Under what circumstances would the Cold War have gone hot? I'm

>>30943676
the soviets had already given the cuban tactical nuclear weapons. if kennedy had sent the marines in then 10,000+ marines would have been nuked on the beaches of havanah by nuclear artillery rounds
>it would have become a full blown nuke fest in no time

>>30943716
i dunno how americans think they had the right to place nukes in turkey and soviets didn't have the right to place them in cuba

>>30943751
>tactical nuclear weapons. if kennedy had sent the marines in then 10,000+ marines would have been nuked on the beaches of havanah by nuclear artillery rounds
>>it would have become a full blown nuke fest
Because they backed down like pussies and we didn't

I don't think "Cold war gone hot" and Nuclear war are concepts you can separate. They're intrinsically linked.

>>30943751
Not
In
My
Back
Yard
>its a common sentiment in the USA
Im not saying the USA makes great rational decisions only that turkey isnt 90 miles from russia

>>30943751
>Hurr durr let's worry about the intrinsic rights of sovereign states

A state has no intrinsic rights, we put nukes in Turkey because we put nukes in Turkey. We forced the withdrawal of nukes from Cuba because we did. There is no overriding authority on what a sovereign nation has the "right" to do, nations exist in a pure "state of nature".

>>30943802
>turkey isnt 90 miles from russia
Turkey had a land border with Soviet Union you dumb homunculus

>>30943843
>>turkey isnt 90 miles from russia
the part that matters

>>30943859
as if florida matters lololol
>but yea that totally my geography goof.

OP here
>Thread devolved this quickly into shitflinging
Wew
I guess my base question could've been could the Cold War have been fought without, or at least very limited use of nuclear weapons?

>>30943939
No, as soon as Ruskies started taking direct shots at Americans and visa versa it would have escalated to nuclear ultimatums, at that point you get either a ceasefire, or nuke holocaust.

>>30943978
Damn
Well that's boring as hell. Nuclear holocaust is overrated t.bh.

What about the Russian Federation? Is there any plausible scenario that could happen in 2016 that ends with NATO and RU forces engaging each other in conventional war?

File: 3351_red_army.jpg (172KB, 983x1600px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 983x1600px

yes. next question

>>30944023
Ukraine or the Baltic States.
That is all.

>>30944023
No

>>30943751
Nukes in turkey were also removed. But no one knew because of the secret deal between the two leaders

>>30943751
>i dunno how americans think they had the right to place nukes in turkey and soviets didn't have the right to place them in cuba
States do what they do because they can. If the US can delude it's people into thinking they're special snowflakes, good for them.

>>30943833
>There is no overriding authority on what a sovereign nation has the "right" to do, nations exist in a pure "state of nature".
Absolute nonsense. Sovereignty is a regulatory means to begin with, and only really exists within the confines of international agreements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_of_Westphalia

>>30944023
I can't see 28 member alliance reaching definite consensus on first strike option, not without direct threat to individual key (nuclear) member's security and not before long excruciating debates. Don't forget that NATO is a political project more than a military one. Right now, Russia holds number of conventional advantages over NATO, first and foremost in regards to force composition, speed of deployement and operational mobility. A swift attack could establish a fait accompli before senile bureaucracts in Brussels convened to agree on what had transpired and how to respond.

At this point, I think nuclear weapons would only be realistically be used if the territorial integrity of a nuclear state is in danger of being compromised, bar some insanity in Asia that the US and Russia are not parties to (Israel and Iran, China and India, India and Pakistan, etc.)

>>30944175
They'd agree that Russia attacked them and they need to call America to keep repel the Russian offensive being held back by the Poland's sheer hate for Russia.

>>30944397
The fact India and Pakistan haven't nuked themselves speaks volumes as to just how little anyone wants even limited nuclear exchange.

The histotical fact is that unlike the old dominant euro empires that couldn't handle technology pre ww1 & 2, the Russians and Americans were very responsible about not launching ww3. Both countries had absolutely no appetite for a large war both in the elites and on the population level as most of the personally went trough ww2.

im still surprised india and paki were allowed nukes, i blame the cold war on this

>>30943802
>Not
>In
>My
>Back
>Yard
>Meanwhile telling about Evil Russia invading Ukraine in another thread.

>>30944035

He conveniently left out nearly all aspects of air warfare, and the whole book, however engaging and well written, is nothing but a propaganda piece that could be summed up as "Why don't our european allies allow us to play with nukes on their home soil? WE know what's god for them anyway."

File: 1458254554667.jpg (826KB, 4890x2755px) Image search: [Google]

826KB, 4890x2755px

>>30945120
>2016
>Europe not (again) in ruins
Thank you, I guess...

File: Firefox_Screenshot_2016-08-11T11-01-39.982Z.png (518KB, 1919x980px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 1919x980px

>>30943802
>>30943859
>turkey isnt 90 miles from russia
Indeed it is not. It is 84 miles from Russia.

>>30943751
The nukes in Turkey were in the process of being removed before the crisis even began

>>30943676
It wouldn't.
If you've got direct military conflict, somebody is going to get nuked, and that's the end of the world.

>>30945991
kennedyboos actually believe this

>>30943676
depends on the era i think. Early times, there's no way, later era it's possible that a proxy war turns into a war without nuclear weapons, but it wouldnt involve Russia rushing into western europe, because that would mean instant nuclear weapons.

>>30946011
Jupiter missiles were obsolete by 1961 and in the process of being replaced by Atlas and Titan ICBM's launched from the continental US which was far more secure.

>>30943676
The same way it historically did, through proxy wars.

>>30943676
Give me a time frame and we'll talk

File: 1366454118249.jpg (69KB, 429x409px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 429x409px

>>30946037
1968, after 5 years of investigation the US obtains a 100% bulletproof evidence the SU was directly involved in Kennedy assassination.

>>30946078
That's sort of how France got turned to a shelled shit hole in the 1910s so maybe.

Realisticly it would result in a politic show of rage in the UN and maybe even remove SU from security Council which results in increased tensions and seized assets on both sides with no additional rounds fired.

>>30943676
>Under what circumstances would the Cold War have gone hot?
When Soviet decide that NATO is preparing attack on USSR.
>Any possible reasons, or would it just not happen?
Able Archer 83. NATO manevers looked like preparation to attack on USSR. They almost pressed the button.
You see, Soviet and Russians are deeply traumatized by June 21 1941. NEVER AGAIN is in their culture code, anything that can be interpreted as preparation to attack on Russian soil will be interpreted as preparation to attack on Russian soil. You think you're rolling tanks into Europe to protect from Soviet/Russian attack, Soviet/Russians think that you're rolling tanks into Europe to attack USSR/Russia. You think you place misslies in Turkey to demonstrate power, they though that you place misslie in Turkey to hit Moscow. And Reagan rhetoric did not helped a lot with all that better dead than red and Evil empire stuff.
Problem that today rhetoric returned to Cold War era and this will not help to bring stability into Europe.
>It's instructive to view ourselves through a Russian mirror. The term "paranoid Russian" is a pleonasm. "The fact is that all Russian politicians are clever. The stupid ones are all dead. By contrast, America in its complacency promotes dullards. A deadly miscommunication arises from this asymmetry. The Russians cannot believe that the Americans are as stupid as they look, and conclude that Washington wants to destroy them,"
https://pjmedia.com/spengler/2013/3/19/the-russians-think-were-wrecking-the-world-on-purpose/?singlepage=true

>>30946078
Okay, so NATO aggressors then?

Conventionally: Assuming a surprise attack and the US performs and completes REFORGER beforehand or immediately after hostilities start, NATO makes some initial gains, Maybe getting to Lodz before lines stabilize and it then becomes a back and forth war of attrition most likely ending in something vaguely similar to DDR/FRG lines. Turks get shrekt, most likely the lines in the southern front of NATO (Greece and Italy) end up being somewhere in Yugoslavia and they stay there, neither the NATO or Pact powers in the area have the moxy to make any kind of decisive engagement. Most likely the Soviets throw an army group down there and either get bogged down or make it to northern Italy before deciding it's strategically insignificant to NATO. Most likely the Yom Kippur War analogue would begin earlier as Arab nations would see that neither superpower would care enough to support the Israelis like they had in the past.

Absolutely insane amount of armor deaths on both sides as this would be the beginning of the age of the ATGM ruling the battlefield and neither side had yet gotten to see just how serious a threat they were and studying the results of the Yom Kippur War.

If this happened 10 years after 1968, NATO would get stomped, 10 years after that, Pact would probably get pushed back to Belarus and things would stabilize around Warsaw but overall NATO would be in a much better position.

>>30946026
IRBMs w/ 5 min. warning at max from decap'ing Moscow > ICBMs that take 30 min, esp. since this is 1961 and there is no Perimetr yet.

>>30946199
Soviets had no reliable early warning capacity for ICBM's until 1968

File: V1000_intercept_R12.jpg (66KB, 294x300px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 294x300px

>>30946199
An IRBM can be intercepted, an ICBM can't.
>The System A anti-ballistic missile equipped with the V-1000 rocket made the first intercept and destruction in the world using a conventional warhead of an intermediate range ballistic missile warhead coming in at 3 km/s on 4 May 1961. The US did not demonstrate an equivalent capability until 1984.
http://www.astronautix.com/v/v-1000.html

>>30946360
>What is THAAD
>What is A-135
>What is S-500
>What is Ground Midcourse Defence
>What is National Missile Defence at all

>>30946903
>thinking the S-500 works

>>30944035
Speaking of Cold War turned hot, how does this book compare to Red Storm Rising?

File: 1426021143016.jpg (182KB, 1153x1321px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1153x1321px

>>30946915
in due time

Also
> What is Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System

>>30943676
>I'm not talking about nuclear war, but about a WW3 fought with conventional weapons.

Is such a thing even possible

>>30946360
>The US did not demonstrate an equivalent capability until 1984.

I dunno man. Sprint ended up with kinetic hits in testing against faster moving targets.

File: yj.jpg (8KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 259x194px

>>30943676
when the temperature reaches a certain predetermined point.

>>30943751
God chose our country to be #1 because freedom. Get out commie

File: RedArmy.jpg (76KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 300x450px

>>30947094
It's like Red Storm Rising except the scenario presented in it is actually realistic and not American penis-waving.

>>30947489
>red storm rising
>dickwaving

Slavaboo pls

>>30947096
That cap always brings a smile to my face.

>>30943676
Communists get into power in France, CIA begins civil war,

On a sidenote, Wargame European Escalation and Airland Battle are based on half a dozen Cold War gone hot through conventional means scenarios ranging from border guards killing to polish uprising.

>>30947425
Wasn't Sprint designed to use a neutron pulse to disable incoming reentry vehicles?

>>30946182
What makes you say that NATO would be btfo in 1978?

>>30945991
Yes, replaced with better, bigger nukes, idiot.

Is rather think of what percentage of the world population would be dead in the timeframe of one week, one year and one decade post-nuclear exchange (full blown).

Is 50% too much?

File: Fixed_gulf_map.png (1001KB, 734x600px) Image search: [Google]

1001KB, 734x600px

>>30943751

Cuba to USA is like Ukraine to Russia. It is a state placed in a very strategic position. A powerful foreign state with a foothold in Cuba could threaten all the Gulf of Mexico from Cuba and even launch attacks or an invasion from there. Today, there are no such powers supporting Cuba, and no Cuban government can ever be powerful enough on its own.

