He is generally know among Ricardians as “The Weasel”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC9fGIDGqDM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Somerset,_1st_Earl_of_Worcester
WORLD WAR 3
-
Is it true or just myth that the Soviets could launch a 50,000 tank invasion of Western Europe?
The thought of a Kursk type of tank battle between Soviet and NATO countries is captivating.
-
Well there was a shiz load of those T54s.
-
@Imperious:
Collapse of civilization if full nuke exchange occurs, but USA would win because it would have more survivors to finish the fight.
I agree with Imperious Leader. I can’t see us actually taking their whole nation with force but I can see them reaching terms of surrender with us to stop the bloodshed. I think both side would have been pretty motivated to reach an agreement for the fighting to stop but I voted for the US to come out on top.
-
@Imperious:
Collapse of civilization if full nuke exchange occurs, but USA would win because it would have more survivors to finish the fight.
I agree with Imperious Leader. I can’t see us actually taking their whole nation with force but I can see them reaching terms of surrender with us to stop the bloodshed. I think both side would have been pretty motivated to reach an agreement for the fighting to stop but I voted for the US to come out on top.
That’s true. The Soviets, if we had waged a war to conquer their entire country, would have waged guerilla warefare.
-
We have talked much about Europe in this discussion. If China remained neutral or sided with the Soviets would South Korea and Japan repel communist invasions?
-
This is why alternate setups are the shizznit. If Germany has only their capital left, and USSR and US are on either side, then just have 'em duke it out when Germany does fall. I missed the vote, :-( so I’ll go ahead and say a stalemate. Russia had no real capacity to invade the US, but they had enough superiority to sweep through Europe. After that, it would come down to shuttle-ing troops across the Atlantic and Pacific. US had the upper hand there, but if Russia owns Europe, then they have a little bit more pull, and can focus more on their navy if need be.
And mind you, this is ONLY possible if no nukes start flying. Once they do, this “stable” scenario will start to collapse, and as Imperious Leader said, so will civilization.
-
An all out conventional war between Nato and Warsaw Pact would be very hard to quantify, without nukes, war favours the defender.
US + WE got more production, but the communists would be more willing to make sacrifies.
Look at the Vietnam war, US killed maybe millions of vietnam people (soldiers+civilians) but if a nation is willing to take losses of millions compared to 60000 that means that millitary strenght will be not the most important factor. Same goes for Soviet vs Mujahedin, the Afghani people could not match the millitary might of a superpower, but they prevailed because of the will to fight and to defend at all cost.
Russians died for their homeland during WW2, but I think that western Europeans also would fight very hard if the soviets came knocking.
Mujahedin got some cool weapons from the US, but Stinger missiles and other nice toys would not have made an impact if the resistence had been much weaker. So the hypothetical NATO vs Warsaw Pact is not only about airforce, tanks and stuff. The power of the will would be what would matter most in the end, imo. -
Stalin made a calculation. It would be 3 days for the Soviet tanks to overrun France.
How can they hold out for this long? is this a misprint? Perhaps 3 hours for France not more. :-D
-
I unlocked voting since this subject still has life.
Suggested Topics
