who would have won the hot war

[TheBigUnit]

assuming that the ussr and the usa were both at the height of their powers, who wouldve won a war head on? nukes are not a factor, and money isnt either just manpower, resources and industrial capacity

i think the ussr would win but would never invade usa but ussr could possibly get uk,
ussr has the advantage in manpower, rockets, submarines
usa has air and sea (they have destroyers) tech teams so more better high tech weaponry

[Cicero]

Quality over quantity. US would've won. US had far more resources and money, they could've equipped its troops with more weapons, armor/protection, and better quality weapons and protection. We also had more allies than Russia.

[Ballboy]

Nuclear war? Everyone loses!

[Stronk Serb]

The USSR. Reliable weapons, high numbers. More industrial capacity and resources. The Soviet troops would, if nothing else, crush the US by the weight of their bodies. Simple as that. But where would the war be waged? At the Pacific, or the Atlantic front?

Quality over quantity. US would've won. US had far more resources and money, they could've equipped its troops with more weapons, armor/protection, and better quality weapons and protection. We also had more allies than Russia.

Actually, the quality over quantity is wrong. In Stalingrad, every third man had a rifle, yet they won. There were far more Soviets then Germans, but Germans had state of the art weapons and weapon systems, but they lost due to Soviet numbers. You put too much faith in your quality weapons.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Celtic.]

ever seen Superman 4? thats who wins.

[britishboy]

I agree unless we had the support of Russia with out nukes we would have been taken we are only a tiny island and yeah we were more helping the USA in the cold war not really wanting it on us haha

[Stronger]

I think it would have been more like neutral, no winner or loser.

[Harry Smith]

Mutually assured Destruction, both sides would reduce each other to rubble through both Tactical and Strategic weapons. In a land war I would have to say the Soviet Union, they would of got west berlin in about 3 days, the just had so many more units and soldiers in east Germany compared to NATO

[britishboy]

NATO together would win seperated Russia would beat flatten us

[Stronk Serb]

NATO together would win seperated Russia would beat flatten us

This is the Soviet Union vs. major NATO powers. Europe would get trampled, US left alone. The only thing keeping the Soviets from attacking would be the US nuclear arsenal. Whole NATO vs. the USSR, the outcome would be the same, since many NATO countries are small and do not spend a lot on their armies.

[Sir Suomi]

20 dollars on Mexico to win it all! :P

No but to be serious, it would more than likely end in a draw, or a close Allied(U.S, U.K, and other NATO forces) victory. Personally, I love World War II to Post World War II Russian weaponry, but I'd still have to say the Allied forces would have the advantage.

[Erasmus]

No one would win. By the time a truce is made, both the States and Russia would have been devastated by nukes.

[Harry Smith]

A purely 'limited' war would be very interesting, seeing the m-47 Patton vs T-54 in direct combat with american and Russian crews. It really depends on who has control of the air over Europe, because if the Russians have air superiority then we wouldn't of had a chance defending Europe

[Taryn98]

I'll preface this by my definition of winning, which is the ability to occupy the opposing capital and overthrow their government, and/or to force an unequivacal surrender.

You say neglecting nukes and at the height of their power...well the Soviet Union was at their height in the mid-80's, we're still in the height of our power, even more so than we were then. So the US today vs USSR of the 80's (neglecting nukes) we win easy. Our navy can't be matched with 11 carrier groups coupled with our global network of air bases, drones, satellites and other technology. The best they could do is attack our allies or maybe use long range bombers on the US mainland. We could invade from Europe and the middle east or simply launch rockets and air attacks from almost anywhere.

Even if you want to say the US of the 80's vs the USSR, we still have a stronger network of military bases and a more significant economy (which is partly why they fell apart). And I'm assuming that Europe isn't involved other than our ability to use our bases there. If European manpower is involved, we have an even larger advantage.

There's a reason Nato still exists and the Warsaw Pact dissovled decades ago.

Bottom line, the USSR has no realistic means to invade the mainland US, which without the use of nukes means they have little chance of forcing a full surrender.

If nukes are used, nobody wins, it's that simple.

[TheBigUnit]

NATO together would win seperated Russia would beat flatten us

This is the Soviet Union vs. major NATO powers. Europe would get trampled, US left alone. The only thing keeping the Soviets from attacking would be the US nuclear arsenal. Whole NATO vs. the USSR, the outcome would be the same, since many NATO countries are small and do not spend a lot on their armies.

comrade mike is right, NATO was pretty insignificant for a while

I'll preface this by my definition of winning, which is the ability to occupy the opposing capital and overthrow their government, and/or to force an unequivacal surrender.

You say neglecting nukes and at the height of their power...well the Soviet Union was at their height in the mid-80's, we're still in the height of our power, even more so than we were then. So the US today vs USSR of the 80's (neglecting nukes) we win easy. Our navy can't be matched with 11 carrier groups coupled with our global network of air bases, drones, satellites and other technology. The best they could do is attack our allies or maybe use long range bombers on the US mainland. We could invade from Europe and the middle east or simply launch rockets and air attacks from almost anywhere.

Even if you want to say the US of the 80's vs the USSR, we still have a stronger network of military bases and a more significant economy (which is partly why they fell apart). And I'm assuming that Europe isn't involved other than our ability to use our bases there. If European manpower is involved, we have an even larger advantage.

There's a reason Nato still exists and the Warsaw Pact dissovled decades ago.

Bottom line, the USSR has no realistic means to invade the mainland US, which without the use of nukes means they have little chance of forcing a full surrender.

If nukes are used, nobody wins, it's that simple.

i meant their height in the cold war, i would say ussrs height was in the mid 70s, usa's was late 80s /early 90s, you are right though about your points,

[Southside]

I'll preface this by my definition of winning, which is the ability to occupy the opposing capital and overthrow their government, and/or to force an unequivacal surrender.

You say neglecting nukes and at the height of their power...well the Soviet Union was at their height in the mid-80's, we're still in the height of our power, even more so than we were then. So the US today vs USSR of the 80's (neglecting nukes) we win easy. Our navy can't be matched with 11 carrier groups coupled with our global network of air bases, drones, satellites and other technology. The best they could do is attack our allies or maybe use long range bombers on the US mainland. We could invade from Europe and the middle east or simply launch rockets and air attacks from almost anywhere.

Even if you want to say the US of the 80's vs the USSR, we still have a stronger network of military bases and a more significant economy (which is partly why they fell apart). And I'm assuming that Europe isn't involved other than our ability to use our bases there. If European manpower is involved, we have an even larger advantage.

There's a reason Nato still exists and the Warsaw Pact dissovled decades ago.

Bottom line, the USSR has no realistic means to invade the mainland US, which without the use of nukes means they have little chance of forcing a full surrender.

If nukes are used, nobody wins, it's that simple.


I apologize for getting off topic but I have to ask this.. According to your definition of "winning", we won Iraq and are winning in Afghanistan? USSR would deal a nasty blow to Western Europe, maybe even take over France & UK.

[Taryn98]

I apologize for getting off topic but I have to ask this.. According to your definition of "winning", we won Iraq and are winning in Afghanistan? USSR would deal a nasty blow to Western Europe, maybe even take over France & UK.

Yes we won in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't know how by any stretch of the imagination you can say we lost either. We overthrew both governments that we didn't support and both are better off today than they were.

If you think we lost either war, then there is no such thing as winning a war.

Just because we didn't find WMD doesn't mean anything. We made sure they didn't have any in the process and ensured they can't develop any for the foreseeable future. And now they have a freely elected governemnt.

We kicked a terrorist organization out from ruling a country. How is that losing?

Were many people killed in the process, yes, were some cities destroyed, yes. That's war. We did what we could to ensure both countries pose a significantly lower threat to us in the coming years.

But it doesn't surprise me that you disagree. I've never read a post of yours that I agree with either, so there's no point in us discussing anything. Neither of us will change our minds.

I apologize being off topic as well.
Nevertheless, a war betweeen the US and USSR would be devestating for the world as a whole. Fortunately both countries were wise enough to realize this and avoid a serious confrontation.

[Southside]

Yes we won in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't know how by any stretch of the imagination you can say we lost either. We overthrew both governments that we didn't support and both are better off today than they were.

If you think we lost either war, then there is no such thing as winning a war.

Just because we didn't find WMD doesn't mean anything. We made sure they didn't have any in the process and ensured they can't develop any for the foreseeable future. And now they have a freely elected governemnt.

We kicked a terrorist organization out from ruling a country. How is that losing?

Were many people killed in the process, yes, were some cities destroyed, yes. That's war. We did what we could to ensure both countries pose a significantly lower threat to us in the coming years.

But it doesn't surprise me that you disagree. I've never read a post of yours that I agree with either, so there's no point in us discussing anything. Neither of us will change our minds.

I apologize being off topic as well.
Nevertheless, a war betweeen the US and USSR would be devestating for the world as a whole. Fortunately both countries were wise enough to realize this and avoid a serious confrontation.

Again..I apologize for getting off topic..We both have different ways of thinking, I think Iraq was better off with Saddam, when Saddam was in, 100+ people werent dying because of carbombs and militant shoot outs. Iraq was never a threat to us..

[Harry Smith]

Again..I apologize for getting off topic..We both have different ways of thinking, I think Iraq was better off with Saddam, when Saddam was in, 100+ people werent dying because of carbombs and militant shoot outs. Iraq was never a threat to us..

The kurds would not agree with you, he used Chemical weapons on his own people.

[TheBigUnit]

but many of his own people do wish he was back, their gov now is so corrupt and broken

[Southside]

The kurds would not agree with you, he used Chemical weapons on his own people.

Iraq was safer 15 years ago..

[Stronk Serb]

but many of his own people do wish he was back, their gov now is so corrupt and broken


On top of that, there are so many militant shootouts and car bombs which the current Iraqi government cannot stop. Saddam kept some semblance of order , shit like that never happened under his reign. I am not sure about the chemical weapons and the Kurds, since I am unsure, I will take no effort in defending him from those accusations.

[Harry Smith]

Iraq was safer 15 years ago..

On top of that, there are so many militant shootouts and car bombs which the current Iraqi government cannot stop. Saddam kept some semblance of order , shit like that never happened under his reign. I am not sure about the chemical weapons and the Kurds, since I am unsure, I will take no effort in defending him from those accusations.

Nazi Germany was pretty safe in 1934... does that justify a brutal regime?

[Stronk Serb]

Nazi Germany was pretty safe in 1934... does that justify a brutal regime?



And does the German majority want Hitler back?

[Harry Smith]

And does the German majority want Hitler back?

Do you have any evidence that the majority want Saddam back or are you the typical anti western crusader who bases there arguments without using a single piece of evidence. I know in your country you don't really value democracy but here in the west we don't really like it when we see someone using poison gas on there own people and committing war crimes.Look at the two pilots was shot down in the gulf in '90 when flying a tornado, they got captured and were marched on TV bloodied and beaten. He committed war crimes, he gassed his own people, tortured many and killed even more yet you praise him because the west hate him.

[Stronk Serb]

Do you have any evidence that the majority want Saddam back or are you the typical anti western crusader who bases there arguments without using a single piece of evidence. I know in your country you don't really value democracy but here in the west we don't really like it when we see someone using poison gas on there own people and committing war crimes.Look at the two pilots was shot down in the gulf in '90 when flying a tornado, they got captured and were marched on TV bloodied and beaten. He committed war crimes, he gassed his own people, tortured many and killed even more yet you praise him because the west hate him.


And the British gassed the Iraqi rebels in 1920.
I found it hard to believe that chemical and biological weapkns are contained in simple oil drums on places where, due to ombat they would get ruptured. Yes, I hate the western imperialism policy.
I think this is pretty rational. (http://www.internationalist.org/chemwarhoax0503a.html)

[Harry Smith]

Have you ever done a history paper before? Anyone can write some sort of back story and post it online, it's common knowledge that saddam used poison gas on both the Iranians and the Kurds. Also you call us imperialistic yet you support Saddam's brutal regime?

[Stronk Serb]

Have you ever done a history paper before? Anyone can write some sort of back story and post it online, it's common knowledge that saddam used poison gas on both the Iranians and the Kurds. Also you call us imperialistic yet you support Saddam's brutal regime?

I still bieve that the Iraqis were not so stupid to keep chemical weapons in rusty oil tanks. He might have used the chemical weapons against the Iranians, but the last invasion of Iraq was not about chemical weapons. The only weapons of that type found were rusted, unusable artillery shells buried in the desert. This debate is leading nowhere, since everybody believes their side of the story only.

[TheBigUnit]

I still bieve that the Iraqis were not so stupid to keep chemical weapons in rusty oil tanks. He might have used the chemical weapons against the Iranians, but the last invasion of Iraq was not about chemical weapons. The only weapons of that type found were rusted, unusable artillery shells buried in the desert. This debate is leading nowhere, since everybody believes their side of the story only.

...he decimated the kurds, though people does want him back, saddam was responsible for many atrocities, defending him is like defending Mussolini , who almost ridded italy of the mafias and crime rates

[Stronk Serb]

...he decimated the kurds, though people does want him back, saddam was responsible for many atrocities, defending him is like defending Mussolini , who almost ridded italy of the mafias and crime rates

I understood the Kurd part, but the last invasion was not about chemical weapons, since there were no operational ones.

[tovaris]

Defenatly the CCCP (ussr) they had the most resources amd myn power, better rockets and theyr military tehnologi was mor advanced a total inwasion of US satilite countreis would have enfolded while mainland US with the exeption of Alaska would have been turned into a nuclera dessert

[tovaris]

Defenatly the CCCP (ussr) they had the most resources amd myn power, better rockets and theyr military tehnologi was mor advanced a total inwasion of US satilite countreis would have enfolded while mainland US with the exeption of Alaska would have been turned into a nuclera desert

[Southside]

Have you ever done a history paper before? Anyone can write some sort of back story and post it online, it's common knowledge that saddam used poison gas on both the Iranians and the Kurds. Also you call us imperialistic yet you support Saddam's brutal regime?

Saddam wasnt impearialistic, ok he took over Kuwait which is small as hell, Brits/US are trying/tried to colonize half the world at one point or another

[Harry Smith]

Defenatly the CCCP (ussr) they had the most resources amd myn power, better rockets and theyr military tehnologi was mor advanced a total inwasion of US satilite countreis would have enfolded while mainland US with the exeption of Alaska would have been turned into a nuclera desert

actually if you look at the stats the US actually dominated the missile race up until about the 80's, then the USSR spend shit loads on stupid weapons ( tsar bomb) and ended up pretty much running out of the money. The US doesn't have any satellite countries... however the US nuclear arsenal would have turned Russia into a complete desert- MAD


Saddam wasnt impearialistic, ok he took over Kuwait which is small as hell, Brits/US are trying/tried to colonize half the world at one point or another

aha so the size of a country doesn't matter then... that has to be the most stupid point I've ever heard. Do you remember when he invaded Iran in '80, then after he lost that he illegally invaded Kuwait which in turn meant he was committing multiple war crimes

[Stronk Serb]

actually if you look at the stats the US actually dominated the missile race up until about the 80's, then the USSR spend shit loads on stupid weapons ( tsar bomb) and ended up pretty much running out of the money. The US doesn't have any satellite countries... however the US nuclear arsenal would have turned Russia into a complete desert- MAD




aha so the size of a country doesn't matter then... that has to be the most stupid point I've ever heard. Do you remember when he invaded Iran in '80, then after he lost that he illegally invaded Kuwait which in turn meant he was committing multiple war crimes


Actually the US would gert pwned anyway, nukes or not. What Saddam did was bad. But the NATO invaders did bad things also. Just, by international laws, those are not war crimes.

[tovaris]

actually if you look at the stats the US actually dominated the missile race up until about the 80's, then the USSR spend shit loads on stupid weapons ( tsar bomb) and ended up pretty much running out of the money. The US doesn't have any satellite countries... however the US nuclear arsenal would have turned Russia into a complete desert-


The Soviet arsenal was so many times mor vast better developed and better than that of the us and even if a complet niclear obliviation of both countries was to happen the USSR would have stil won havind destroied their enemy.
The US doesn't have any satilite countries, oh realy how about Izrael, Porto Rico, UK, S Korea, ...

