News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Would you have attacked the Soviet Union?

Started by Faeelin, August 15, 2009, 02:50:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ed Anger

Quote from: The Brain on August 15, 2009, 05:25:29 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 15, 2009, 05:24:30 PM
I would have enslaved occupied "liberated" western Europe and made them toil in toy factories.

How would you fit them into the factories?

saws.
Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive

jimmy olsen

Quote from: Kleves on August 15, 2009, 05:11:59 PM
1946? No. I wouldn't sacrifice millions of Americans because the Soviets might, someday, get the bomb. The Soviets have upwards of 12 million people under arms, and I don't fancy sending Shermans up against tens of thousands of superior Soviet tanks. Not to mention that the rest of the world, even if not outright hostile, would not have been able to contribute.

Now, in 1962 I might be singing a different tune.

Not to say I would attack, but how are the Soviets going to keep that many men under arms and produce enough food to feed their population at the same time? IIRC when Truman cut off agricultural aid, Stalin had to demobilize millions of men to work on the farms.
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

Admiral Yi

I don't think there was ever a time when we had sufficient nuclear bombs to defeat the Soviet Union without suffering a significant counter strike.

Razgovory

Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 15, 2009, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: Kleves on August 15, 2009, 05:11:59 PM
1946? No. I wouldn't sacrifice millions of Americans because the Soviets might, someday, get the bomb. The Soviets have upwards of 12 million people under arms, and I don't fancy sending Shermans up against tens of thousands of superior Soviet tanks. Not to mention that the rest of the world, even if not outright hostile, would not have been able to contribute.

Now, in 1962 I might be singing a different tune.

Not to say I would attack, but how are the Soviets going to keep that many men under arms and produce enough food to feed their population at the same time? IIRC when Truman cut off agricultural aid, Stalin had to demobilize millions of men to work on the farms.

Likely they'd take the food from eastern Europe and let them do the starving.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Ed Anger

Quote from: Razgovory on August 15, 2009, 06:35:28 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 15, 2009, 06:12:31 PM
Quote from: Kleves on August 15, 2009, 05:11:59 PM
1946? No. I wouldn't sacrifice millions of Americans because the Soviets might, someday, get the bomb. The Soviets have upwards of 12 million people under arms, and I don't fancy sending Shermans up against tens of thousands of superior Soviet tanks. Not to mention that the rest of the world, even if not outright hostile, would not have been able to contribute.

Now, in 1962 I might be singing a different tune.

Not to say I would attack, but how are the Soviets going to keep that many men under arms and produce enough food to feed their population at the same time? IIRC when Truman cut off agricultural aid, Stalin had to demobilize millions of men to work on the farms.



Likely they'd take the food from eastern Europe and let them do the starving.


Sounds like a win-win situation.
Stay Alive...Let the Man Drive

Faeelin

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2009, 06:35:12 PM
I don't think there was ever a time when we had sufficient nuclear bombs to defeat the Soviet Union without suffering a significant counter strike.

In 1962, the US would've effectively gotten its hair mussed in exchange for annihilating Communism.

Rough on Europe, of course.

But I'm more interested in a scenario in which Truman had ramped up bomb production and had the power to hit the USSR with, say, 10-40 bombs.

Admiral Yi

Quote from: Faeelin on August 15, 2009, 06:37:25 PM
In 1962, the US would've effectively gotten its hair mussed in exchange for annihilating Communism.

Rough on Europe, of course.

But I'm more interested in a scenario in which Truman had ramped up bomb production and had the power to hit the USSR with, say, 10-40 bombs.
Hair mussed?  How many warheads did they have capable of reaching NA?

The Brain

Quote from: Faeelin on August 15, 2009, 06:37:25 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2009, 06:35:12 PM
I don't think there was ever a time when we had sufficient nuclear bombs to defeat the Soviet Union without suffering a significant counter strike.

In 1962, the US would've effectively gotten its hair mussed in exchange for annihilating Communism.

Rough on Europe, of course.

But I'm more interested in a scenario in which Truman had ramped up bomb production and had the power to hit the USSR with, say, 10-40 bombs.

It would take more than destroying the biggest cities to defeat the SU. And even if that were sufficient 20 kton firecrackers wouldn't get the job done, assuming that you actually manage to land them on target.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

DGuller

What was the realistic reach of the US air force inside Soviet Union?  I think that if you could drop a couple of nukes inside strategically important cities, you would set back the Soviet atomic bomb program, which would give US more time to make more nukes and drop more of them.

CountDeMoney

Of course not.  What a douchebag Timmay alt-thread.

I'd have attempted to assassinate him six ways from Sunday, though.

Kleves

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2009, 06:38:36 PM
Hair mussed?  How many warheads did they have capable of reaching NA?
Not very many, if they had them at all. That was why putting missiles into Cuba was such a big deal.
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

The Brain

Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 15, 2009, 07:03:54 PM
Of course not.  What a douchebag Timmay alt-thread.

I'd have attempted to assassinate him six ways from Sunday, though.

Why do you hate Truman?
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Ideologue

Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 15, 2009, 06:35:12 PM
I don't think there was ever a time when we had sufficient nuclear bombs to defeat the Soviet Union without suffering a significant counter strike.

1945-1949?

I would have tried to leverage the atomic bomb for greater political freedom for occupied Europe, but probably wouldn't have dropped one unless the Soviets struck first.

At first, I thought this thread was about Hitler's decision.
Kinemalogue
Current reviews: The 'Burbs (9/10); Gremlins 2: The New Batch (9/10); John Wick: Chapter 2 (9/10); A Cure For Wellness (4/10)

The Brain

Is nothing sacred? Now he's hating on Hitler.
Women want me. Men want to be with me.

Lettow77

#29
  Absolutely start a war. Reconstituted wehrmacht divisions is a good idea. Try to portray it as soviets initiating it- that shouldn't be hard.

Save millions of lives, crush world communism. GOOD END.
It can't be helped...We'll have to use 'that'