2007-10-28 14:21:13 · 13 answers · asked by volumeua 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
How do you assess a winner when a nuclear exchange is equal to global suicide? Most of the answers above have stated the MAD doctrine, which kept us from the apacolypse during the Cold War. If you're thinking a pre-emptive strike to knock out their silos or command bunkers, their SLBMs would've retaliated and we lose.... Any option or scenario that you can think of, all end the same....
2007-10-28 15:02:49 · answer #1 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If there was a war during the Cold War Period, it would involve far more countries than the USA and the USSR.
The USSR would first try to punch a way through into Europe, Para drops on the UK with seaborne invasion from the North Sea. To slow down reinforcements from the USA tactical nukes would be deployed on the USA bases around the globe leading to retaliation by the USA which then would go to full blown Nuclear War, with China possibly joining in to take care of any US bases in the Pacific theater and help North Korea roll into South Korea.
It would be the end of life on the planet as we know it.
2007-10-28 20:05:46 · answer #2 · answered by conranger1 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Soviet Union didn't have the economy or material to sustain a war longer than 45 days, their initial strategy was to blitzkrieg across Europe, gaining control in about thirty days and hoping America would let Europe go rather than go nuclear.
2007-10-28 14:30:55 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't think they would have used nuclear weapons in such a war. Using them is sort of like fighting dirty... you use a nuke on me, I'll use ten nukes on you.
Conventionally, the Soviet Union had the real advantage then. Technological differences were mostly subtle back then, not to mention the Soviets had far more tanks, aircraft and manpower.
2007-10-28 15:34:08 · answer #4 · answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
During the cold war america would probably have knocked their socks off ,,, our technology at the tie was more advanced, when they actually had to lie about sputnik going to the moon,,, and to this day they still have the same old 1950,s and 60,s bombers. they have advanced but nit much as they were broke for many years
2007-10-28 14:31:51 · answer #5 · answered by John N 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There were wars during the cold war era.
But if you mean a USSR vs. USA war, then we probably wouldnt be here today.
2007-10-28 14:25:02 · answer #6 · answered by idbangrobertplant 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was roughly a 50 year time span, which portion of that 50 years would you be referring too? Both nations capabilities and wherewithal changed depending on whom there leader was.
PS. Larry th... We did not lose in Vietnam, our nations leaders lost the political will and pulled out, militarily, we gave the north a severe beating my friend.
2007-10-28 14:24:52 · answer #7 · answered by redlegman64 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No one...Mutually Assured Destruction = MAD. Cockroaches would've won since they'd be the largest suriviving life forms after the mass extinction.
2007-10-28 14:24:33 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Depends how you want to look at it. If we went nuclear nobody would have one.
If you consider smaller conflicts- such as Viet Nam which was backed by the Russians and Chinese, then we lost.
2007-10-28 14:25:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The Eskimos. They would be the only ones left.
2007-10-28 17:20:28 · answer #10 · answered by some_pixels_on_a_screen 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