NATO vs. Russia - fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap

[Brian]

What if NATO goes to war with Russia or visa versa!

Well who do you think will win? I say NATO!

(Edited by Brian at 3:42 am on July 30, 2002)

[Anonymous]

get real! Russia is going to enter NATO!
geez the cold war is over! no need to have NATO!

[Capitalist Imperial]

NATO, and it would only take about 1 month

[Hattori Hanzo]

the motherland and her ally china would win through their strength, but they would never go to war because of the risk of a nuclear stage

[James]

Whats the point in asking? Who cares?

[Brian]

Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 3:28 pm on July 30, 2002
the motherland and her ally china would win through their strength.
Thats funny!

[Brian]

Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 3:28 pm on July 30, 2002
the motherland and her ally china would win through their strength.
Thats funny!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Hattori Hanzo on 3:28 pm on July 30, 2002
the motherland and her ally china would win through their strength, but they would never go to war because of the risk of a nuclear stage


Come on, hattori, u know that is BS, they can't even afford to feed their own population let alone committ to a full engagement VS the USA and her allies! They couldn't even afford it, let alone they would be eradicated easily!

[James]

Oh no-there's got to be a better way
Say it again
There's got to be a better way-yeah
What is it good for?
*War has caused unrest
Among the younger generation
Induction then destruction
Who wants to die?
War-huh What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Say it again
War-huh
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Yeah
War-I despise 'Cos it means destruction
Of innocent lives
War means tears
To thousands of mothers how
When their sons go off to fight
And lose their lives
I said War-huh
It's an enemy of all mankind
No point of war
'Cos you're a man
*(Repeat)
Give it to me one time-now
Give it to me one time-now
War has shattered
Many young men's dreams
We've got no place for it today
They say we must fight to keep our freedom
But Lord, there's just got to be a better way
It ain't nothing but a heartbreaker
War Friend only to the undertaker
War
War War-Good God, now
Now Give it to me one time now
Now now What is it good for?

[Moskitto]

Who would win?

The gang of thugs who manage to steal/grow the most food after they cryogenically freeze themselves to avoid dying from the radioactive fallout which would result in such a war.

[James]

ahem, moskitto - look at the post above your own

[STALINSOLDIERS]

i say russia, its weaker then when it was the USSR but it would win, so well China, China would whoop most of the ass....

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from STALINSOLDIERS on 10:50 pm on July 30, 2002
i say russia, its weaker then when it was the USSR but it would win, so well China, China would whoop most of the ass....

China would be weak!!! They can't even afford to fight a war! We've seen how good their freakin' air force and pilots are, a fast, nimble jet fighter hitting a large, plodding US prop plane? What a joke!

[STALINSOLDIERS]

do you want to laugh, do you really look on how many u$ soldier dies before they reach war zone like afghanastan, infact ive heard that some u# soliders have died in training in north carolina......lol the world best military its a joke its a lie......this country are filled with amathers...

[STALINSOLDIERS]

whoops missspealled...

[andresG]

STALINSOLDIERS your back!
I was missing the good laughs I got when I read your posts.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from andresG on 12:19 am on July 31, 2002
STALINSOLDIERS your back!
I was missing the good laughs I got when I read your posts.

Yeah, I get those kind of laughs, too. Kind of like when I watch the three stooges.

[Mazdak]

ss- i know- we lost more of our own troops to friendly fire and accidents. All the afghans have to do at this point is avoid fighting and we will end up destroying ourselves.

[Brian]

Quote: from DirtyCommieFromAmerica on 10:50 pm on July 30, 2002
i say russia, its weaker then when it was the USSR but it would win, so well China, China would whoop most of the ass....
http://www.peelified.com/ubb/smiley_laff.gif
http://www.peelified.com/ubb/smiley_laff.gif

[Brian]

Quote: from DirtyCommieFromAmerica on 5:19 pm on July 30, 2002
do you want to laugh, do you really look on how many u$ soldier dies before they reach war zone like afghanastan, infact ive heard that some u# soliders have died in training in north carolina......lol the world best military its a joke its a lie......this country are filled with amathers...
U.S Soldiers have more balls then you ever will!

[Red Anarchy]

CI, NATO needed more than 2 months to win Yugoslavia! How do you think they would deal with Russia?
:cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy:

[Red Anarchy]

Quote: from Brian on 4:30 am on July 31, 2002

U.S Soldiers have more balls then you ever will!


Yeah! U$ had to send psychiatrists to their soldiers in a mission abroad, because the icecream supplies were late, so they were under great stress... poor things... ;)

[STALINSOLDIERS]

u$ is weak thats why they use alot of jet to fire missles upon the enemy, 87% of u$s troops are made up of young ignorent kids that only joined the military for a good job and for money...and its true..

[Brian]

We use AGM-65's and Cluster bombs and FAB's to suffen up the enemy so we don't lose more soldiers.Just cause we bomb our enemy then send in troops and tanks that still doesn't make us weak.Apche's took out about 1000 Iraqi T-72's in the Gulf War.



(Edited by Brian at 10:58 pm on July 30, 2002)

[STALINSOLDIERS]

well we havent seened a real war since i dont know when u$a invaded panama...by the way the former president of panama is in prison like les then half a mile from my house...

[Brian]

U.S hasn't seen war since the Gulf War and also I don't care that a Druglord is in prison near your home.Panama was pretty screwed up ,I mean the president was a druglord and U.S had no problem with it and then President of Panama turns his back and boom Invasion from the U.S Military.

(Edited by Brian at 11:37 pm on July 30, 2002)

[Linksradikaler]

I have come to the conclusion that Brian is mentally disabled.

[Brian]

Fuck you!

[Mazdak]

Brrian, whose side are you on?? In the post above(before the fuck you one), you seem to criticize the US army, but then you defend the US. Either your political views change every 5 minutes or you dont know who you support at all.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Red Anarchy on 4:36 am on July 31, 2002
CI, NATO needed more than 2 months to win Yugoslavia! How do you think they would deal with Russia?
:cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy: :cheesy:


Because in yugoslavia we were only conducting air-strikes, and not going full-out with air force, navy, army, and marines in a conventional war. If it was just an all-out war, we could bring the full power of the US and NATO militaries to bear, and we would make short work of russia and china

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Red Anarchy on 4:45 am on July 31, 2002

Quote: from Brian on 4:30 am on July 31, 2002

U.S Soldiers have more balls then you ever will!


Yeah! U$ had to send psychiatrists to their soldiers in a mission abroad, because the icecream supplies were late, so they were under great stress... poor things... ;)


You are full of BS. The US troops need psychologists because even they can't understand how dominant they are, so they go crazy!

[RedCeltic]

I don't understand this thread. Are we talking about what if NATO and the Warsaw pact went to war during the "Cold war" era? or are we talking about what if NATO goes to war against the republic of Russia, which is as rediculous of a notion as asking what if the US goes to war with the UK...

What would have happened if NATO went up against the USSR? Nuclear fallout.

What would happen if Nato went up against Russia? It wouldn't.

(Edited by RedCeltic at 9:42 pm on July 31, 2002)

[vox]

What would happen if 1495 China went up against 1398 Europe????

What if the 1972 US went up against 1972 USSR?

What if the Red Reaper (boo boo boo!!!) went up against the White Knight (yeah!!!) in a non-WWF sanctioned steel cage death match?

Umm, I bet my dad could beat up your dad.

Hee!

That's all so many of these threads are worth.

vox

[Capitalist Imperial]

My dad can beat up your dad!

[RedCeltic]

I'm rubber and your glue... whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.. na na na..

[vox]

Of course, there's always the worst childhood banishment of all: the Silent Treatment!!!

