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

9 answers

That would depend a little bit on some circumstances. According to some NSA documents that were public domain in the 80s, one of the reasons for the build up of nuclear arms was due to the Fulda Gap. (see link) (I don't have a link to the NSA papers I found them in the Stacks at the UCSC library while doing a paper on this subject)

At the end of WWII the American Army was being besieged by the country to let the soldiers come home. What happened was the largest demobbing of a military force ever known. The result was that the U.S. was left with a fighting force of about 125,000 not millions as had been the case during the war. The Soviet forces numbered in the 10s of millions.

There was a concern that the Soviets could bring a tank army down Fulda Gap, a 10 mile wide section of terrain between what was East Germany and Frankfurt, and take over the rest of Europe.

In response to this potential conventional war threat the US proposed to build a nuclear arsenal as a deterrent.

So apparently right after 1945 the US believed that the Soviets would win in a conventional war.

2007-05-16 06:11:01 · answer #1 · answered by jakehardesty 2 · 0 1

The USA and our NATO allies would win. While the USSR was an exterme military power house, its Warsaw Pact allies where not as strong as the US NATO allies. The US would have had the task of fighting the USSR and its allies to take out the rest of the Warsaw pact. After our allies started breaking them down they would be able to fight the USSR on the Western front (attack from Europe) and the USA could attack from both sides causing the USSR to fight a 2 front war. This tactic is what caused Germany's defeat in WWII. Now I am not saying this would be an easy fight by any means. Multi-millions of people would be lost and many cities would be lost cause I think the war would resort to WW2 style fighting. Destroy your enemy anyway nessecary,

2007-05-16 19:43:54 · answer #2 · answered by Robbo_op_98 5 · 0 0

Mutually Assured Destruction, is the phrase that was Used.
There would be no real winners. Most of Europe, Britain Russia and Canada and the US would become smouldering piles of radiative atomic ash.
Sure there would be survivors, all of those who started the war in the first place and to try to run the country that was left.
You and I if we survived would be thrown into a wild survival mode as we struggled to find accommodation, food etc.
If you think of the rescue attempts after hurricane Katrina you will agree how abysmal that was, now imagine what it would be like not only across the US but around the world, and ask yourself this

Would India and Pakistan have a go against one another, would China send a few here and there, and would Israel?

I might think I am safe in my tiny little corner of the world, but for how long.
With all that radioactivity in the air how long would it take to drift south of the equator.
It would also fall on rivers and lakes and the seas polluting them as well.
So think about all of that and what others say and you will see how dangerous a time it was.

2007-05-16 18:44:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If it had happened in the late 50s or early 60s the U.S. and NATO would have won . If it were to take place now the Soviet Union would probably win because they would come out fighting determined to win while the politicians in the U.S.would say how can my party use this to our advantage and while they argued over time tables and strategies the Soviet would be kicking butt.

2007-05-16 13:30:01 · answer #4 · answered by hdean45 6 · 0 0

tactical nukes were planned to be used to counter the numerical strength of the Warsaw Pact armies. Without them, our goose would be cooked....at least during the cold war years. Given Russia's current state of near economic collapse, we'd probably have the edge vis-a-vis our technology.

2007-05-16 21:50:03 · answer #5 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0 0

A non-nuclear war would be won by the U.S. and NATO, as long as our troops have the same fortitude and determination as our soldiers of past wars.

2007-05-16 13:03:32 · answer #6 · answered by Louie O 7 · 0 0

Haven't you heard of MAD? It stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. No one will be the victors. An example of which is the Cuban Missile Crisis.

2007-05-16 12:55:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

NO ONE would win an all out nuclear war!

2007-05-16 12:51:41 · answer #8 · answered by shannie 3 · 0 0

Roaches, rats, mice, ants....

2007-05-16 12:52:52 · answer #9 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers