Thread: An alternative view of the USA & some other countries

Originally Posted by Ramil

Of course they would. But you're insisting upon the fact that USSR wanted to strike first. Your logic is flawless if one accepts this fact but what gave you this idea in the first place? I have not heard of this.

Let's start with the comparison: what was the focus of the pure assault weapon in the USSR and NATO? The USSR heavily invested in tanks. The main Soviet Army special forces were both airborne - ВДВ and Спецназ. The NATO heavily invested in aircraft carriers. The NATO's main special forces - marines. Start thinking from that point.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Let's start with the comparison: what was the focus of the pure assault weapon in the USSR and NATO? The USSR heavily invested in tanks. The main Soviet Army special forces were both airborne - ВДВ and Спецназ. The NATO heavily invested in aircraft carriers. The NATO's main special forces - marines. Start thinking from that point.

A little bit thin. Aside from Mexico and Canada all other US borders are naval. US marines were basically the same thing as were the Soviet paratroopers. You don't defend homeland with marines, you know. They had carriers so they could transport their armies (and airfields) overseas.
USSR had the land border with NATO and its tanks, according to the doctrine I've seen were to reach the Atlantic in 48 hours should the war start. This was necessary to neutralize the medium and short range missiles deployed in Europe. And, according to the stats I've seen, US almost all the time had more missiles and warheads than USSR (though it didn't really matter since it was 4x overkill). And USSR was ever the second in the arms race (if you count warheads only).

Originally Posted by Ramil

US marines were basically the same thing as were the Soviet paratroopers. You don't defend homeland with marines, you know.

Of course, not. The marines are meant for the assault. The SU also had marines. What I meant, marines are not meant for attacking the nuclear silos. No country would ever station a nuclear silo near the sea shore. That's why the airborne special forces are different in principle from the marines. They have different potential targets, different equipment and different training. In the US there weren't a lot of the paratroopers and so they weren't enough to "neutralize" so many Soviet silos. On the other hand, the importance of the airborne special forces in the Soviet military doctrine could be seen even from the fact that the ВДВ were named the 'kind of the military force' (род войск) equal in importance to the naval, the airforce, and the ground forces. There were a lot of the paratroopers in the Soviet Army. A lot. Enough to form a 'kind of the military force'. All of them could be used only if the Soviet Army would have an absolute dominance in the air. The US marines are legacy from the WWII in which the major operations were done in the islands and the seashore. The marines are meant to assault and hold the ground for a very short time until the 'heavy' equipment (like tanks) is unloaded to the sea shore.

The US seemed to have a different approach to attacking the nuclear silos. Do you remember the first Iraq war (1990-1991)? That was the first time the world had seen the so-called 'high precision' weapons that were designed to penetrate the underground bunkers. By the time of the war, those weapon system were already delivered to the US Army. So, those were designed and built during the Cold War era apparently for a different purpose - to penetrate and destroy the undeground Soviet nuclear silos. Those high-precision missiles were to be delivered over the oceans by the aircraft carriers, then the Stealth jets would deeply penetrate the territory of the USSR and those high-precision bombs/missiles would then be deployed to destoy the silos. No absolute air dominance is required, therefore no need to strike first. The first thing the Soviet Army should have done was to destroy all/majority of the aircraft carriers. By means of the nuclear subs which were to deploy tactical nuclear warheads which did not even require the direct hit of the aircraft carrier. Just a nearby small nuclear exposion would be enough to make the carrier overturn with all its aircraft. As a result: (i) the absolute dominance in the air have been obtained, and (ii) the US has no means to attack the Soviet nuclear silos. The conclusion of this lengthy explanation: the Soviet Army had to strike first. And the US Army had not (but of course it could). A strategic military doctrine sometimes could be deduced from the way an army is structured.

Originally Posted by Ramil

USSR had the land border with NATO and its tanks, according to the doctrine I've seen were to reach the Atlantic in 48 hours should the war start.

Exactly. So, by the time the newly appointed US government takes over the power and gather to work out any type of decision the war over Europe has already finished. Nothing the US could do for Europe. And the SU has no means and no intention to ground assault the US. Any nuclear strike to the SU would get a nuclear response. Why would the US do that? I think - they wouldn't. Then the local revolutions would start within a month and here you go - the entire Eurasia and Africa are communist.

As you said, Brezhnev government was lazy and unmotivated. Andropov actually started some new initiatives. What would you do if you were the US president?