Which threads like this probably deserve.

vox

[Red Anarchy]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:41 am on Aug. 1, 2002

Because in yugoslavia we were only conducting air-strikes, and not going full-out with air force, navy, army, and marines in a conventional war. If it was just an all-out war, we could bring the full power of the US and NATO militaries to bear, and we would make short work of russia and china

Of course you could, but you didn't. Why is that? Don't tell me you were afraid... :(

But, after all I can understand it, after what happened to your glorious "invisible" (HA!) F-117 ;)

[Linksradikaler]

CI: I'm your real dad. And I'm a pacifist. HAHAHA.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Red Anarchy on 2:05 pm on Aug. 1, 2002

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 12:41 am on Aug. 1, 2002

Because in yugoslavia we were only conducting air-strikes, and not going full-out with air force, navy, army, and marines in a conventional war. If it was just an all-out war, we could bring the full power of the US and NATO militaries to bear, and we would make short work of russia and china

Of course you could, but you didn't. Why is that? Don't tell me you were afraid... :(

But, after all I can understand it, after what happened to your glorious "invisible" (HA!) F-117 ;)



Oh, wow, 1 shoot down after 100's of sorties? You are going to hang your head on some lucky AAA fire? By my calculations that is a very, very low loss ratio, and we achieved our objectives. If you are happy about shooting down 1 stealth plane (that was already in visual range) out of 100's of missions, then you are not a vey hard person to please.

[Brian]

F-117 was shotdown by a SA-3 battery on the ground, it was a lucky shot in the night.F-117 wasn't on there radar screen.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Oh, was it a SAM? I thought to have read that it was AAA. Either way, I know it was a lucky shot, not a precision hit.

[Brian]

Oh my mistake!, It was AAA that shot it down.Most likely the F-117 was flying too low and was engaged by ZU-23 23MM Antiaircraft Gun and was shotdown.

(Edited by Brian at 11:56 am on Aug. 1, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Yeah, exactly. The stealth aircraft leaves a very small cross-section, but in visual range it is big, slow and easy too see/target. I am not surprised it was shot down in thosse conditions. That was human error, not a technology failure.

[Red Anarchy]

Don't worry, it wasn't the only one (not even closely), but we were the first to prove it isn't soooo invisible...
By the way, come HERE (http://www.warinfo.org.yu/natodown.html) and see it yourself... if you dare...


Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 6:13 pm on Aug. 1, 2002
That was human error, not a technology failure.
OMG, so you perfect people do make errors :shocked:

(Edited by Red Anarchy at 10:17 pm on Aug. 1, 2002)

[Red Anarchy]

http://www.warinfo.org.yu/images/f117error.jpg
Oooooooops! Sorry, someone clicked Close...
http://www.warinfo.org.yu/f117_files/dcp01494.jpg

(Edited by Red Anarchy at 10:37 pm on Aug. 1, 2002)


(Edited by Red Anarchy at 10:39 pm on Aug. 1, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Agfain, Red Anarchy, you are missing the point.

The stealth technology didn't fail. The F-117 is large and slow flying, and it should be expected that one will be shot down when flying low over enemy batteries.

If it was night time and they were trying tu use radar to find the plane, they would have failed.

And yes, it was one f-117 shot down, and only one.

[Guest]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 10:40 pm on Aug. 1, 2002

And yes, it was one f-117 shot down, and only one.

One fell near the Budjanovci
Anotner one fell in Bosnia
And one was forced to land in Macedonia (as a useless bunch if pieces)

[Brian]

So much for the Su-27UB!


http://www.ntvru.com/pict/id/large/450095_20020727170318.gif

http://www.ntvru.com/pict/id/large/450096_20020727170318.gif

(Edited by Brian at 4:50 pm on Aug. 1, 2002)


(Edited by Brian at 4:51 pm on Aug. 1, 2002)

[Red Anarchy]

It was me (the guest)... Forgot to log in

[Brian]

Do I care? No!

[pastradamus]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 5:37 pm on Aug. 1, 2002
Oh, was it a SAM? I thought to have read that it was AAA. Either way, I know it was a lucky shot, not a precision hit.

Lucky? WTf are u talking bout lucky?!? its not like people fire surface to air missiles wildly in the middle of the fucking night!
And again its never a "precision hit" when its a SAM,an AA would be perscision hit,but a SAM is heat tracking,so basically its never a precision hit,just a shot in the air like in america like in russia like in Iraq.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from pastradamus on 11:25 pm on Aug. 1, 2002

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 5:37 pm on Aug. 1, 2002
Oh, was it a SAM? I thought to have read that it was AAA. Either way, I know it was a lucky shot, not a precision hit.

Lucky? WTf are u talking bout lucky?!? its not like people fire surface to air missiles wildly in the middle of the fucking night!
And again its never a "precision hit" when its a SAM,an AA would be perscision hit,but a SAM is heat tracking,so basically its never a precision hit,just a shot in the air like in america like in russia like in Iraq.

I meant a precision hit as in self-guiding munitions, not a manually aimed/fired AA gun.

[Brian]

SAM battery would have to have a lock on the aircraft first before firing a SAM.It was an AAA that shot the F-117 down.

[Moskitto]

Well, I still say my band of thugs. We're going to all become diggers so that we can become one with the digging and then one with each other. Then we're going to do exactly what is right all the time.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Moskitto on 11:43 pm on Aug. 1, 2002
Well, I still say my band of thugs. We're going to all become diggers so that we can become one with the digging and then one with each other. Then we're going to do exactly what is right all the time.

Dude, you are like a canoe fanatic.

[pastradamus]

I know! moskitto's got tomahawks on his canoe.
FUCK WITH HIM & YOU GET FUCKED! LOL

[Moskitto]

Yeah, you mess with one of us and you mess with all of us.

[Tenzar]

People, people... One question: Can someone say to me is USA EVER have felt the massive attack, agression on it's OWN territory? Bombed cities, dead people... With thousand, millions of soldiers, machinery and other things of war? The answer is: NO! But the Russia (USSR) - YES!
So, will the NATO with US win the war? Who can tell?

SIC

P.S. US army in Afghan... Don't they remeber USSR sad experience there? Or it isn't enough of body-bags sent back to US? Or US don't remember the war in Vietnam?

(Apologise if i hurt smbdies feelings. And sorry for mistakes)

[Guest]

Quote: from Tenzar on 9:56 am on Aug. 2, 2002
People, people... One question: Can someone say to me is USA EVER have felt the massive attack, agression on it's OWN territory? Bombed cities, dead people... With thousand, millions of soldiers, machinery and other things of war? The answer is: NO! But the Russia (USSR) - YES!
So, will the NATO with US win the war? Who can tell?

SIC

P.S. US army in Afghan... Don't they remeber USSR sad experience there? Or it isn't enough of body-bags sent back to US? Or US don't remember the war in Vietnam?

(Apologise if i hurt smbdies feelings. And sorry for mistakes)


"People, people... One question: Can someone say to me is USA EVER have felt the massive attack, agression on it's OWN territory? Bombed cities, dead people..."

Dec 7th, 1941, and Sept 11th, 2001, the war of 1812, the revolution, the civil war

"NO! But the Russia (USSR) - YES!"

"P.S. US army in Afghan... Don't they remeber USSR sad experience there?"

Yes, we do. And apparently, we are doing much better than the ruskies did at acheiving our objectives.

"Or it isn't enough of body-bags sent back to US? Or US don't remember the war in Vietnam?"

The war in vietnam, although its irrelevant, was actually successful battle-to-battle. Our battlefield tactics were very successful, most battles were victories. It is just that the victories, territories, and objectives were mismanaged.

The tactical victories were there, but the strategic management by congress, who had us in the fight half-ass, and would not let the pentagon call most of the shots, was weak.


What, WWII? There were plenty of yankees in that fray too, son.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Damn! That was me, forgot to log in!

[Red Anarchy]

Dec 7th, 1941, and Sept 11th, 2001, the war of 1812, the revolution, the civil war

Hey, we were talking about real war, when your country is occupied, not about revolution or three destroyed buildings.

[Capitalist Imperial]

3000 + dead and our economic epicenter destroyed is real war to us. And during the revolution and the war 0f 1812, we were occupied (of course during the revolution, we had not yet established sovereignty, but nonetheless we were occupied for all intents and purposes)

also, japanese occupied fome of Alaska's aleutian territory during WWII

[Capitalist Imperial]

Besides, are we supposed to lose credibility because we have never been fullly occupied? That is just a testament to our sovereignty and strategic geographic positioning.

If someone wants to attempt an invasion, they can go ahead and try. It would be cheaper, though, for them to just stay home and hang themselves.

(Edited by Capitalist Imperial at 6:50 pm on Aug. 2, 2002)

[James]

You seriously need to read 1984.

[Capitalist Imperial]

What is the main idea of 1984? What is it's premise?

[James]

This reminds me when i told you about the reichstag fire - i went into loads of details, and you flew past the point.

So go get yourself a copy, and R-E-A-D it.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Oh, the "big brother" conspiracy novel that somany leftists elude too?

It is a slippery-slope fallacy in a fictional novel.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Oh, the "big brother" conspiracy novel that somany leftists elude too?

It is a slippery-slope fallacy in a fictional novel.

Do you want me to read Brave New World and soilant green,too?

[James]

Ignorance is strength.


Read the book. You don't understand the BASICS of it, so you can't comment on it (as of yet).

(Edited by James at 10:47 pm on Aug. 2, 2002)

[Augusto]

man, its funny how intellectual trends change. It used to be the rightwing tenth graders that went around with 1984 as their bible. Today its the communist tenth graders. I'm sure you guys could move beyond orwell, 1984 is a fantastic novel, and its inspirations are real, but its far removed from anything going on now...or perhaps che-lives is really a sinkhole for aspiring revolutionaries where big brother employs his polemical capitalist squad to keep you dopes sedated while he pulls the strings that guide your lives.

[James]

Instead of simply yelling abuse everywhere - why not be constructive.

ie, use some examples, as to why it doesn't apply.

[Augusto]

"Instead of simply yelling abuse everywhere - why not be constructive.

ie, use some examples, as to why it doesn't apply. "

we can begin with the very existance of this board...


(Edited by Augusto at 8:46 am on Aug. 3, 2002)


(Edited by Augusto at 9:04 am on Aug. 3, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

LOL, "polemical capitalist squad", LOL, thats great!!!

[James]

What?

[reagan lives]

James, what Augusto means is that the fact that you're sitting in your home right now typing about how much you hate America on the Che-Lives message board with a little swastikized American flag as your avatar proves that the doomsday prophesizing of 1984 has not been fulfilled. The secret police are not at your door, no matter how much you imagine or wish they were, and you're not about to be taken in for reprogramming, no matter how much you insist that you are. Nobody's taking you to room 101, nobody's putting rats on your face. And it's not like Che-Lives.com is a secret back room where the revolutionary cabale needs to use their secret knock and password to get in. It's a goddamned public website that sells t-shirts. Nobody, James, is stopping you from disagreeing with whatever you want to disagree with, and nobody is holding your views down, no matter how much you wish that someone was, so you could excuse their failure. Sorry, pal.

[pastradamus]

Oh now do shut up RL!

The t-shirt selling is a method 0f funding for the site,it mightn't be your idea of socialism,but its better than using corporate sponsors.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from pastradamus on 7:24 pm on Aug. 3, 2002
Oh now do shut up RL!

The t-shirt selling is a method 0f funding for the site,it mightn't be your idea of socialism,but its better than using corporate sponsors.


That wasn't the point of his post, pasty.

[timbaly]

Nato clearly wins, because the have 2 great things going for them Luxembourg's non existing navy and the iclandic peoples. BUT Russia practically IS NATO

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from timbaly on 2:50 am on Aug. 4, 2002
Nato clearly wins, because the have 2 great things going for them Luxembourg's non existing navy and the iclandic peoples. BUT Russia practically IS NATO

WQhat do you mean "they are" NATO? Do you mean that they have standong in NATO as a junior menber?

[Brian]

Russia will never become a full NATO memeber, their military will never met NATO military standards.



(Edited by Brian at 7:31 am on Sep. 17, 2002)

[Chasovoy]

Russia could never win a war against the USA.
Russian military morale is on an all-time low, units aren't being paid for months, food is scarce, submarines and battlecruisers are not being maintained properly and I'd say that they aren't capable of firing most of their nukes.

[Pinko]

The initial question of this thread is way out of date, but I will address it with some facts that a friend of mine told me.

This friend is a captain in the UK armed forces, he has been on secondment to NATO and the UN during his years in the military, he has participated in many wargames and attended many courses on military doctrine and history. He is angling at being the youngest major ever in the British army.

He has told me (on several occasions) that during the cold war, if NATO and the Warsaw pact came to blows in full scale all-out war, NATO would prevent the Warsaw pact from taking the entirity of Europe for approximately four days.

