with both sides losing. In the invasion of Western Europe scenario, I think it's hard to say exactly how it would have played out. The Soviets had huge numerical superiority on the ground and in the air. The West had a qualitative advantage. On the ground, I'm not that convinced that the qualitative advantage was as severe as was suggested by Gulf War I. The Iraqi troops were not as well trained as the Soviets, their equipment was inferior export models of Soviet equipment, and engagement ranges in the desert were very long, which magnifies the American advantage. In the air, I think the West would probably have won air superiority, but I'm not convinced that tactical air like A-10s and helicopters would have been very effective with excellent Soviet air defense. The most likely scenario probably would have been the Soviet advance stalling out somewhere on one side or the other of the Rhine due to a long logistical tail. Either way, whichever side was losing likely would have resorted to tactical nuclear weapons, and it's difficult to see how this wouldn't escalate into a general nuclear war.
- rini17 6y ago
  The logistical tail would not need to go all the way to USSR, Czechoslovakia and East Germany were kept stocked and prepared for the invasion.
  - cameldrv 6y ago
    That's true, but it probably would have been under air attack. Rail and Autobahns would have been cut, and other logistics nodes bombed. Effective Soviet air defense probably would not extend to high altitude, because those systems are too few, without enough mobility to survive very long. This would probably have led to the Soviets using nuclear weapons on Western air bases, which would then have escalated.
- Context_free 6y ago
  > In the invasion of Western Europe scenario, I think it's hard to say exactly how it would have played out. The Soviets had huge numerical superiority on the ground and in the air. The West had a qualitative advantage. The invasion of western Europe happened in 1940 from the east and then in 1944 from the west. This talk of "invasion of western Europe" is ahistorical. In 1956 the communists had 103 seats in the French parliament, the next largest party - the socialists - had 95. The US interventions in Italy's 1948 election exceeded Russian interference in Czechoslovakia in 1948 (the events of which were precipitated by the February resignation of the opposition from the ministry). Up until 1976 the communist party won over one third of the vote in Italy. This notion of a united "West" fearing an invasion from the east is popular in some quarters, but is not what was the reality in Western Europe, and few western Europeans of the time had this view.
  - cameldrv 6y ago
    OK now do Budapest in 1956, Prague 1968, and the defeat of commmunists in basically every free election in Eastern Europe in 1989-91. Why were there so few migrants from West to East during the Cold War, while, on the other hand, many were willing to risk their lives to go the other direction? Germany is a near perfect example. The effort required for someone to migrate from West to East was comparatively small. No new language is required, the culture is very similar, and the distance is short. Where were all the true believers in Soviet style Socialism? Given the similarity of the languages, today we see large migration flows from Romania to Italy. Why didn't we see the reverse during the Cold War?
tester34 6y ago
>overestimated huh, check this Title: "Button that had to destroy world" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ZrnffyXpU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ZrnffyXpU Quote: "People will not be alive, but ICBMs will still fly" You can enable english subtitles.

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

Some of that was to goad them into wasting their own resources and of course to float the MIC jobs program.

ilammy 6y ago

> over whom they were already far ahead When you're ahead, get more ahead. Wouldn't hurt you if the opponent is still losing more.

cameldrv 6y ago

What do you mean by "far ahead?" Yes, U.S. technology was generally superior to Soviet tech. If you look at the two point scenarios that were generally talked about -- general nuclear war, and conventional war in Europe (with the Soviets attacking), I don't see a very clear advantage on either side. In the general nuclear war scenario, I don't think it's likely that either side would have been able to conduct a first strike without retaliation, at least from say, 1970 onward. By the 70s, that retaliation would have meant severe damage to all of the major cities on both sides, and neither side would have been in a position to invade the other in the aftermath, so the result is essentially a draw with both sides losing. In the invasion of Western Europe scenario, I think it's hard to say exactly how it would have played out. The Soviets had huge numerical superiority on the ground and in the air. The West had a qualitative advantage. On the ground, I'm not that convinced that the qualitative advantage was as severe as was suggested by Gulf War I. The Iraqi troops were not as well trained as the Soviets, their equipment was inferior export models of Soviet equipment, and engagement ranges in the desert were very long, which magnifies the American advantage. In the air, I think the West would probably have won air superiority, but I'm not convinced that tactical air like A-10s and helicopters would have been very effective with excellent Soviet air defense. The most likely scenario probably would have been the Soviet advance stalling out somewhere on one side or the other of the Rhine due to a long logistical tail. Either way, whichever side was losing likely would have resorted to tactical nuclear weapons, and it's difficult to see how this wouldn't escalate into a general nuclear war.

rini17 6y ago
The logistical tail would not need to go all the way to USSR, Czechoslovakia and East Germany were kept stocked and prepared for the invasion.
- cameldrv 6y ago
  That's true, but it probably would have been under air attack. Rail and Autobahns would have been cut, and other logistics nodes bombed. Effective Soviet air defense probably would not extend to high altitude, because those systems are too few, without enough mobility to survive very long. This would probably have led to the Soviets using nuclear weapons on Western air bases, which would then have escalated.
Context_free 6y ago
> In the invasion of Western Europe scenario, I think it's hard to say exactly how it would have played out. The Soviets had huge numerical superiority on the ground and in the air. The West had a qualitative advantage. The invasion of western Europe happened in 1940 from the east and then in 1944 from the west. This talk of "invasion of western Europe" is ahistorical. In 1956 the communists had 103 seats in the French parliament, the next largest party - the socialists - had 95. The US interventions in Italy's 1948 election exceeded Russian interference in Czechoslovakia in 1948 (the events of which were precipitated by the February resignation of the opposition from the ministry). Up until 1976 the communist party won over one third of the vote in Italy. This notion of a united "West" fearing an invasion from the east is popular in some quarters, but is not what was the reality in Western Europe, and few western Europeans of the time had this view.
- cameldrv 6y ago
  OK now do Budapest in 1956, Prague 1968, and the defeat of commmunists in basically every free election in Eastern Europe in 1989-91. Why were there so few migrants from West to East during the Cold War, while, on the other hand, many were willing to risk their lives to go the other direction? Germany is a near perfect example. The effort required for someone to migrate from West to East was comparatively small. No new language is required, the culture is very similar, and the distance is short. Where were all the true believers in Soviet style Socialism? Given the similarity of the languages, today we see large migration flows from Romania to Italy. Why didn't we see the reverse during the Cold War?

tester34 6y ago

>overestimated huh, check this Title: "Button that had to destroy world" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ZrnffyXpU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ZrnffyXpU Quote: "People will not be alive, but ICBMs will still fly" You can enable english subtitles.