SU vs US

[Warskum]

A few weeks ago I got a history test about the Cold War, one of the questions was; "If the Cold War would have become a real war who would have won?"

My answer was no1 because the book sayd that both the US and SU had atomic bombs and so they could both destroy eachother, it also sayd that if 1 of the countries would launch his atomic bomb the other 1 could launch his be4 the atomic bomb would strike so this way both would be destroyed.

But my teacher sayd that the US would win because he had more money I don`t think this make any sence because eventhough the US had more money both had a lots of weapons and even IF the US would be winning the SU would launch an atomic bomb, this is what i think i would like to hear what u guys think.

[Wolf]

If no Atomic Weapons are used: The Soviet Union, with its large numbers, would make huge gains early in the war. The USSR would probably have reached as far as France, or Saudi Arabia. However, as the war went on, greater US manufacturing capability and resistance in nations that have been conquered by the USSR would give the United States the upper hand. Within two years, America would begin rolling back USSR troops, which would have been demoralized, undersupplyed, and lessened in number by US bombing. By the third year, Russian troops would have reached the mid-Ukrained in their retreat. By the fourth year, should the USSR not surrender, the United States would be able to capture Moscow. The USSR would have taken the most losses, but would have made tremendous gains early in what would be known as the Third World War.

If Atmoic Weapons are used: Watch Dr. Strangelove.

[Edric O]

No one would win. As soon as the first nuclear missile would have been launch, the other guys would have detected it, and launched their own missiles. There are no winners in a nuclear war.

And this is precisely the reason why the Cold War never turned hot: Mutually Assured Destruction.

On the other hand, if nuclear weapons dissapeared from the picture, the question of who would have won remains open. Personally, I don't have the slightest clue. The two sides were pretty evenly matched. However, the USA had an immense technological and industrial head start over the Soviet Union, mostly due to the fact that America began its industrialization almost 100 years before Russia. In order to catch up and compensate for the American head start, the Russians were forced to make great efforts, which eventually exhausted their strength and lead to the fall of the Soviet Union.

[Warskum]

Thats what I told my teacher but the problem is in THE Netherlands they are against communisme and they illustrate SU as "evil". I didn`t get points for that question >:(

[Edric O]

What kind of an idiotic teacher gives points for "what if" questions? That's not history - that's fiction!

Oh, and not all Dutch are against communism...

http://www.vcp.nu/

http://www.ncpn.nl/

He he he. ;)

[Warskum]

I am not Dutch ;) I am an Armenian ( we were part of SU)

That teacher sux.

[Egeides]

During the SU occupation, were Armenian for or against the SU? To which extent were they able to express their point of view, publicly and privately?

[Emperor Harkonnen]

It would depend what year we are in during the cold war. I guess USA would win if it was the early years right after the second world war because then SU had more casualties than USA.

but I saw in a james bond movie that Soviet could easily take the whole of Europe in a matter of short time in the beginning of the 80s. And maybe China, North Korea and Vietnam would be on the soviet side. China was pretty strong then wasn't they?

[Terror]

I might be able to clear things up..

Economically seen during the cold war, both countries were going downhill, however... the cold war ended because the USSR could no longer afford to produce more weapons, the USSR military was powerful, but all the civilians were very poor, there was not enough food and USSR economy could not last. US economy was at that time in fact on the brink of collapse, if they would have kept on producing this amount of weapons like they did then, their economy too would've crippled. But because the cold war ended, the US economy was still strong and they kept world power.

However, another main reason stands why the US would've won. The USSR had no nuclear missiles that could reach the USA. They were building an installation in Communist Cuba but the US forced them to dismantle that station, the US however, had multiple nuclear installations aimed for the USSR, sited in Turkey and some other countries. This means... if the US would attack with nuclear missiles, the USSR would not be able to repel, they could only attack asia and Europe. The US was just too far away. Now, years later Russia too has nuclear missiles that can travel far enough to be a threat to the US.

Economically though, the US was also stronger, the USSR just couldn't keep up the pace.

[Edric O]

Nitpicking note: The proper acronym is USSR, not SU! :)

Flameweaver, I have a few comments to make:

First of all, the USA did not have any nuclear missiles in Turkey any more after the Cuban Missile Crisis. The whole reason why Khruschev placed Soviet short-range missiles in Cuba was the need to pressure the Americans into withdrawing their own missiles from Turkey. The Cuban Missile Crisis gave America the glory, but the Soviets were the real winners. They got what they wanted - the USA dismantled its nuclear installations in Turkey. The American public, however, was NOT informed of this. The terms of the US-Soviet deal said that the removal of US missiles from Turkey had to be kept a secret. The US government quite simply lied to its people in order to make itself look good.

Second of all, the fact is that the Soviets had plenty of their own ICBM's (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles) capable of hitting any target inside the USA. However, the Americans had A LOT more missiles than the Soviets. The ratio was something like 10:1 in favour of the USA. But the US government did not know this. At one point they actually believed that the Soviets were ahead of them. So, in fact, the Soviets were making up in intelligence and counter-espionage for what they lacked in brute firepower.

[Warskum]

I believe both had the technologie to launch nuclear missles at each other.

[Terror]

Ah okay. I am not allknowing about this subject. But i do know that the positioning of missiles in Cuba was meant to counter for the US's ability to strike anywhere in the USSR. Perhaps those ICBM's were able to target the VS, but i don't think they could hit any target in the US, definetly not the most important targets in the US. Their range was still limited to like 4000 kilometers.

[Caid Ivik]

Proper acronym is CCCP, azbuka form of Sojuz Sovietskych Socialisticeskych Republik. But nevertheless, war between USA and Russia would be hard and in fact without a victor. Nuclear weapons will cause terrible devastation and remnant armies will fight senselessly. It would be a matter of time when they will agree on peace. What would they fight for, when it was already defeated?

[Dunenewt]

The SU would have wiped the floor with them if it came to proper war (without Nukes) in my opinion.

Reason:Better tanks, more men and Mexico.

Also if you see some of the Soviet projects which just needed more money... :O MiG 1.44 for example

[Terror]

pfff, that is impossible to say. US had/has by far the best navy and they have good quality tanks, not big, but powerful as hell. And i think their military training is/was definately better.

[Emperor Harkonnen]

USSR had better handguns and better planes

[Terror]

Bullshit, western planes were nothing worse than the Russian Migs/Sukhois. They may not have been better, but they were nothing less either..

[Andrew]

Can anyone say Canada's AvroArrow?

http://www.avroarrow.org/

Just how modern it was:

I think a/c means aircraft

The CF-105 Avro Arrow was:

1) First a/c designed with digital computers being used for both aerodynamic analysis and designing the structural matrix (and a whole lot more).

2) First a/c design to have major components machined by CNC (computer numeric control); i.e., from electronic data which controlled the machine.

3) First a/c to be developed using an early form of "computational fluid dynamics" with an integrated "lifting body" type of theory rather than the typical (and obsolete) "blade element" theory.

4) First a/c to have marginal stability designed into the pitch axis for better maneuverability, speed and altitude performance.

5) First a/c to have negative stability designed into the yaw axis to save weight and cut drag, also boosting performance.

6) First a/c to fly on an electronic signal from the stick and pedals. i.e., first fly-by-wire a/c.

7) First a/c to fly with fly by wire AND artificial feedback (feel). Not even the first F-16's had this.

8) First a/c designed to be data-link flyable from the ground.

9) First a/c designed with integrated navigation, weapons release, automatic search and track radar, datalink inputs, home-on-jamming, infrared detection, electronic countermeasures and counter-countermeasures operating through a DIGITAL brain.

10) First high wing jet fighter that made the entire upper surface a lifting body. The F-15, F-22, Su-27 etc., MiG-29, MiG 25 and others certainly used that idea.

11) First sophisticated bleed-bypass system for both intake AND engine/exhaust. Everybody uses that now.

12) First by-pass engine design. (all current fighters have by-pass engines).

13) First combination of the last two points with an "ejector" nozzle that used the bypass air to create thrust at the exhaust nozzle while also improving intake flow. The F-106 didn't even have a nozzle, just a pipe.

14) Use of Titanium for significant portions of the aircraft structure and engine.

15) Use of composites (not the first, but they made thoughtful use of them and were researching and engineering new ones).

16) Use of a drooped leading edge and aerodynamic "twist" on the wing.

17) Use of engines at the rear to allow both a lighter structure and significant payload at the centre of gravity. Everybody copied that.

18) Use of a LONG internal weapons bay to allow carriage of specialized, long-range standoff and cruise missiles. (not copied yet really)

19) Integration of ground-mapping radar and the radar altimeter plus flight control system to allow a seriousstrike/reconnaissance role. The first to propose an aircraft be equally adept at those roles while being THE air-superiority fighter at the same time. (Few have even tried to copy that, although the F-15E is an interesting exception.)

20) First missile armed a/c to have a combat weight thrust to weight ratio approaching 1 to 1. Few have been able to copy that.

21) First flying 4,000 psi hydraulic system to allow lighter and smaller components.

22) First oxygen-injection re-light system.

23) First engine to have only two main bearing assemblies on a two-shaft design.

24) First to use a variable stator on a two-shaft engine.

25) First use of a trans-sonic first compressor stage on a turbojet engine.

26) First "hot-streak" type of afterburner ignition.

27) First engine to use only 10 compressor sections in a two-shaft design. (The competition was using 17!!)

And let's not forget the Avrocar :) http://www.avroarrow.org/Avrocar.asp

[Mahdi]

Yeah, bt Defenbaker had his head so far up the American ass that he cancelled the program and destroyed all blue prints/prototypes, so ti wouldn't be much good Andrew.

[Andrew]

It could be used as propaganda, as that is what the cold war was about. ;)

Just imagine if they had of completed those planes, they would still be used right now. ;D (but seriously, maybe we could have a larger military power right now)

[Caid Ivik]

That fighter is like a two MiG-21s with performance of one. No surprise this project was cancelled, it was time of quick development of SA missiles. S-75 Volchov missiles of 1959 design are used even today.

[Egeides]

Caid, a few factors are to be considered (from the little knowledge I have):

- Canada was going to be a competitor with something like this (in applied science, we still got pretty good: enough to make it one of our specializations)

- USA prefered to see Canada defend the North

It's not seen very positively here... Oh, besides, they did the F22 Raptor quite some time after, and I don't remember if it's better than the Arrow was said to be or about the same.

[Caid Ivik]

That time was an era of fascination by SA missiles. Remember A-12 and B-70 projects, they were also scrapped despite their breathtaking performance. Americans thought the missiles are cheapier and more effective than fast interceptors, which in fact use also missiles for fight. For usual interception they F4H-1 (later F-4), which could reach mach 2 easily. Russians chosen the interceptor way, and it is true there was no equivalent, or even a way to shot down MiG-25 until F-15 with a Sparrow missile.

[Acriku]

I'm curious as to how some people think an atomic bomb, or a couple, are the end of the world. Look at how small Japan is with two explosions, and how populated it remained, and how prosperous it became, albeit with the help of the U.S. - but then that's my point, if a country is economically strong enough and militarily strong enough, then a few atomic bombs do not mean defeat. If this was an all-out war, the U.S. would seem to be the last one to survive because with the help of allies as well they can stay in the fight longer than Russia.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, those bombs were rather smaller than nowadays, not saying they were threwn on two cities of medium economical importance. It cannot destroy humanity itself, we would always find a way how to survive, but i.e.nuclear bombing of all major cities and industrial or agricultural (by dirt bombs) zones would certainly cripple whole civilisation.