Brown as PM:what will it be like?

[Combustible]

A buffer zone between them and the West, dominance and influence over their neighbours both economically and politically, a weak divided Germany to name a few things. Considering the Soviet Union had spent years in isolation since the civil war so the aftermath of the war was hardly suprising. But what has that got to do with them launching a full scale invasion of Western Europe after having just taken the brunt of WW2.

 

[weltweit]

It'll be dour, humourless and miserable, we'll all be looking back to the good old days when PM's at least had charactor, like John Major.

I tend to agree with you.

 

[weltweit]

quote refers to £20bn fro trident over live of programme

Sounds like a lot of money, but really it's fuck all. Would only keep the NHS going (the usual measure of these things) for about two and a half months and it's spread over the life of the system (which is likely to be about twenty or thirty years).

Nukes are pretty useless weapons, I mean look at the length of time we have had them and we never used them once!

Reminds me of a retired ex military chap in Somerset, owner of an elephant gun, who put in to renew his firearms certificate (saw the article in a newspaper a couple of years ago) the policeman checking the certificate commented “well as he seems to be doing a good job of controlling the elephants” licence granted

My view about UK nuclear weapons, let them rust.

What is the greatest threat at the moment, another country with nuclear weapons or climate change?

 

[Fullyplumped]

it could actually have some use in warfighting, it's staggeringly acurate and arrives with enormous velocity - and can detonate with as 'little' force as 200 tons of TNT - so it has a potential use in destroying hardened/underground targets without the potential military casualties of Air Strikes or the vast civilian casualties that are likely to occur with the use of much more powerful weapons - or even with an invasion-type scenario.

If you're talking about Trident, then what you've described is not Trident, it's a tactical weapon. The whole point of Trident is to be a strategic means of obliterating a whole nation.

 

[kebabking]

then you don't understand the Trident warheads capabilities.

each warhead has a 'dial-a-yeild', this means that while each warhead can explode with a force of about 500kt, they can also explode with a force of 0.2kt, 5kt, 15 - 20kt and about 100kt.

its called 'intelligent targetting' - mainly because TridentD5 isn't a weapon designed to destroy cities (which it can also do) but as a 'counter-force' weapon. it was designed to attack soviet ground launched ICBM's.

the spacing of hardened ground silos means that one weapon (almost regardless of size) is unlikely to destroy more than one silo, so you need one warhead per silo. if you used a large warhead - say 15kt - it would throw so much debris into the air that it would destroy other incoming warheads so leaving some ICBM silos untouched and therefore able to launch once the debris cloud had subsided.

therefore you use a much smaller warhead on each target timed to arrive en masse. the function of the larger yeilds is to destroy more vunerable systems/assets over a large area (airfields, logistics sites, Naval fleets at sea, ports, docks and communications sites) or against very hard targets like deep underground bunkers.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It'll be more of the same awful shit. Nobody who would give us anything other than more of the same shit we've had since Thatcher (or arguably Callaghan) would be able to get elected, so unless we change the system, we'll get shit.

While getting elected relies on big donations from dodgy millionaires, you'll always get a government that cares more about dodgy millionaries than us.

 

[shagnasty]

on the subject of a nuclear deterant there is talk of a cheaper option.but i know one thing with trident there will not be much left of the british isles and possibly northern europe before it is used.as they name m.a.d mutually assured destruction implies. very prophetic acronoun i would say
pardon spelling

 

[Bigdavalad]

Considering the Soviet Union had spent years in isolation since the civil war so the aftermath of the war was hardly suprising.

The invasions of Finland and the Baltic states happened before the war.

But what has that got to do with them launching a full scale invasion of Western Europe after having just taken the brunt of WW2.

Everything - they were expansionist, they invaded many countries in order to force communism on them. They didn't have several Armoured Shock Armies parked in East Germany to pick daisies, did they?

 

[Idris2002]

The invasions of Finland and the Baltic states happened before the war.



Everything - they were expansionist, they invaded many countries in order to force communism on them. They didn't have several Armoured Shock Armies parked in East Germany to pick daisies, did they?

Well the invasion of Eastern Poland, the Baltics and Finland happened after the outbreak of war in september 1939.

And if they were expansionist from beginning to end -

Why withdraw from Eastern Austria in 1955?

 

[Bigdavalad]

Well the invasion of Eastern Poland, the Baltics and Finland happened after the outbreak of war in september 1939.

Badly worded by me - before the outbreak of German/Soviet hostilities

And if they were expansionist from beginning to end -

Why withdraw from Eastern Austria in 1955?

I don't know without looking it up, but probably to avoid hassle with NATO over something else.

 

[Combustible]

The invasions of Finland and the Baltic states happened before the war.

This is the same Finland which the Soviets granted independence in 1917. That hardly shows it was anymore than the old imperialist Russia restamping it's dominance over it's neighbours. Hardly the same thing as scheming for world domination.

Everything - they were expansionist, they invaded many countries in order to force communism on them. They didn't have several Armoured Shock Armies parked in East Germany to pick daisies, did they?

There was a build up of troops and arms by both sides in the cold war. Considering that it was clear in 1956 they had overstepped their bounds in Hungary, the idea they realistically were going to invade Western Europe is a fantasy.

 

[Bigdavalad]

That hardly shows it was anymore than the old imperialist Russia restamping it's dominance over it's neighbours. Hardly the same thing as scheming for world domination.

Stalin, of course, being famed for being a right old Russian imperialist

There was a build up of troops and arms by both sides in the cold war. Considering that it was clear in 1956 they had overstepped their bounds in Hungary, the idea they realistically were going to invade Western Europe is a fantasy.

Yes there was, because the USSR had several thousand tanks in East Germany and some European countries were, to put it bluntly, shitting themselves.

Why keep all those troops if they weren't planning on using them? NATO had theirs ready to counter a Soviet invasion (virtually all NATO plans/exercises revolved around countering a WARPAC invasion rather than an invasion of East Germany), so why did the USSR/WARPAC have theirs?

 

[likesfish]

the east geramns had there tanks ready fueled and ready to roll at an hours notice rather annyoed to discover that Nato was mostly pissed at weekend and weds afternoon.
they could have been in paris by monday morning or Moscow (after all they were panzer commanders you can never tell with germans and tanks

 

[Combustible]

Stalin, of course, being famed for being a right old Russian imperialist

In many ways he was. Particularly during the late 30's/40's Stalin's behaviour resembled that of the Czars. In fact during the war you saw a lot of Soviet imagery replaced with older, traditional nationalist/imperialist symbols.

The Soviet Union had faced a hostile west which sent troops against it in the civil war and connived against it ever since including the appeasement of Hitler. Now after a war in which the Soviet Union suffered over 90% of the allied casualities, you don't think Stalin might have been slightly worried about the West invading.

This isn't discussing the merits of Soviet behaviour but the fact that it is completely irrational to believe that without nuclear weapons, Russian tanks would have rolled across Europe.

 

[Bigdavalad]

The Soviet Union had faced a hostile west which sent troops against it in the civil war and connived against it ever since including the appeasement of Hitler. Now after a war in which the Soviet Union suffered over 90% of the allied casualities, you don't think Stalin might have been slightly worried about the West invading.

Were they connoving while they were feeding the Soviet population or supplying tanks, aircraft, boots, greatcoats, jeeps, trucks and so on to the Soviets?

I'd be surprised if Stalin was that bothered about appeasement - he did, after all, allow the Germans to secretly train their new armed forces in the USSR and actually took part in the invasion of Poland with them...

This isn't discussing the merits of Soviet behaviour but the fact that it is completely irrational to believe that without nuclear weapons, Russian tanks would have rolled across Europe.

No it's not. The USSR maintained massive armies in Eastern Europe and regularly exercised them in offensive tactics. NATO exercised in defensive tactics. Why continually practice invading your neighbours and maintain a massive army for no reason?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The problem with the argument that nuclear bombs are a deterrent is that those who believe it is can win the argument every day until a nuclear war happens. Unfortunately those who argued that it wasn't a deterrent won't be alive to gloat about being right.

 

[Idris2002]

Were they connoving while they were feeding the Soviet population or supplying tanks, aircraft, boots, greatcoats, jeeps, trucks and so on to the Soviets?

He's thinking of the pre-war days, not post-1941.

I'd be surprised if Stalin was that bothered about appeasement - he did, after all, allow the Germans to secretly train their new armed forces in the USSR and actually took part in the invasion of Poland with them...

I know the early *weimar* army had some training in Russia, when they were both pariah regimes. The training of the wehrmacht in Russia is a new one on me, though. Got any more details?

No it's not. The USSR maintained massive armies in Eastern Europe and regularly exercised them in offensive tactics. NATO exercised in defensive tactics. Why continually practice invading your neighbours and maintain a massive army for no reason?

Again this is news to me and I'd - genuinely - like more detail. What distinguishes offensive training from defensive training? I do know that the 1983 Nato exercises were seen by one faction in the Kremlin as a cover for a sneak attack on the east. That was untrue, thankfully, but the fact that some on the other side could believe that seems to indicate that it's not always possible to distinguish between the offensive and defensive.

 

[treelover]

shit, i was on them, massive they were and bloody cold and dangerous, didn't know WW3 was about to start though!



goes off to play Operation Flashpoint:Cold War Crisis

I do know that the 1983 Nato exercises were seen by one faction in the Kremlin as a cover for a sneak attack on the east

 

[Bigdavalad]

I know the early *weimar* army had some training in Russia, when they were both pariah regimes. The training of the wehrmacht in Russia is a new one on me, though. Got any more details?

I can't remember where I read it now to be honest - I'll try and find it again.

Again this is news to me and I'd - genuinely - like more detail. What distinguishes offensive training from defensive training? I do know that the 1983 Nato exercises were seen by one faction in the Kremlin as a cover for a sneak attack on the east. That was untrue, thankfully, but the fact that some on the other side could believe that seems to indicate that it's not always possible to distinguish between the offensive and defensive.

Most NATO training apparently (according to people I know who were in Germany in the 1980s) consisted of practising defeating massive Soviet invasions of the FDR and then counter attacking because the NATO plan was to fall back as slowly as possible until the US (and to a lesser extent UK) could move their soldiers from home across to mainland Europe. Soviet exercises seem to have consisted of practising massive armoured attacks supported by massive artillery bombardments (they even used to use real poison gas during exercises in Poland!).

I did see this quote about a conversation with a German officer on ARRSE though, which made me smile:

I asked the Kompanie Chef where his bn fitted in to the overal NATO plan of initially trading space for time should the men with snow on their boots decide to trot through the Fulda Gap. He looked blankly at me and then said 'Fall back? We are going out of the gates and heading east until none of us are left'.