This isn't his opinion, it was a general consensus formed by NATO military analysts. These miliatary theorists came to this conclusion by using the lowest estimates of the Warsaw pact forces capability and numbers, as the USSR was well known for over-exageration where numbers were concerned. After the cold war, it turned out that these estimated numbers were significantly lower than the real thing.

Of course if it were to happen today, NATO would more than likely prevail as the Russian military machine is so run down that is beggars belief. This of course relies on the assumption that it was a very fast developing war, Russia has the capability to militarise very quickly and would do so if it was given the chance and war looked likely.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Pinko on 6:20 pm on Sep. 18, 2002
The initial question of this thread is way out of date, but I will address it with some facts that a friend of mine told me.

This friend is a captain in the UK armed forces, he has been on secondment to NATO and the UN during his years in the military, he has participated in many wargames and attended many courses on military doctrine and history. He is angling at being the youngest major ever in the British army.

He has told me (on several occasions) that during the cold war, if NATO and the Warsaw pact came to blows in full scale all-out war, NATO would prevent the Warsaw pact from taking the entirity of Europe for approximately four days.

This isn't his opinion, it was a general consensus formed by NATO military analysts. These miliatary theorists came to this conclusion by using the lowest estimates of the Warsaw pact forces capability and numbers, as the USSR was well known for over-exageration where numbers were concerned. After the cold war, it turned out that these estimated numbers were significantly lower than the real thing.

Of course if it were to happen today, NATO would more than likely prevail as the Russian military machine is so run down that is beggars belief. This of course relies on the assumption that it was a very fast developing war, Russia has the capability to militarise very quickly and would do so if it was given the chance and war looked likely.

Come on, pinko, you are biased, using the opinion of a friend (albiet he is qualified to state such an opinion) and claiming that all NATO brass conceded, which I just don't believe. Also, while certain assumptions were made about size exclusively, what about capability? Technology? Training?

Besides, even the entirity of europe is not the only measure, as North America is the true hub of NATO power (the USA). A Warsaw atempt to Ursurp North America would be an entirely dirfferent proposal compared to "walking next door" into europe.

And, the vast mjority of military analysts agree that a defending force can defeat an offensive force even at a 3-1 disadvantage.

Taking this into consideration, with the fact that while the soviets concentrated on survivability and #'s, and nato concentrated on precision, first-strike capability (extremely imnportant) maneuvering warfare (post-cold war analysts concede that this is superior battle doctrine), and the fact that even during the cold war soviet hardware was notoriously unreliable (different from survivable), I think that the Warsaw forces would eventually lose their bid for a takeover of even europe.

Finally, economically speaking, NATO forces could employ a larger portion of their forces over longer periods than the Warsaw nations could.

All of this analysis, of course, is assuming we don't go nuclear,inwhich case the whole world loses.

[Capitalist Imperial]

I would like to amend my above post by saying that even at the highest echelon of military analysis, the prediction of the outcome of a yet unfought war is mostly conjecture andd based on many unconfirmed assumptions. I'm sure that there are several factors or reasons that we can think of that would totally change the dynamic of a given war scenario and create an outcome that contradicts the predictions, but mostly future wars are unpredictable due to reasons we can't think of, if that makes sense.

However, my $$ still would have been on NATO.

[Pinko]

Your reading skills are not up to much are they?


Quote: from Pinko on 6:20 pm on Sep. 18, 2002
This isn't his opinion, it was a general consensus formed by NATO military analysts...


He was as suprised as me when he was told this. I will repeat this for the hard of understanding:
It was a general consensus formed by NATO military analysts.
This information was given to him by a NATO military analyst.

If all you are going to do is blindly refute things with nothing but empty statements and nationalistic rhetoric, then I am not interested.

-----------------------------
Edit:

One thing that most people forget is that the USSR's lag in technological aptitude was an advantage in the event of nuclear war. As soon as the nukes started to go off, the vast majority of NATO hardware would be rendered useless due to the EM pulses destroying the delicate electronics that ran it all. NATO fighters were particularly vunerable. Whereas the USSR still relied on valve technology which is far less susceptable to EM radiation.
The USSR was fully intending to invade Europe during/after an all out nuclear war (even in the face of mutualy assured destruction). The USSR was far less susceptable to nuclear attack than the west because of the communist policy of population distribution (Russia is a vast country).