[Southside]

actually if you look at the stats the US actually dominated the missile race up until about the 80's, then the USSR spend shit loads on stupid weapons ( tsar bomb) and ended up pretty much running out of the money. The US doesn't have any satellite countries... however the US nuclear arsenal would have turned Russia into a complete desert- MAD




aha so the size of a country doesn't matter then... that has to be the most stupid point I've ever heard. Do you remember when he invaded Iran in '80, then after he lost that he illegally invaded Kuwait which in turn meant he was committing multiple war crimes


Typical Western view of society, the "It's only bad when the people we dont like do it" view....Hypocrites! NATO has committed MULTIPLE war crimes from 1990's Balklans campaign to the 2011 Libya Campaign. Assad or Ghaddafi kills 3 civilians in a military operation, its internationally condemned. NATO/US/UK does it, its "collateral damage" or a "accident". Iraq was safer 15 years ago, 15 years ago, carbombs werent killing hundreds of people on a daily basis, nor did militant shoot-outs happen. Like I've said before, I rather have a stable country with a dictator than a ticking time bomb. Iraq could explode into civil war anytime now.Saddam was a tyrant, but he kept his country under control. Saddam was a CIA asset in Iraq during the 60's..It's funny how these guys are best buddies with the CIA & Western Countries one day, then the next day we are calling them tyrants. Just like happened in my home country of Panama, Manuel Noreiga was on the CIA payroll during the 50's & 60's, fast forward to the 80's, US invades Panama for one person(Noreiga) killing hundreds of civilians.
A food warehouse is a military target?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2011/07/201172642328531686.html
A neighborhood with a hotel,oxygen factory, is a military target?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2011/07/201172642328531686.html

[TheBigUnit]

Defenatly the CCCP (ussr) they had the most resources amd myn power, better rockets and theyr military tehnologi was mor advanced a total inwasion of US satilite countreis would have enfolded while mainland US with the exeption of Alaska would have been turned into a nuclera desert

Not necessarily more advanced, just they spent more buying rockets while US spent more buying aircraft

Actually the US would gert pwned anyway, nukes or not. What Saddam did was bad. But the NATO invaders did bad things also. Just, by international laws, those are not war crimes.

O let's just forget everything what happened in the Warsaw pact

The Soviet arsenal was so many times mor vast better developed and better than that of the us and even if a complet niclear obliviation of both countries was to happen the USSR would have stil won havind destroied their enemy.
The US doesn't have any satilite countries, oh realy how about Izrael, Porto Rico, UK, S Korea, ...

So a complete nuclear oblivion??? Nothing left on earth and russia would still win? That makes no sense,........

those countries are allies, and puerto rico is part of the usa

Typical Western view of society, the "It's only bad when the people we dont like do it" view....Hypocrites! NATO has committed MULTIPLE war crimes from 1990's Balklans campaign to the 2011 Libya Campaign. Assad or Ghaddafi kills 3 civilians in a military operation, its internationally condemned. NATO/US/UK does it, its "collateral damage" or a "accident". Iraq was safer 15 years ago, 15 years ago, carbombs werent killing hundreds of people on a daily basis, nor did militant shoot-outs happen. Like I've said before, I rather have a stable country with a dictator than a ticking time bomb. Iraq could explode into civil war anytime now.Saddam was a tyrant, but he kept his country under control. Saddam was a CIA asset in Iraq during the 60's..It's funny how these guys are best buddies with the CIA & Western Countries one day, then the next day we are calling them tyrants. Just like happened in my home country of Panama, Manuel Noreiga was on the CIA payroll during the 50's & 60's, fast forward to the 80's, US invades Panama for one person(Noreiga) killing hundreds of civilians.
A food warehouse is a military target?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2011/07/201172642328531686.html
A neighborhood with a hotel,oxygen factory, is a military target?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2011/07/201172642328531686.html

Are you actually defending Noreiga? He's no better than any other dictator

[tovaris]

Not necessarily more advanced, just they spent more buying rockets while US spent more buying aircraft




So a complete nuclear oblivion??? Nothing left on earth and russia would still win? That makes no sense,........

those countries are allies, and puerto rico is part of the usa



You seem to not understand the Russian mentality they don't care what happens to them or the world as long as they destroy their enemies they win.

Those countries are satellites and Puerto Rico is not a state nor is it a part of the USA.

[Southside]

Not necessarily more advanced, just they spent more buying rockets while US spent more buying aircraft



O let's just forget everything what happened in the Warsaw pact



So a complete nuclear oblivion??? Nothing left on earth and russia would still win? That makes no sense,........

those countries are allies, and puerto rico is part of the usa



Are you actually defending Noreiga? He's no better than any other dictator

He wasnt that bad according to what my relatives had told me, OK he was into the cocaine business but that's big business down in that region.

[Ballboy]

My folks told me that some of the wars back last century, in Israel especially, put up US technology vs USSR equipment in Egypt and Syria and there was more armour there than at Stalingrad. Idk how but Israel came out ahead.

[TheBigUnit]

You seem to not understand the Russian mentality they don't care what happens to them or the world as long as they destroy their enemies they win.

Those countries are satellites and Puerto Rico is not a state nor is it a part of the USA.

"The russians love their children too"

Puerto rico is part of the usa go read some history books,

[chezhans]

Here's the legitimate truth...we start a war (or even they)...we all lose! End! War doesn't solve anything! The US and if still existed, USSR were both two (previously, not so much now) nosey but overtly powerful war groups. A nuclear war would send the world into strife...anybody ready to die for such senseless things as these?

[Stronk Serb]

Well, the Soviet Union would crush Europe. When it comes to taking the battle overseas, it would be a stalemate, only minor air and fleet skirmishes. The US would be too weak to attack, and the Soviets would not like to risk their asses because of the US nuclear weapons. Both sides will try to sabotage eachother by the means of insurgency , which might see more sucess in Europe. A espionage war would also errupt, where one side would know more then the other. If the US missile silos are disabled, a full-scale Soviet invasion would be on the way. And then we will unite and colonize the universe under the banner of the sickle and hammer! Слава Советскоме Союзу! (Glory to the Soviet Union!)- People will shout this when we (as humankind) colonize the Moon and later, the Solar System.

[Stronk Serb]

My folks told me that some of the wars back last century, in Israel especially, put up US technology vs USSR equipment in Egypt and Syria and there was more armour there than at Stalingrad. Idk how but Israel came out ahead.


At Stalingrad there was not much armor. At Kursk there were thousands of tanks. And even today, the battle of Kursk is the largest tank battle in history. And Israeli mainly used their tanks. US tanks were meant as secondary ones, and were not used much.

[Hyper]

Lol arguments

MAD

[Stronk Serb]

Lol arguments

MAD


Wot? >.>

[Left Now]

I think America might win at last,but with a lots of casualties and non repairable sufferings.
At last America could get destroyed itself.
Hey have you ever played "World In Conflict"?

[Stronk Serb]

I think America might win at last,but with a lots of casualties and non repairable sufferings.
At last America could get destroyed itself.
Hey have you ever played "World In Conflict"?



No, I played Red Alert 3. The gameplay is good, but most cutscenes look like setups for porno, which made me give it a 6/10 rating. The Soviets and the NATO pact (in game referered as the Allies) fight and due to the Soviets messing with time, the Japanese emerge as a superpower so all of them fight eachother. With a Soviet vicory, the whole world embraces communism, and the Statue of Liberty gets destroyed and a much larger statue of Lenin (not 100% sure) gets built instead of it.

[cameronbrine]

USSR would definitely win...

[Left Now]

No, I played Red Alert 3. The gameplay is good, but most cutscenes look like setups for porno, which made me give it a 6/10 rating. The Soviets and the NATO pact (in game referered as the Allies) fight and due to the Soviets messing with time, the Japanese emerge as a superpower so all of them fight eachother. With a Soviet vicory, the whole world embraces communism, and the Statue of Liberty gets destroyed and a much larger statue of Lenin (not 100% sure) gets built instead of it.

Well,World in Conflict was a great strategic game in that,after two years of war between NATO and USSR in Europe,finally Soviets attacked US in America and captured Seattle and advanced,but at a town which had a strategic position,when the Americans were gonna defeated,they used nuclear missile on their own lands and destroyed that USSR forces and then made them retreat to Seattle and then get out of United States...
During the game you will be An American general and a Union general,(They will change their places during the game).That was a pretty awesome game!

[Stronk Serb]

Well,World in Conflict was a great strategic game in that,after two years of war between NATO and USSR in Europe,finally Soviets attacked US in America and captured Seattle and advanced,but at a town which had a strategic position,when the Americans were gonna defeated,they used nuclear missile on their own lands and destroyed that USSR forces and then made them retreat to Seattle and then get out of United States...
During the game you will be An American general and a Union general,(They will change their places during the game).That was a pretty awesome game!



