Did the Soviet Union ever have a realisitic chance of winning the Cold War

[Josquius]

Speaking of the Soviet Union doing a China and transitioning economics aren't the important factor, if that's all that matters then what is Russia if not just a (badly) reformed Soviet Union. The key is political and not having the other states of the union decide to break free.
A bit of a problem here lies in the way the Soviet Union was made up as opposed to China. China is rather big on the whole 'there is one China which has been around since time immemorial' thing whilst the Soviets as a key part of their claims to legitamacy liked to present themself as not just the Russian Empire but as a free association of states.
In China too it is the Han core which is without a doubt the most developed part of the country with the most likely to seek independence regions such as Tibet being undeveloped fringe regions hidden from the world, in the USSR the opposite was true with the most likely to break free Baltics being the most developed part of the Soviet Union.
I suppose the key question is: How many states does Russia have to keep to be counted as the Soviet Union? Can they just be Russia as we know it but keep the Soviet name?

[Ideologue]

Did they? They still might.

But they're not the Soviet Union anymore.  If anything, they're Mob, Inc. now.

Who figured there would ever be a nation-state for the mob again, after the attempt in Cuba failed?  And a nuclear armed one, to boot?

I meant  ideologically.  Though I guess outlasting communism by forty years is still technically winning.

But the actual geographical and political entity?  Haha, hell no.  I wonder at what point it'll be empty enough that Arabs, Turkics, Iranians, and Chinese will start colonizing it.

[Sheilbh]

It depends what you mean by win and realistic

Edit: Especially given that we've got the benefit of hindsight. The USSR and their bloc collapsed. But I think you could argue for large periods of that time the USSR was the dominant 'winning' superpower.

[CountDeMoney]

But I think you could argue for large periods of that time the USSR was the dominant 'winning' superpower.

Their high-water mark was from Sputnik to the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  I blame Ike.

[Ideologue]

But I think you could argue for large periods of that time the USSR was the dominant 'winning' superpower.

Their high-water mark was from Sputnik to the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  I blame Ike.

Pop quiz hotshot: do you intervene to help the Beet People?

[CountDeMoney]

Pop quiz hotshot: do you intervene to help the Beet People?

Oh hells no.

[Ideologue]

Actually, if I had to choose the perfect pretext, it'd be the Berlin Crisis.  They don't have atomic weapons.  Eastern Europe is freed with minimal casualties on our side.  Iirc, they're even still dealing with a seriously deficient RKKA.  I dunno if actually destroying the Stalinist government is worth the effort.  Russia will be Russia.

1956 is iffier.  They still aren't really a match for us, but they do have nuclear weapons, if a deficit of capable delivery systems.  It's possible--it's been a while since I looked up the numbers--our actual superiority may have been too overwhelming to risk escalating to a nuclear conflict if we didn't go first.  Obviously, the Eastern Euros were chafing and would have welcomed us.  On the minus side, the Russians would be even more fearful of the West than they already were, possibly leading to an even more adversarial relationship later.

[Razgovory]

But I think you could argue for large periods of that time the USSR was the dominant 'winning' superpower.

Their high-water mark was from Sputnik to the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  I blame Ike.

I am inclined to agree, though they may been strongest compared to the US in the early 1970's when the US was busy fighting in Vietnam, divided internally, and was unpopular with some of NATO's allies.  Course they had their own problems.

[Razgovory]

Actually, if I had to choose the perfect pretext, it'd be the Berlin Crisis.  They don't have atomic weapons.  Eastern Europe is freed with minimal casualties on our side.  Iirc, they're even still dealing with a seriously deficient RKKA.  I dunno if actually destroying the Stalinist government is worth the effort.  Russia will be Russia.

1956 is iffier.  They still aren't really a match for us, but they do have nuclear weapons, if a deficit of capable delivery systems.  It's possible--it's been a while since I looked up the numbers--our actual superiority may have been too overwhelming to risk escalating to a nuclear conflict if we didn't go first.  Obviously, the Eastern Euros were chafing and would have welcomed us.  On the minus side, the Russians would be even more fearful of the West than they already were, possibly leading to an even more adversarial relationship later.

I wonder could the Soviets realistically hit an American city with a nuke before ICBMs?  Just with bombers?  Would any make it through

[dps]

Actually, if I had to choose the perfect pretext, it'd be the Berlin Crisis.  They don't have atomic weapons.  Eastern Europe is freed with minimal casualties on our side.  Iirc, they're even still dealing with a seriously deficient RKKA.  I dunno if actually destroying the Stalinist government is worth the effort.  Russia will be Russia.

1956 is iffier.  They still aren't really a match for us, but they do have nuclear weapons, if a deficit of capable delivery systems.  It's possible--it's been a while since I looked up the numbers--our actual superiority may have been too overwhelming to risk escalating to a nuclear conflict if we didn't go first.  Obviously, the Eastern Euros were chafing and would have welcomed us.  On the minus side, the Russians would be even more fearful of the West than they already were, possibly leading to an even more adversarial relationship later.

I wonder could the Soviets realistically hit an American city with a nuke before ICBMs?  Just with bombers?  Would any make it through

Maybe if the city in question was Nome.