• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wonder If the World Would've Been Better Off if the U.S.S.R. & NATO Had Fought It Out

Re: Wonder If the World Would've Been Better Off if the U.S.S.R. & NATO Had Fought It

Dayton3 said:
Worst case result for the United States-forced to withdraw from mainland Europe and the effective dissolution of NATO. West Germany and other neighboring countries become de facto allies of the Soviet Union.

Worst case result for the Soviet Union- forced to withdraw its military back to within the actual borders of the U.S.S.R. (The War That Never Was ending).

I hope that clarifies things.
Click to expand...

As noted earlier, I've seen nothing that has been released from the archives that would indicate that either party would be willing to tolerate such an outcome. Some political leaders in Western Europe had concerns that the U.S. might reach an accommodation that would effectively sacrifice that region and that argument was used to create a rationale for independent nuclear arsenals among some European countries. Nevertheless, nothing that has been made public from the archives suggests even that outcome was under serious consideration by the U.S. Indeed, Soviet hegemony over all of Europe would pose a long-term threat to an increasingly isolated U.S. The Soviets would have gained the kind of manufacturing capacity that they lacked and put themselves in a position to enlarge their nuclear arsenal far faster than they did. In time, they would have gained a position of invulnverability (their nuclear arsenal could survive a U.S. first strike) and the U.S. would have had few acceptable options available to it. The U.S. could no longer deter the Soviets, while the Soviets would have gained an ability to pressure the U.S. into making decisions it otherwise could not compel. Once the Soviets fully integrated Western Europe into their empire, perhaps the geopolitically vital Middle East would be next or perhaps Asia would be next. With each successive gain, the Soviet superiority vis-a-vis the U.S. would grow and the proverbial noose would tighten. Therefore, far from the benign outcomes sketched in works of fiction, it's very unlikely that the U.S. could ever have accepted a scenario under which the Soviets gained control over all of Europe simply to avoid an all-out war. Such an outcome would have amounted to litttle more than delayed suicide or capitulation to the Soviet Union. Not very surprisingly, IMO, no archival material has surfaced that would confirm U.S. willingness to accept such an outcome simply to avoid an all-out nuclear war.
 
Re: Wonder If the World Would've Been Better Off if the U.S.S.R. & NATO Had Fought It

Dayton3 said:
Conventional wisdom says no. That the risk of nuclear war would've just been too great and a conventional only war in central Europe and around the world (Korean peninsula, Middle East, possibly central America) would've been too destructive anyway.

But I've wondered for years if the petering out of the Cold War, while GREAT for the world as a whole of the late 1980s generation, it might've caused problems, deadly problems in the long run that we've yet to fully account for.

For example, I've calculated that a war along the lines of "Red Storm Rising"/The Third World War: August 1985/The War That Never War" written by Clancy, Hackett, and Palmer respectively would've killed anywhere from 3-7 million people. The number depending on any use of nuclear weapon (5 in Hackett's book, none in the others), use of chemical weapons (extensive in Hackett's book, none in the others), and length of the war (19 days in Hackett's book, 50 days in Palmers', and about 6 weeks in Clancy's).

Big numbers (horrible) for a conflict lasting less than a couple of months in the longest scenario.

But

Consider these numbers:

1) It has been estimated that as many as 7 million Russians have died prematurely due to so called "hypermortality" after the Soviet Union collapsed.

2) Some 2.5 million have died in North Korea over the last two decades due to famine (state caused). Most certainly, the North Korean regime could've been destroyed with much lower loss of life in the 1987-91 time frame than that.

3) The breakdown of governments in places like Yugoslavia in the 1990s (which might've not happened with the military humbling of the Russians, Serbia's traditional ally) led to the deaths of some 500,000 in the last couple of decades.

So one might be able to infer that the LACK of a mainly conventional World War 3 was a factor in the deaths of at least 9-10 million people.

this assumes that such a war would've gone well for the west and the aftermath had been handled reasonably of course.

Still this idea always stays active in the back of my mind and especially when something like the Russians attacking Georgia or the Ukraine comes up.
Click to expand...

The only time this hypothetical might have been 'worth' considering is during the tensions surrounding the Korean War.
 
Re: Wonder If the World Would've Been Better Off if the U.S.S.R. & NATO Had Fought It

The world would not be better off if The USSR and the West had fought a nuclear war (Which is what it would have been.).

If that had happened we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
 
Re: Wonder If the World Would've Been Better Off if the U.S.S.R. & NATO Had Fought It

shrubnose said:
The world would not be better off if The USSR and the West had fought a nuclear war (Which is what it would have been.).

If that had happened we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
Click to expand...

That is largely a myth. Post Cold War documents have shown the EXTREME reluctance of the Soviets to ever use nuclear weapons. IIRC, there was even one document that showed if the Soviet nuclear weapons were in danger of getting overrun in Eastern Europe by triumphant NATO forces Soviet plans were to disable them instead of use them.

And despite the deliberate ambiguity of American and NATO policies regarding nuclear weapons, NATO had what amounted to a "no first use" policy that was very real though left unstated.
 
Re: Wonder If the World Would've Been Better Off if the U.S.S.R. & NATO Had Fought It

Dayton3 said:
That is largely a myth. Post Cold War documents have shown the EXTREME reluctance of the Soviets to ever use nuclear weapons. IIRC, there was even one document that showed if the Soviet nuclear weapons were in danger of getting overrun in Eastern Europe by triumphant NATO forces Soviet plans were to disable them instead of use them.

And despite the deliberate ambiguity of American and NATO policies regarding nuclear weapons, N
ATO had what amounted to a "no first use" policy that was very real though left unstated.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Do you have any idea what country first used nuclear weapons against another country?
 
Re: Wonder If the World Would've Been Better Off if the U.S.S.R. & NATO Had Fought It

Before 1949 - when the Russians got the atomic bomb - it might have been better to settle it. After they became a nuclear power, clearly not.
 
Re: Wonder If the World Would've Been Better Off if the U.S.S.R. & NATO Had Fought It

Considering the only outcome would have been either decades long war of attrition or a swift purge of most of the life-forms on Earth. No. Sure technological progress would have been extremely quick and by now if we had survived we would have probably had fusion powered cities and what not but considering the amount of people dying in such a conflict...

Even now if there is a war between Russia and NATO, do you think China will simply wait it out? North Korea? India? The whole middle east that has been itching for a new unifying war? A war between US and Russia would set of a domino effect drawing in China and pretty much every other country in the world, it could be a free for all or they could be organized into two or three camps. Those with US, those with Russia and those who want both of the other ones to fail, the ones trying to take advantage of the moment.
 
Re: Wonder If the World Would've Been Better Off if the U.S.S.R. & NATO Had Fought It

shrubnose said:
Do you have any idea what country first used nuclear weapons against another country?
Click to expand...

The U.S. is the only one thus far.

But it was done during an active war that had already killed 50 million people.

And the effects of nuclear weapons were virtually unknown back then.

And in regards to another post, China of 25 years ago or further had no real means much less the inclination to get involved in any kind of U.S. vs. U.S.S.R. conflict.
 
Re: Wonder If the World Would've Been Better Off if the U.S.S.R. & NATO Had Fought It

If by 'better off', we're referring to a barren and lifeless planet with no possibility of conflict (because everyone's dead), then sure. In that case it's ****ing party time. We should realise that the 'world' would be fine. We however, would not be.
 
Re: Wonder If the World Would've Been Better Off if the U.S.S.R. & NATO Had Fought It

Dayton3 said:
What is CND?
Click to expand...

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament - the main cause is the unilateral disarment by the UK of its nuclear weapons however they ideally also want most of our weapons removed. Finally, the removal or prevention of all nuclear power facilities.

CND policy page.

If you scan down to item 3 -

"Nuclear-free, less militarised and more secure Europe"

You see just where their policy would take us with Russia looking at Europe as a fat defenseless chicken. I have to ask how would Europe give up self-defence and be more secure?
 
Re: Wonder If the World Would've Been Better Off if the U.S.S.R. & NATO Had Fought It

NoC_T said:
If by 'better off', we're referring to a barren and lifeless planet with no possibility of conflict (because everyone's dead), then sure. In that case it's ****ing party time. We should realise that the 'world' would be fine. We however, would not be.
Click to expand...

Complete BS. Even a worst possible case nuclear war meant to deliberately cause the most fatalities and widest possible radiation coverage possible would NOT have killed or injured the majority of humans on the Earth.
 
Re: Wonder If the World Would've Been Better Off if the U.S.S.R. & NATO Had Fought It

Dayton3 said:
Complete BS. Even a worst possible case nuclear war meant to deliberately cause the most fatalities and widest possible radiation coverage possible would NOT have killed or injured the majority of humans on the Earth.
Click to expand...
What kind of 'earth' do you imagine you'd inhabit in the aftermath? Sure, imagine the lovely fluorescent sunsets (that is after the ash settles). No food chain means you're dead. You can't even drink the water. Even supposing a vast and unspoiled supply, you'd develop toes and teeth on your ankles long before it ran out.

You've seen Mad Max once too often, my friend.
 
Re: Wonder If the World Would've Been Better Off if the U.S.S.R. & NATO Had Fought It

The trick is for these superpowers to stand as they are and deal with the rest. Clashing the two would either make life inhabitable on Earth or at best would weaken the polar sides to the degree for another rival superpower to take over. So at best only players would change and the game would stay on.
 
Re: Wonder If the World Would've Been Better Off if the U.S.S.R. & NATO Had Fought It

NoC_T said:
What kind of 'earth' do you imagine you'd inhabit in the aftermath? Sure, imagine the lovely fluorescent sunsets (that is after the ash settles). No food chain means you're dead. You can't even drink the water. Even supposing a vast and unspoiled supply, you'd develop toes and teeth on your ankles long before it ran out.

You've seen Mad Max once too often, my friend.
Click to expand...

You're not serious are you? There would be entire sections of the southern hemisphere left virtually untouched by any nuclear war between the U.S. and Soviet Union.

"toes & teeth on your ankles"? You can't be serious. You do know that even people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that were exposed to massive long term radiation doses never developed the bizarre mutations you are suggesting.

You've drank the koolaid about a nuclear conflict. Though to be fair this concept has been heavily promoted in the west both in the media and govt. in an effort to promote the idea of deterrence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom