Who would have won the Cold War if it became 'hot'?

Answer 1

While the Soviet Union was quite capable of launching hundreds of missiles with nuclear warheads from the sea, ground and air...

So were we.

I was on US nuclear submarines at the time and ready to do that at a moments notice if the President deemed necessary.

But we didn't. And that was the point of mutually assured destruction that prevented either side from launching. Both sides were capable of wiping out the majority of populated cities in either country.

Who would have won?

No one.





g-day!

Answer 2

That would have depended on when the war started. If prior to roughly 1970 then the Americans would have won due to the fact that the technology the Soviets where using was poor and not reliable (most of the wepons would not have left the ground and there bombers where slow and outmoded, still are today, look at the 'Bear' used a few days ago!) after that Soviet Technology and Redundant missiles became more sophisticated and reliable.
The Overkill ratio of Redundant Missile and the capacity for MAD was such that even if a first strike capability had been lost by either side a second and third strike would have suceeded (ICBM's 1st, followed by SBM's (e.g Polaris then Trident) for 2nd strike and finally Air Launched and SRBM from Europe and Satellite Areas) as the infrastructure of both main opponents would have been partially destroyed.
Also remember that the 5 members of the Nuclear club at that time had independant wepons, so the small and modest contributions of the UK, France and China would have made some small damage, but even those wepons where powerful enough to wipe out a large part of each country.
Of course after the exchange of Nukes, because thats what would have happened no matter how any conflict between the super powers had evolved then there would have been the fallout and damage to the enviroment and the 'Nuclear Winter' to contend with, depending on the exchange of wepons and how many Nukes went off, the next 5 to 100 years would have seen mass crop failure, famine, disease, radiation problems and all of the damage that brings around the world. So those countries that had not been hit by wepons would suffer by the flow of fallout around the globe.
In the end the line 'Bombed back to the stone age' is correct, not just because of the destruction of the modern world, but on population as well.
Of course, it would have been even worse if the powers also switched wepons to chemical and biological wepons as well, some of the wepons in the arsenals of the world.

Answer 3

Nobody would have won because it would have meant nuclear war. That was the whole point of the arms race really, to stop one side getting the upper hand.

The Cold War was a time of fear, but it did stop war breaking out. I am not remotely a supporter of the USSR but it does seem to me that, since the collapse of the USSR, the US has become very aggressive. It has done so because it can, it is the only Great Power now. We definitely need some sort of balance again but not with Russia. It might help a bit if the UK ceased to do Americas's bidding. The rest of Europe does not do so and they have not yet been bombed!

Answer 4

Is the Cold War really over, Russia has now made a quasi alliance with China, " Russia is the first and longest leg of Mr Hu's tour and indicates the importance which both countries attach to an alliance once seen as an essential counterweight to American military and economic might.
Rivalry and even hostility blighted the relationship during the 1960s, but warming ties were formalised in 2001, when Mr Putin signed a treaty of friendship with Mr Hu's predecessor Jiang Zemin. Under President Jiang, China and Russia developed a so-called "strategic partnership..."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2938618.stm)
Both share a common resentment of American domination of world politics, and they're strongly opposed to Washington's plans to build a nuclear missile defence system.(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1303171.stm)
While the Russians have recently announced the redeployment of long range strategic bombers, " Russia has resumed a Soviet-era practise of long-range bomber flights, President Vladimir Putin has said.

Answer 5

barring the use of nuclear weapons, I think it was safe to say that America would have won, but it would have been a hard fought victory.

It is now coming out that the Soviet Union was in dismal financial shape throughout its existence. Most of the factories that served as the USSR's manufacturing base had been running since they were nationalized in the 1910's and 1920's. Parade records show most of the tanks were dummies, only a 3rd of all the rifles carried by the soldiers were functional, and the USSR made a habit of circling missiles back around with a new serial number swapped out in order to give an illusion of strength

Declassified documents are coming out demonstrating the USSR's economic pitifulness. They had an abundance of manpower, and their economy was primarily geared towards making instruments of war (does it come as a surprise that making tools of war was the only thing the communists were good at?)

So it would have been a savage fight, particularly in the time it would have taken the west to mobilize for war, but in the end, I think the west would have prevailed.

Answer 6

Well, a lot of people have told you the right answer (No one...)
But I still want to throw in my 2 cents (Or 2 points)
This is the sole reason the Cold War was so insatiably terrifying - the world over, thousands of kids lived every day in fear that it might be their last.
My English Literature teacher has some fascinatingly scary stories of being there first hand, and recalls it as the only time he's ever truly feared for his life.

~ Antt (Not old enough to have been there myself)

Answer 7

Assuming that both sides refrained from using Strategic Nuclear Weapons then it depends on when. In the 50s, late 80s and early 90s Nato probably would have. The qualitative and quantitive balance favoured the West in its defensive role (an assumption but a safe one i think).
In the 60s, 70s and early 80sthe massive difference in numbers and a closer qualititive margin would probably have resulted in the Warsaw Pact winning an easy victory.In those years NATO relied entirely on a 'tripwire' strategy where conventional forces were secondary to a nuclear response. There were few options for a conventional defence of Western Europe as it was considered too expensive to provide the equipment deemed necessary.Spending on conventional forces was reduced and investment in Nuclear weapons increased relatively. Assuming no nuclear response from NATO it's unlikely they could have held the WP.

Answer 8

No one, and for once government leaders showed some sense in keeping it cold. Two superpowers at the time of the cold war could not have had any decisive victories using conventional warfare methods, so might have resorted to nuclear weapons, meaning a loss for everyone.

Answer 9

The Soviets had more men, tanks and guns.

Without the threat of the West's nuclear supeirority, the Soviets would have invaded Europe and won.

Answer 10

I have to borrow Einstein's answer to this question when he said he didn't know who would win the 3rd world war but he knew 4th world war would be fought with sticks and stones.