Here is a link to a NATO document that is estimating Warsaw pact force capabilities:
["Estimate of the Relative Strength and Capabilities of NATO and Soviet Bloc Forces at Present and in the Immediate Future," November 23, 1951, C8-D/4 (M.C. 33), International Staff, NATO Archives, Brussels] (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB14/05-01.htm)

These numbers far outstrip anything NATO was capable of fielding at the time.

You are wrong about the seat of NATO power being in the US too. The seat of US military might was in the US, NATO was formed and deployed to stop communism spreading to western Europe. The USA has always been relatively safe from invasion and that was never an issue.


(Edited by Pinko at 6:46 pm on Sep. 19, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Pinko on 6:10 pm on Sep. 19, 2002
"Your reading skills are not up to much are they?

[quote]Quote: from Pinko on 6:20 pm on Sep. 18, 2002
This isn't his opinion, it was a general consensus formed by NATO military analysts...
"

Actually, yes, they are. I think it is your comprehension skills that are lackluster. I acknowledged that these were qualified opinions by experts in the field and "top brass".

"He was as suprised as me when he was told this. I will repeat this for the hard of understanding:
It was a general consensus formed by NATO military analysts.
This information was given to him by a NATO military analyst."

Acknowledged.

"If all you are going to do is blindly refute things with nothing but empty statements and nationalistic rhetoric, then I am not interested."

I did not merely blindly rfute it. Did you read my amendment? I am stating that it is near impossible to predict the outcome of any future scenario.

-----------------------------
Edit:

"ne thing that most people forget is that the USSR's lag in technological aptitude was an advantage in the event of nuclear war."

In a full scale nuclear war, you must concede that there will be no reall "advantage" as mutual annihalation i assured. I thought we were discussing a conventional scenario. If we are talking nukes, I would submit that post cold war analysis of soviet stockpiles showed that the USSR nuclear inventory was dilapidated, ill kept, and suspect of quality. Any "advantage" in the lack of technology in their hardware would be cancelled out by the fact that our nukes would probably be much more reliable and effective.

"A soon as the nukes started to go off, the vast majority of NATO hardware would be rendered useless due to the EM pulses destroying the delicate electronics that ran it all."

While EMP does compromise sensitive electronic equipment, the notion that it would render most NATO equipent useless is a fallacy. Nato hardware is equiped with EPM dampeners.

"NATO fighters were particularly vunerable. Whereas the USSR still relied on valve technology which is far less susceptable to EM radiation."

Yes, unfortuately they are more susceptible to general failure in the 1st place. Soviet equipment was notoriously unreliable, unsophisticated, and ill-maitained. Also, the west has always enjoyed an advantage in overall kill ratio VS Russian fighters in real world application.

"The USSR was fully intending to invade Europe during/after an all out nuclear war (even in the face of mutualy assured destruction). The USSR was far less susceptable to nuclear attack than the west because of the communist policy of population distribution (Russia is a vast country)."

This would make sense only if the US did not have enough nukes to fully eradicate the Soviet population from Moscow to Siberia many times over.

But they did.

Soviet population disbursement, which NATO took into consideration during targeting planning, merely meant that marginally less of the civilian population would die in immediate blasts (military targets were just as concentrated as NATO counterparts), and more would suffer for a day or two due to widespread fallout.

Here is a link to a NATO document that is estimating Warsaw pact force capabilities:
["Estimate of the Relative Strength and Capabilities of NATO and Soviet Bloc Forces at Present and in the Immediate Future," November 23, 1951, C8-D/4 (M.C. 33), International Staff, NATO Archives, Brussels] (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB14/05-01.htm)

These numbers far outstrip anything NATO was capable of fielding at the time.

"You are wrong about the seat of NATO power being in the US too. The seat of US military might was in the US, NATO was formed and deployed to stop communism spreading to western Europe. The USA has always been relatively safe from invasion and that was never an issue."


OK, you have a point there.

