08-03-2004 20:38									#1
	Did nukes prevent WWIII? ...erm, up to now that is. Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The west relied on them too much and was weak in europe imo. If we had allowed ourselves to become weak in a non-nuke world I think the Sovs would have attacked in the 70s or early 80s. Basicly this means nukes prevented a world war, right?

	08-03-2004 20:42									#2
	Got spare money?

Yes, I think Mutually Assured Destruction detered a war.

	08-03-2004 21:00									#3
	Re: Did nukes prevent WWIII? ...erm, up to now that is. Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Lancer The west relied on them too much and was weak in europe imo. If we had allowed ourselves to become weak in a non-nuke world I think the Sovs would have attacked in the 70s or early 80s. Basicly this means nukes prevented a world war, right?

What makes you think that in a non-nuclear world history would have been similar all the way up to 1970 and then all of a sudden changed?

The nuclear world begun in August 1945- n a non-nuclear world, history after that point in its entirety would have been very different.

	08-03-2004 21:23									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Was there a will to war with the West in the USSR in the 70ies/80ies? I thought they had more to do with themselves.....

	08-03-2004 21:35									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

they say ww3 was the cold war.

	08-03-2004 21:36									#6
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

however, war deaths were spiking upward for the last 1000 or so years until 1945, when they dropped a great deal afterwards, so nukes have done that much for us apparently.

	08-03-2004 21:38									#7
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I'm not sure if there was 'a will to go to war with the west' in the 70's and early 80's (I didnt get to sit in on any politboro meetings HEH HEH).

Consider this though, 1) the Soviets had a huge military armed with weaponry every bit as good as our own pointed at western europe, 2) they directly and indirectly (through puppet Cuba) supported insurgent activities against countries where the US and Europe had direct interests, 3) they remained more than willing to use their military in order to maintain control of their satellites in eastern europe.

The soviet military was riding high in the 70's and early 80's while NATO was declining. There may not have been a real 'will to go to war' but it didnt look that way to us. So, IMO, nukes helped maintain the balance and prevented even the thought of soviet or western aggression.

	08-03-2004 21:50									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Hm, I could be wrong, but I thought the 50ies/60ies were more the time to worry about Soviet strength. It was the time of most military interventions (East-Germany 53, Hungary 56, Czechoslovakia 68), the time of the first Sputnik 57, and the first man in space 61. Also, since 79 the Soviet military was tied in Afghanistan, and the economical problems within he eastern block became bigger....

	08-03-2004 21:50									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH Consider this though, 1) the Soviets had a huge military armed with weaponry every bit as good as our own pointed at western europe, 2) they directly and indirectly (through puppet Cuba) supported insurgent activities against countries where the US and Europe had direct interests, 3) they remained more than willing to use their military in order to maintain control of their satellites in eastern europe.

Or from Soviet perspective
1) US/NATO had a huge military armed with weaponry every bit as good as our own pointed at USSR,
2) they directly (Vietnam) and indirectly (Afganistan)supported insurgent activities against countries where USSR had direct interests,
3) they remained more than willing to use their military in order to maintain control of their satellites in South America and elsewhere.

	08-03-2004 22:14									#10
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by BeBro Hm, I could be wrong, but I thought the 50ies/60ies were more the time to worry about Soviet strength. It was the time of most military interventions (East-Germany 53, Hungary 56, Czechoslovakia 68), the time of the first Sputnik 57, and the first man in space 61. Also, since 79 the Soviet military was tied in Afghanistan, and the economical problems within he eastern block became bigger....

I can only comment on what I've read of the 50's and 60's since I have no personal experience of the threat during those years. Sure, the soviets had a huge military but western forces were more on par at that time. I doubt the soviets had any fear of western aggression by the late 70's but there may have been some worries in that regard during the 50's and 60's.

Until the weaknesses in the the soviet military became apparent later on, their adventure in afghanistan was taken as clear evidence of their willingness to use their military to achieve their goals. Between that and Poland, we were very very worried.

	08-03-2004 23:28									#11
	Re: Did nukes prevent WWIII? ...erm, up to now that is. Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Lancer The west relied on them too much and was weak in europe imo. If we had allowed ourselves to become weak in a non-nuke world I think the Sovs would have attacked in the 70s or early 80s. Basicly this means nukes prevented a world war, right?

Let's see . . . which country threatened the other directly with nukes, the US or USSR? That would be the US.

Which country encouraged the militaries in democratic states to overthorw their governments and establish military dictatorships? That would be the U.S. again.

Which country poured millions tens of millions into terrorist campaigns designed to bring down local governments? That would the U.S.

Which country poured millions into supporting local insurgencies agains governments allies to the other side? That would be both.

Which country sent its troops around the world invading countries allied to the other? U.S.

Which country sent its troops to various dicatorships to fight locally based insurgencies? The U.S.

Which country actually physically attacked the other? Again, the U.S.


But it was the Soviets who were going to invade the other side?

	08-03-2004 23:43									#12
	Re: Re: Did nukes prevent WWIII? ...erm, up to now that is. Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Let's see . . . which country threatened the other directly with nukes, the US or USSR? That would be the US.

I love living in the Nedaverse which, translated, is anytime prior to the revision of history by communist history professors like Che.

Khruschev put missles into nuclear missles into Cuba and Castro even asked Khruschev to launch them in order to destroy the United States. Castro said that the USSR had 68-90 warheads in Cuba during the Cuban Missle Crisis. As Kennedy demanded that the Soviets withdraw them and imposed a quarantine, Castro demanded that the Soviets wipe the US off the map.

	09-03-2004 00:07									#13
	Re: Re: Re: Did nukes prevent WWIII? ...erm, up to now that is. Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ned I love living in the Nedaverse which, translated, is anytime prior to the revision of history by communist history professors like Che. Khruschev put missles into nuclear missles into Cuba and Castro even asked Khruschev to launch them in order to destroy the United States. Castro said that the USSR had 68-90 warheads in Cuba during the Cuban Missle Crisis. As Kennedy demanded that the Soviets withdraw them and imposed a quarantine, Castro demanded that the Soviets wipe the US off the map.

And did you live through the nuclear annihilation of the US during that time Ned? I take it that was also the time Castro became the leader of the USSR?

	09-03-2004 00:09									#14
	Re: Re: Re: Did nukes prevent WWIII? ...erm, up to now that is. Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ned Khruschev put missles into nuclear missles into Cuba and Castro even asked Khruschev to launch them in order to destroy the United States.

US missiles in Turkey and W Europe, on the other hand, was an entirely different ballgame.

Or you mean something else? I personally never heard of putting "missles into nuclear missles".

	09-03-2004 00:18									#15
	Re: Re: Re: Did nukes prevent WWIII? ...erm, up to now that is. Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ned Khruschev put missles into nuclear missles into Cuba and Castro even asked Khruschev to launch them in order to destroy the United States.

Did the USSR say to the US, back off Cuba or we will nuke you? No. At no point did the USSR ever threaten to use nukes on the U.S. The alternative happened multiple times, however. The first time was immediately after WWII, when the U.S. ambassador told the USSR it must end its occupation of Northern Persia or the U.S. would let the USSR have it "with both barrels." IIRC, the US threatened the USSR with nuclear war directly on five seperate occassions.

OT, I'm glad to see you have a sense of humor about yourself. That's very cool.

	09-03-2004 01:03									#16
	Re: Re: Re: Did nukes prevent WWIII? ...erm, up to now that is. Suffering from ads?

I'll pull this for the time being

	09-03-2004 01:07									#17
	Increase Your PM Length

I think it's pretty safe to say this: For a little over 40 years both the US and the Soviets had a series of leaders with severe paranoid delusions and a macho complex.

None of them were saints. The world probably came to the brink of nuclear war more times than it's good for the stomach to contemplate. But we got through it.

The world today is a better place than it's ever been. It's still not an especially good place, but it's definitely better.

	09-03-2004 01:18									#18
	Put an end to popups!

Hmmm, it's also reassuring that people like McArthur didn't have more say than they did...US was the first to deploy nuclear weapons and demonstrate the ability of it's new toy. Hell, they built enough to bring the USSR to it's knees, fortunately the USSR managed to produce it's own deterrant. You may refer to them as the evil empire...the US was the instigator and forced their hand in the matter, especially considering the devastation after WWII...it is hardly surprising their economy did collapse eventually. It certainly must have been robust to withstand the Nazis and then Stalin's terror.

	09-03-2004 01:29									#19
	Inflate your Upload Space

In what way can Russia or the Soviet Union be blamed for the start of the first or second world war? Why should anyone have been concerned that the Soviet Union would start another world wide conflict?

The second world war effectively destroyed the Imperial intentions of England, France, Japan and Germany and left the United States and the Soviet Union with empires in hand.

There really was no reason for another wide war. The biggest threat of that now would come in the guise of the EU, after all, these are the people that caused all the trouble in the first place.