>>30945120
I think that it personally draws more attention to the laughable concept of NATO forces holding defensive lines against modern Soviet armored forces with national equipment long since outdated or undermanned.

Realistically only the W. Germans/US/British/French had the capability to actually counteract a Soviet push into Western Germany.

>>30947531
http://bookzz.org/book/1741392/763a4f

Read it yourself, senpai.

I'm really happy that I finally found a good book piracy site besides lib.ru recently.

>>30943751

Soviet aviation could have destroyed all the nukes in Turkey during the first hours of the war. Not because Soviet aviation was awesome, but because the nukes were shitty and slow to launch. Remember that the first generation of nuclear missiles took hours to arm and couldn't be keep at full alert due the corrosive nature of the fuel.

>>30947732
Officially it was an Enhanced Radiation Warhead, but basically yeah. In testing it ended up with actual physical hits of the incoming RV though.

>>30947953
Damn. That's really impressive for 60s/70s tech.

>>30947878
>Tfw living in Mobile.
Now I know what Moe's bar felt when the comet was about to struck Springfield.

>>30943676
Several fuck ups almost caused it

>>30947742
US and essentially NATO doctrine of the time really relied on Active Defense which can VERY roughly summed up as "The US Army must above all else, prepare to win the first battle of the next war." Basically the thinking was that a war would be won or lost almost as soon as it began. So while NATO could win the first battle or battles, they still had to contend with a large amount of reserves that they had neither the manpower or material to properly contend with. NATO air forces were more or less about doing their own thing and combined arms was very lacking and frankly the world didn't see true combined arms tactics and planning until the 80s.

Of secondary importance was that the US missed a modernization cycle in the Mid 60's to 70's range. Because of interoperability issues and desires from other NATO members many also ended up missing a modernization cycle as well with the fall of the MBT-70 projectand MIM-46 for example.

In comparison, the Soviet Union had completed a modernization cycle in the early 70s and were in the process of replacing T-62s with T-72s while also giving both newer hand-me-downs and T-72s to other Pact countries. Overall, NATO forces were at significantly lower troop levels than they had been for most of the cold war for the majority of the 70s.

>>30947988
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msXtgTVMcuA

File: RAF-Harrier-GR.1-Road-Operations.jpg (71KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 800x599px

I'm sure there were nuclear landmines planted in West Germany to prevent the expected swarms of Soviet tanks.

>>30948104
Okay, that makes sense. What are some good sources I can take a look at to learn more?

>>30948191
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a241774.pdf Basically describing the problems with Active Defense and why moving to AirLand Battle was so important for starters. It goes onto talk about the reasons for it and touches on equipment and it was shaped by doctrine.

How many of you are talking out of your ass? Be honest.

American nuclear doctrines of 'Massive Retaliation Doctrine, later replaced by FOFA/Proportionate Response, and Soviets between conventional superiority and equipping every single division tactical nuclear weapons means that the chances of the war going nuclear were near 100% within the first one or two weeks of the war or even in a matter of hours.

France was always a bit of a wild-card and it's anybody's guess whether they would have stuck their neck out over an 'Anglo-American' issue, especially while Stalin was alive — he and Charles De Gaulle were pretty chummy.

Meanwhile, West Germany's politicians insisted on using their forces to defend their peace-time borders... which were often totally indefensible and would more than likely see their forces cut off from the rest of NATO.

Warsaw Pact's offensive strategy would have been to deliver a massive knock-out blow to split NATO's forces in half on the North German Plain, crush the isolated northern pocket, and move on to break up and finish off what was left.

>>30946199
>perimeter
>believing soviet/russian propaganda

>>30943751
Because bullies don't like it when there's someone on equal footing copying their tactics.

The only scenario I can see is a pre-emptive strike of some description following Able Archer 83 or Zapad 81.

>>30948644
Why are you blaming him? You're eating up american propaganda pretty well.