Third World War - Inside the War Room

[marcosgt]

audikentman said:

A lot of countries have no Nuclear weapons and where never invaded during the cold war and for all its Nuclear weapons the US have it didn't stop the 9/11 attacks.

What would be the point of Nuking a country as there would then be nothing left to invade?

It's a lot more complicated than that.

Those countries without nukes not invaded in the Cold War? Presumably they were allies of countries that did! The obvious candidate is West Germany, backed by NATO. I think we can safely assume without the existence off Nuclear Weapons and the potential annihilation of Moscow and other USSR cities Stalin would have swallowed up Germany in its entirety (at last!).

Japan suffered 2 nuclear bombs in WW2 and went on, within 25 years, to be a major economic powerhouse - Whilst it doesn't do much for the immediate future of an area or population, localised nuclear weapons don't completely destroy a city/country/whatever forever (although I'll concede most current weapons are much more powerful than those in WW2) - Of course a full scale Nuclear war probably would, but that's not what this programme was proposing.

What really baffled me recently was reports of a planned Nuclear strike on Sweden by Russia... No-one's felt the need to fight Sweden in over 150 years, so why now???? It kind of feels like a British plan to attack Belgium...

M

[Halb]

marcosgt said:

Those countries without nukes not invaded in the Cold War? Presumably they were allies of countries that did! The obvious candidate is West Germany, backed by NATO. I think we can safely assume without the existence off Nuclear Weapons and the potential annihilation of Moscow and other USSR cities Stalin would have swallowed up Germany in its entirety (at last!).

I think it's closer to the other way around. It was the might of the bomb, and a truly mediocre middle-manager in Truman that allowed tensions between the allies to rise and the cold war to start. Truman thought he could use the bomb to bully.

[marcosgt]

Halb said:

I think it's closer to the other way around. It was the might of the bomb, and a truly mediocre middle-manager in Truman that allowed tensions between the allies to rise and the cold war to start. Truman thought he could use the bomb to bully.

Well, that's a viewpoint, certainly, but Stalin's record doesn't really stack up against any American President's in terms of insane brutality (of course, that may change soon...).

M.

[Halb]

marcosgt said:

Well, that's a viewpoint, certainly, but Stalin's record doesn't really stack up against any American President's in terms of insane brutality (of course, that may change soon...).

M.

Stalin/Russia had goals, the goals that hadn't changed for decades. Churchill and FDR handed over East Europe to acquiesce to those goals. Then Truman and his advisers went mental and decided the USSR wanted world dominion. A more capable politician in the Whitehouse, like Henry Wallace would have led to a much different second half of the 20th century.

[ApOrbital]

That was good thanks for letting us know.

[Bring on the clowns]

Trouble with all that is, now they've got Putin. He'll share a moral compass with Uncle Joe and Paul Pot to help navigate their way around Hades. With luck they might bump into Teflon Tony from time to time.

[marcosgt]

Halb said:

marcosgt said:

Well, that's a viewpoint, certainly, but Stalin's record doesn't really stack up against any American President's in terms of insane brutality (of course, that may change soon...).

M.

Stalin/Russia had goals, the goals that hadn't changed for decades. Churchill and FDR handed over East Europe to acquiesce to those goals. Then Truman and his advisers went mental and decided the USSR wanted world dominion. A more capable politician in the Whitehouse, like Henry Wallace would have led to a much different second half of the 20th century.

Of course, different folks, different results.

I'm not here to defend US Politicians, but Stalin was on a par with Hitler in terms of insanity and callousness, so it's hard to imagine how the immediately post WW2 scenario could have been all peace and love. The world had just come out of a massively costly war (in human terms), caused to a great extent, by appeasement of a vicious dictator. It's no surprise that the West took a strong stance against the next one to threaten conflict.

It can only be conjecture, either way, but I doubt any US President could have taken a much different stance, short of letting the whole of Europe fall into Soviet hands, unchallenged.

M

[Halb]

marcosgt said:

Of course, different folks, different results.
I'm not here to defend US Politicians, but Stalin was on a par with Hitler in terms of insanity and callousness, so it's hard to imagine how the immediately post WW2 scenario could have been all peace and love. The world had just come out of a massively costly war (in human terms), caused to a great extent, by appeasement of a vicious dictator. It's no surprise that the West took a strong stance against the next one to threaten conflict.
It can only be conjecture, either way, but I doubt any US President could have taken a much different stance, short of letting the whole of Europe fall into Soviet hands, unchallenged.
M

Great folks, greater results. I'm not here to defend Stalin. But deals were made with him, to satisfy the centuries old concern of invasion, and then when the result of the deals were falling into place, certain people suddenly started having amnesia and started to kick off hostilities again further satisying the fears of the other. A President who had more of an idea could have led a different path, and Wallce, the Dem party member who was diddled out of the VPship, to allow the underrated and easily led Truman to be handpicked for the VPship would most definitely not have allowed fear to rule the Whitehouse. One of the greatest failures of FDR was not to back his VP Wallace in re-election. Truman was woefully underskilled for the job.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/truma...

[Wacky Racer]

audikentman said:

What would be the point of Nuking a country as there would then be nothing left to invade?

They wouldn't be able to invade you then, would they?

Ergo Mutually assured destruction.

But yes, the world would be a better place if nuclear weapons didn't exist, but then there would still be chemical, biological ones.......have been since WW1.