	09-03-2004 01:31									#20
	Put an end to popups!

to address the original question: yes. nukes were a deterrent to a major attack (nuclear or conventional) on either side. the "small wars" fought between puppets of either regime could have been much worse than they were, as horrible as that might be to say (my apologies to any Vietnam / Korea vets on the forums).

to address the subtle threadjack, america had the upper hand in the beginning, and rode it until the end. the soviets were tripping over themselves to play catch up, to simply even out the playing field. their economy eventually collapsed, as any nations' would have.

	09-03-2004 01:33									#21
	Tired of ads?

quote: US was the first to deploy nuclear weapons and demonstrate the ability of it's new toy.

Duh. We invented them.

	09-03-2004 02:12									#22
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

IN terms of having some sort of justification for their paranoia, the Soviets had more justification than the US. They did take it too far though.

In a world without nukes, I doubt the arms race in conventional weapons would have been as extensive. There might have been local wars, but no world wars for a long time anyway.

	09-03-2004 02:25									#23
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: to address the subtle threadjack, america had the upper hand in the beginning, and rode it until the end. the soviets were tripping over themselves to play catch up, to simply even out the playing field. their economy eventually collapsed, as any nations' would have.

the US was behind for a long time... after Strategic Air Command was created, the US caught up to and surpassed the Soviets. But Che is correct.

And Ned, the US had missiles in Turkey long before the Soviets went to Cuba.

	09-03-2004 03:02									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Sava the US was behind for a long time... after Strategic Air Command was created, the US caught up to and surpassed the Soviets. But Che is correct. And Ned, the US had missiles in Turkey long before the Soviets went to Cuba.

The US was never behind technologically to the soviets. The US may have been behind numerically for the entire cold war, but in tech we were always at least equal.

So i really don;t understand your assertion at all.

	09-03-2004 03:03									#25
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by GePap The US was never behind technologically to the soviets. The US may have been behind numerically for the entire cold war, but in tech we were always at least equal.

are you forgetting sputnik? the Soviet's rocket technology was better than America's up until the late 60's.

quote: So i really don;t understand your assertion at all.

there's always books you could read.

	09-03-2004 03:04									#26
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Not they're MILITARY rocket technology, not really

	09-03-2004 03:04									#27
	Re: Re: Re: Did nukes prevent WWIII? ...erm, up to now that is. Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ned I love living in the Nedaverse which, translated, is anytime prior to the revision of history by communist history professors like Che.

Time to talk Turkey, Ned, or 'Are you feeling a warm glow, Ivan?'

http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/Turkey/h...issiles-Pg1.htm

Consider Ned, the Soviet Union's bad relations with its fellow communist state China- having a possible belligerent on your border the size of China, with whom you have had several border clashes and strong ideological differences, would be like the United States having an armed and hostile Canada with a much more sizeable population and armed forces, glowering at you across Niagara Falls and near Boeing's factories in Washington State.

Then of course there were non-friendly countries such as Pakistan, Iran, dubious neutrals such as Sweden and Finland and Afghanistan (no love lost there), NATO members such as Norway and Turkey, a hostile Japan (Airstrip Two to the U.K.'s Airstrip One) restive Warsaw Pact members such as Hungary and Poland and the picture becomes somewhat less roseate for Red Russia
(couldn't resist the alliteration).

	09-03-2004 03:06									#28
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by skywalker quote: US was the first to deploy nuclear weapons and demonstrate the ability of it's new toy. Duh. We invented them.

And the most willing to use them? You may have wanted to demonstrate the new weapon...but the words of threat to 'totally and utterly devastate your country'. Couldn't you have dropped them on a non-urban area? Was it necessary to drop two? And since then your country seems to have been relatively trigger happy with the things. What was McArthur's proposal in 1948? To nuke every major Soviet city preemptively - at the loss of million and millions of life...

	09-03-2004 03:06									#29
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I'm not even gonna comment on the BS interpretation of history and propaganda that Che put forth, and put it straight and simple.

Like it or not, Nuclear weapons kept the peace in Europe.

On a side note, what do you think this world would look like if Russia or Japan or Germany or China etc etc etc had a monopoly on Nuclear Weapons in the 1945-50 era.

	09-03-2004 03:07									#30
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison And the most willing to use them? You may have wanted to demonstrate the new weapon...but the words of threat to 'totally and utterly devastate your country'. Couldn't you have dropped them on a non-urban area? Was it necessary to drop two? And since then your country seems to have been relatively trigger happy with the things. What was McArthur's proposal in 1948? To nuke every major Soviet city preemptively - at the loss of million and millions of life...

you're a lying commie traitor liberal pinko lefty!#$^@#$&^@#$