Just like the Soviets could have marched to the Atlantic with their vast conventional forces. I don't understand why the US and the USSR allowed such a thing as the cold war to develop. Either had the ability to knock their soon to be opponents out of Europe. Was it fear or a lack of willpower? Maybe the former for the Soviets and the latter for the Americans...
@djlagomorph The Soviets could never have pushed the Allies, later known as NATO, out of continental Europe. By the time the Soviets got to Berlin the US had developed the atomic bomb. The US didn't want to kick the Soviets out of Europe as the American public was over being at war. Then later both sides had nuclear weapons and all that could have happened was Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).
I disagree, in my opinion the Soviets could have beaten the western Allies by a Blitzkrieg-style surprise attack. Maybe a few weeks after the end of the war, when the Americans were already pulling out some troops. At that time it took quite a while to assemble a nuclear bomb (and its delivery relied on air supremacy), so as a defensive weapon it wouldn't be of so much value. But of course I agree with you in that as soon as both sides had the bomb, MAD was the only posible outcome.
What's also interesting is the fact that Regan took as long as he did before he ever began to look at the military's nuclear options and procedures for launching a nuclear strike. While he was seen as hawkish by many he was really quite a pacifist...at least in the nuclear arena.
@hrdknox2000 Yes, indeed. What you say about Reagan is as true as it is hard to understand. It's very easy to hate Reagan for being (supposedly) a Right-wing 'warmonger.' It's just as easy to admire him for being a patriot. What is really hard is to understand the man himself. THAT requires some effort. He hated nuclear weapons, yet ordered them built in record numbers.
@hrdknox2000 Yes, indeed. What you say about Reagan is as true as it is hard to understand. It's very easy to hate Reagan for being (supposedly) a Right-wing 'warmonger.' It's just as easy to admire him for being a patriot. What is really hard is to understand the man himself. THAT requires some effort. He hated nuclear weapons, yet ordered them built in record numbers.
We should have nuked the Sovs and put them out of their damn misery. I mean...listen to these fuckers!
vvsignin1 5 months ago
@vvsignin1
If for whatever reason you want that, you should have done it in 1945 when the Soviets couldn't retaliate with nukes yet.
djlagomorph 4 months ago
@djlagomorph Certainly could have used them in a tactical environment to kick them out of Germany and the Slavic countries.
vvsignin1 4 months ago
@vvsignin1
Just like the Soviets could have marched to the Atlantic with their vast conventional forces. I don't understand why the US and the USSR allowed such a thing as the cold war to develop. Either had the ability to knock their soon to be opponents out of Europe. Was it fear or a lack of willpower? Maybe the former for the Soviets and the latter for the Americans...
djlagomorph 4 months ago
@djlagomorph The Soviets could never have pushed the Allies, later known as NATO, out of continental Europe. By the time the Soviets got to Berlin the US had developed the atomic bomb. The US didn't want to kick the Soviets out of Europe as the American public was over being at war. Then later both sides had nuclear weapons and all that could have happened was Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD).
vvsignin1 4 months ago
@vvsignin1
I disagree, in my opinion the Soviets could have beaten the western Allies by a Blitzkrieg-style surprise attack. Maybe a few weeks after the end of the war, when the Americans were already pulling out some troops. At that time it took quite a while to assemble a nuclear bomb (and its delivery relied on air supremacy), so as a defensive weapon it wouldn't be of so much value. But of course I agree with you in that as soon as both sides had the bomb, MAD was the only posible outcome.
djlagomorph 4 months ago
Who's face is that @ 7:40?
hrdknox2000 1 year ago
What's also interesting is the fact that Regan took as long as he did before he ever began to look at the military's nuclear options and procedures for launching a nuclear strike. While he was seen as hawkish by many he was really quite a pacifist...at least in the nuclear arena.
hrdknox2000 1 year ago
@hrdknox2000 Yes, indeed. What you say about Reagan is as true as it is hard to understand. It's very easy to hate Reagan for being (supposedly) a Right-wing 'warmonger.' It's just as easy to admire him for being a patriot. What is really hard is to understand the man himself. THAT requires some effort. He hated nuclear weapons, yet ordered them built in record numbers.
lsnows 1 year ago
@hrdknox2000 Yes, indeed. What you say about Reagan is as true as it is hard to understand. It's very easy to hate Reagan for being (supposedly) a Right-wing 'warmonger.' It's just as easy to admire him for being a patriot. What is really hard is to understand the man himself. THAT requires some effort. He hated nuclear weapons, yet ordered them built in record numbers.
lsnows 1 year ago 2