[suffianr]

It's probably a little late for this, seeing as how this thread has progressed to the 9th page, but has anyone here read Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising? Though his narrative is obviously in favour of a capitalist victory, nevertheless, the strengths and weaknesses of both Nato and the then USSR are quite accurately represented in believable scenarios...Sorry, no spoilers. Just read the book... :)

[Pinko]

RE: Capitalist Imperial's last post

Sorry this has taken me so long, I have very little free time at the moment.


[Capitalist Imperial]
"Actually, yes, they are. I think it is your comprehension skills that are lackluster. I acknowledged that these were qualified opinions by experts in the field and "top brass".
"

Sorry, in the face of this line: "Come on, pinko, you are biased, using the opinion of a friend (albiet he is qualified to state such an opinion) and claiming that all NATO brass conceded, which I just don't believe. " I assumed otherwise.


[Capitalist Imperial]
"I did not merely blindly rfute it. Did you read my amendment?

No I didn't. That post took me about six hours to write, I had visitors while half way though typing it.

[Capitalist Imperial]
"In a full scale nuclear war, you must concede that there will be no reall "advantage" as mutual annihalation i assured. I thought we were discussing a conventional scenario. If we are talking nukes, I would submit that post cold war analysis of soviet stockpiles showed that the USSR nuclear inventory was dilapidated, ill kept, and suspect of quality. Any "advantage" in the lack of technology in their hardware would be cancelled out by the fact that our nukes would probably be much more reliable and effective. "

Both Nato and the Warsaw Pact (WP) were fully prepared to fight over Europe in the face of a nuclear offensive. I have no idea why, but that was the plan.
As for discussing a conventional war between the two, it would never have happened. If the WP invaded Europe, Nato's plan was to use their own military doctrine against them. The USSR had a doctrine of reinforcing success, NATO's plan was to give them some easy victories and then nuke the lines of reinforcement (regardless of whether a nuclear war had already started or not), the strategic nuking of parts of Europe would have kicked off France's nuclear policy, which was to nuke all sides in the face of nuclear attack. This in itself would have started a full scale nuclear war.
The USSR's nuclear post-cold-war nuclear capability was very dilapidated, but it depends when this hypothetic scenario happens in history. At the height of the cold war the USSR's arsenal was fully functional and began its decline toward the end of the cold war.
I agree with you however about the dificulty of predicting outcomes of military offensives. No plan survives first contact with the enemy.


[Capitalist Imperial]
"While EMP does compromise sensitive electronic equipment, the notion that it would render most NATO equipent useless is a fallacy. Nato hardware is equiped with EPM dampeners.

Faraday shielding isn't perfect, there is bleedover that appears to be random and the size of a nuclear EM pulse is enough to cause enought bleed over to wreck most fighters from the 50s and 60s. EM pulses would cause most western fighters to drop from the sky, whilst the WP enjoyed air superiority, even with dodgy craft.
And don't knock the MIG series of fighters. The MIG 29 (I think it was the 29 but it could be an earlier model) could fly circles around most things that the US or UK could field, its manuverability was frightening.

[Capitalist Imperial]
"Yes, unfortuately they are more susceptible to general failure in the 1st place. Soviet equipment was notoriously unreliable, unsophisticated, and ill-maitained. Also, the west has always enjoyed an advantage in overall kill ratio VS Russian fighters in real world application.

True.
Although the USSR lacked technology, they did wonders with what they did had, they applied inferior technologies in ways that the west never thought of.
Again, although NATO would enjoy the higher kill ratio, WP had far greater numbers with which to sustain casualties.

[Capitalist Imperial]
"This would make sense only if the US did not have enough nukes to fully eradicate the Soviet population from Moscow to Siberia many times over.

But they did.

Soviet population disbursement, which NATO took into consideration during targeting planning, merely meant that marginally less of the civilian population would die in immediate blasts (military targets were just as concentrated as NATO counterparts), and more would suffer for a day or two due to widespread fallout.

True. But the WP planned its offensive in the face of all out nuclear war and NATO planned its defensive strategies. Why? It beats me, they just did. Maybe they knew something we don't.



(Edited by Pinko at 1:05 am on Sep. 26, 2002)