Gonna buy it.

[TheBigUnit]

Well, the Soviet Union would crush Europe. When it comes to taking the battle overseas, it would be a stalemate, only minor air and fleet skirmishes. The US would be too weak to attack, and the Soviets would not like to risk their asses because of the US nuclear weapons. Both sides will try to sabotage eachother by the means of insurgency , which might see more sucess in Europe. A espionage war would also errupt, where one side would know more then the other. If the US missile silos are disabled, a full-scale Soviet invasion would be on the way. And then we will unite and colonize the universe under the banner of the sickle and hammer! Слава Советскоме Союзу! (Glory to the Soviet Union!)- People will shout this when we (as humankind) colonize the Moon and later, the Solar System.

The US navy would destroy any invasion especially since ussr barely had a navy, the ussr would easily take europe though but I doubt they would maintain control for too long as the dissent would be too high,

Try hearts of iron 2

[Stronk Serb]

The US navy would destroy any invasion especially since ussr barely had a navy, the ussr would easily take europe though but I doubt they would maintain control for too long as the dissent would be too high,

Try hearts of iron 2



I think the Soviets had a sizable navy.
Don't forget, it is a common thing in a war to capture ships, tanks and artillery. The Soviets might capture British, Italian, French, and Western German ships. Due to the fact that they own whole Europe and one third of Asia, they will probably start making a fleet due to all shipyards in Europe and wast resources

[Hyper]

Wot? >.>

Mutually Assured Destruction

[Stronk Serb]

Mutually Assured Destruction


Nah, it would result in a stalemate where a peace treaty would be signed, and the Soviets would get all of the Warsaw pact countries annexed to them in the worst case.

[TheBigUnit]

I think the Soviets had a sizable navy.
Don't forget, it is a common thing in a war to capture ships, tanks and artillery. The Soviets might capture British, Italian, French, and Western German ships. Due to the fact that they own whole Europe and one third of Asia, they will probably start making a fleet due to all shipyards in Europe and wast resources

they could do that but imagine the time itll take, i dont think it would be in the sovviets best interests to capture usa until all of europe is stable

[Stronk Serb]

they could do that but imagine the time itll take, i dont think it would be in the sovviets best interests to capture usa until all of europe is stable

They could capture Europe. The largest problem would be with the UK. Capturing a fleet is easy. Also, with all the shipyards and factories in Italy, Germany (both west and east one), France, UK combined with the Soviet factories and shipyards woukd result in an industrial boom. They could build a fleet pretty fast, plus with the resources those and other European countries have, the US would get owned pretty easily. A scenario like in "World in Conflict" might happen when the Soviets invade America.

[TheBigUnit]

They could capture Europe. The largest problem would be with the UK. Capturing a fleet is easy. Also, with all the shipyards and factories in Italy, Germany (both west and east one), France, UK combined with the Soviet factories and shipyards woukd result in an industrial boom. They could build a fleet pretty fast, plus with the resources those and other European countries have, the US would get owned pretty easily. A scenario like in "World in Conflict" might happen when the Soviets invade America.

You re over simplifing it, russians won't easily conqure usa, the dissent they would have to maintain would be horrific, heck its one of the main reasons why the ussr fell in the first place

[Stronk Serb]

You re over simplifing it, russians won't easily conqure usa, the dissent they would have to maintain would be horrific, heck its one of the main reasons why the ussr fell in the first place


The reasons were the USSR fell apart:
Financial problems
Weak and incompetent leaders
The USSR acting as a bank for the Warsaw Pact
Too much money spent aiding the NATO oposition in wars waged from 1950-1990

[ryjoe]

If it happened before the Sino-Soviet split, the USSR totally would've won. Afterwards, I'd say it'd be pretty much even. But OP ruined all the fun by taking out the nukes...

[Stronk Serb]

If it happened before the Sino-Soviet split, the USSR totally would've won. Afterwards, I'd say it'd be pretty much even. But OP ruined all the fun by taking out the nukes...


If nukes were used, there would be nothing left to conquer.