English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Any info is most welcome.

2007-02-02 17:55:44 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

11 answers

At that time, the Soviets controlled the Eastern Bloc countries like E. Germany, Poland, Czechoslavakia, Romania, etc. They had based many troops and armored vehicles there. NATO forces did not have the armor in force to defeat the Soviets by conventional means. Communist military doctrine dictated that their enemies be overrun by massive assaults of armor. The NATO countries just did not have enough armor or anti-tank weapons in that theater of operations to repel such an attack. So to deter any massive assault by Soviet forces, NATO deployed short to medium range tactical nuclear missiles in the region.

Once the Soviet Union fell apart and the former Communist countries separated from Soviet rule, the need for those missiles decreased and they were eventually re-deployed elsewhere, put back in storage, or de-commissioned.

Hope this helps!

2007-02-02 18:04:48 · answer #1 · answered by C J 6 · 0 0

The missiles fired from there would give little or no response time to the Warsaw pact countries flight time being less than 5 minutes to east Germany and less than 15 minutes for all of the Warsaw pact. This gave us a very good edge tactically speaking. The missile placed there were medium range cruise and ballistic missiles. The missiles being the tomahawk/Pershing 1and 2/Lance. These missiles would target large military formations like tank convoys and bases. This helped to make the Russians think twice before trying to attack and certainly helped during the Cuban missile crisis to keep the Russians on there side of the border.

2007-02-03 02:47:42 · answer #2 · answered by brian L 6 · 0 0

To answer your question correctly, the reason was that West Germany didn't have any choice. East Germany is just across their border. Furthermore, countries like the United Kingdom, France, Netherlands, Belgium, and Italy refused to allow American nuclear missiles to be stationed in their soil, for the fear that the Soviets would surely point their own nuclear missiles towards these American missile installations, which would make these countries direct targets of intentional or accidental launch. In short, only West Germany and Turkey took the risks of having American nuclear missiles present on their soil.

2007-02-02 18:35:32 · answer #3 · answered by roadwarrior 4 · 0 0

...On both sides of the arena, the third world war was thought to be fought mainly against the Soviets and that it would be a mass land attack coming in from the east into Europe. Of course this strategy is now defunct as the Soviet Union collapsed.
...But whether the missiles you say were placed in West Germany were nuclear, I don't know about that.

2007-02-02 18:09:05 · answer #4 · answered by Sick Puppy 7 · 0 0

in the course of the Cuban Missile disaster the Soviets tried to positioned missile bases in Cuba, many American east coast cities ought to of been interior attain of those missiles with nuclear warheads. in the course of the chilly conflict, the Soviets also had nuclear powered submarines that continuously traveled the oceans and ought to launch missiles with nuclear warheads that ought to attain American cities. See seventh itemizing in source, from 1964 - 1974 the Soviets had 34 nuclear submarines that ought to launch missiles with quite a number of 3000 km (1800 miles), and then flow down 2 better listings, in the course of the 70's in addition they had subs with 9000 km (5500 miles) decision missiles. In 1977, the Soviets released the first of six "hurricane" type nuclear submarines, each man or woman geared up with 2 hundred nuclear warheads.

2016-12-03 09:35:32 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Because the Russians were across the border in East Germany and Czechloslovakia and other Eastern Block nations.

2007-02-02 18:03:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

The short answer is: they weren't. At least 2/3 of the U.S. strategic nuclear deterrent was based in the Continental U.S. in silos and land based bombers. The rest was in SSBNs at sea. The tactical nuclear deterrent was disbursed throughout NATO and at sea on ships.

2007-02-03 04:25:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

They were there to be launched in a mass retaliatory strike against the Soviet Union. It is closer to the target and wouldn't need a giant rocket to travel the longer distances from the U.S.A.

2007-02-02 18:09:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Ramstein AFB

2007-02-02 17:59:13 · answer #9 · answered by Dorothy and Toto 5 · 0 0

because berlin was split between democratic and communist rule so we pointed a few big boys at russian owned land

2007-02-02 20:13:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers