Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

Actually in the 1950's, there was an attempt at overture to the US by Krutshev, but it was mostly turned down.

Saying what?

to understand laser pistols you must understand that america already put lasers in space in order to murderize soviet second strike capability

they had to put their own lasers in there to kill american lasers so they wouldn't be screwed ror

Hence why I said "rather than just laughing at Reagan".

I've heard rumors that the US purposely raised it's military spending to force the USSR's to unsustainable levels. I don't personally subscribe to such rumors (It's more likely it was unintentionally lucky), but it's out there. The Soviet Union certainly achieved a numbers advantage around the late 80s, they just never realized that it didn't matter.

I feel like Owlbread is describing a imaginary situation: I mean, the US could have easily done the same pacifist route, but didn't for many of the same reasons. They were simply always going to have military tension; and in the real world great powers just don't use a pacifist strategy.

Well, the Soviet laser system was a precursor/offshoot/tangentially related to their other laser initiatives. I mean, they also developed the technology for an orbital anti satellite laser, which would have been very useful indeed.

Also, I'm pretty sure that this laser pistol comes from the "We're going for manned spy satellites" part of Russian space history. Another point is that during the entire cold War, the USSR had to catch up with the USA. They started with very little, and got some astonishing results, after all. On a side note, the pacifist approach won't work. The US would continue it's policy of finding USSR client states, supporting a revolution, then invade/liberate.

Exactly. The USSR couldn't just do nothing and see how the Americans are encroaching at their borders.

Also, a very important part of Soviet (and Russian) military strategy is that the enemy should not be able to easily destroy Soviet/Russian nuclear weapons. It was assumed by the Soviets and it is assumed by Russia that its nuclear weapons are the only thing that deters the United States from attacking them, and if the USA will be absolutely sure that the Soviet Union/Russia will not retaliate with nuclear weapons, then it will strike first. Thus, the development of anti-satellite weapons was started to counter the SDI program, the Perimeter system was created to ensure that retaliatory strike would be launched even if the top military commanders get destroyed by an American decapitation strike, etc.
Russia today is against the deployment of American ABM systems in Central and Eastern Europe for the same reason.

And here is my smoking gun. Guardian G.I. is unintentionally illustrating why neither side would unilaterally disarm: Neither genuinely believed they wouldn't be attacked. Remember, perception matters as much as reality.

[Sheb]

Offering trade, a lessening of tensions and a focus on economics. Back in the 1950's, the USSR was growing really fast, and a lot of people genuinely believed they were going to catch up with the West.

[Descan]

That kind of thinking has always disturbed me. Especially in a capitalist system.

Why WOULDN'T you want other people to get to a good quality of life and a good economic foundation? Why WOULDN'T you want more people to sell to?

"Oh no, China is going to overtake America!"

Whoop de fucking do.

[Dutchling]

That kind of thinking has always disturbed me. Especially in a capitalist system.

Why WOULDN'T you want other people to get to a good quality of life and a good economic foundation? Why WOULDN'T you want more people to sell to?

"Oh no, China is going to overtake America!"

Whoop de fucking do.

Well, there was this thing, called the cold war:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Descan]

I know. I just wish the Cold War was about who was actually better, not who had more uranium.

[Aseaheru]

Well, it was sorta. Just not really.

And did not the soviet high command go out of there way to develop plans that would not render the world dead, involving just hitting nukes and not civvies?

[10ebbor10]

Well, only the British consistently targeted cities in their nuclear attack plans. Both USSR and US intended to do tactical attacks.

[Sheb]

Yeah, but that was only because the Brits had a limited amount of nukes, so wanted to be sure to hurt.

[Aseaheru]

I think the USSR where the only people who said that wars with nukes could be "winnable"...

[Owlbread]

Yeah, but that was only because the Brits had a limited amount of nukes, so wanted to be sure to hurt.

I think anyone in favour of retaining Trident in the UK should really read more about those plans. You know, get a better perspective. Especially those who consider themselves to be good Christians i.e. many Conservatives/Labour members.

[Aseaheru]

I am pretty sure those tridents you are talking of could hit things other than cities, I think I remember reading that they where designed to be able to take out hardened silos.

[Owlbread]

I am pretty sure those tridents you are talking of could hit things other than cities, I think I remember reading that they where designed to be able to take out hardened silos.

But then again it's not about what they could hit as much as what they were going to be used to hit.

[Aseaheru]

True.

[Culise]

It's standard practice to draw up war plans for every possible hypothetical situation. I have little doubt that Canada and Mexico both have "how to keep the US from curbstomping us" plans locked up in some government archive, even though there is no realistic chance of it being used.

Indeed, we did. I believe that it involved bicycle troops and waiting for the British to come and bail our asses out. If you can't tell, it was made sometime during the 1930s...

Which is convenient, since the American war plan involved eating Canada wholesale and waiting for the British, and the British notions of a war plan (since their government put the kibosh on actually formalizing any war plans against America for much of the interwar era) basically boiled down to sacrificing Canada and making peripheral attacks to wear the US down.

I am pretty sure those tridents you are talking of could hit things other than cities, I think I remember reading that they where designed to be able to take out hardened silos.

That may be possible, but that wasn't the intended use.  The critical aspect of UK nuclear policy in the Cold War era was the "Moscow Criterion" - basically, their ability to destroy Moscow.  In effect, since it could not be relied upon to equal the Soviet arsenal numerically and was independent of the American arsenal in operation, maintenance, and targeting, it had to be aimed against political and societal targets of destruction against softer targets in order to serve as an effective deterrent - that is to say, major cities

[misko27]

I am getting a strong urge to play DEFCON from this discussion. I wish I still had it.