- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Does World War III take place in the 50s or 60s if there are no nuclear weapons?
Posted on 2/19/18 at 6:16 pm
Posted on 2/19/18 at 6:16 pm
Did the presence of nuclear weapons and the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction keep the U.S. and Soviets from engaging in a major conflict? Or would cooler heads have prevailed regardless of the presence of nuclear weaponry or not?
This post was edited on 2/19/18 at 6:18 pm
13
Posted on 2/19/18 at 6:17 pm to RollTide1987
Probably
Posted on 2/19/18 at 6:41 pm to RollTide1987
Should've took out the Soviet's after Berlin fell
Posted on 2/19/18 at 6:43 pm to RollTide1987
Yup.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 6:47 pm to RollTide1987
Probably within a few years of VE Day
Posted on 2/19/18 at 7:06 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Did the presence of nuclear weapons and the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction keep the U.S. and Soviets from engaging in a major conflict?
Yes, absolutely.
And anyone who thinks we should have fought the Russians after the German collapse is out of their minds.
Posted on 2/19/18 at 7:19 pm to RollTide1987
Yep
Posted on 2/20/18 at 10:16 am to RollTide1987
The conflict would have been a limited European war. We're speculating on an arms buildup that does not include money spent on Atomic and Nuclear Weapons. The world was tired of war at this point, having been in two world wars in 30 years, and a war in Korea 5 years after the end of World War 2. The Russians would no doubt have tried to increase their buffer zone of Eastern Europe by securing Scandanavia and negotiating for as much of West Germany that they could before actually moving to take at least half of it. They were game in '48 for it, but stood down. It is very possible that another 2 front war would have opened up in the 50's/60's with Russia and other Communist countries with no nuclear threat from the US and the Western Democracies to check the Communist Block. With Communist China's influence in the Asian Theater and The Soviets in Eastern Europe, War was more than likely inevitable on a world wide scale in the mid 60's. One has to remember, though, that the Atomic bomb basically ended the War in Asia, so, no bomb, we have to invade Japan and suffer uncountable casualties to achieve Unconditional Surrender. The nation's stomach for war may not have matched the political need to fight one. The overwhelming numbers of the Chinese Communists and the Soviets may have made it occur in the mid 50's in Asia while all of Europe, Eastern and Western, was rebuilding and recovering from the second world war.
Intersting question.
Intersting question.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 10:23 am to stratman
Also, consider this because we had the atomic bomb, we got to be the power in Japan instead of the Soviets. The Russians towards the end of the war had invaded Manchuria and were fighting the Japanese. Stalin wanted a piece of Japan..... Truman and MacArtur as well as Halsey and Nimitz were not about to let the Russians come in at the end and win the race, not after what the US had been through.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 10:25 am to Tigris
quote:
Yes, absolutely.
And anyone who thinks we should have fought the Russians after the German collapse is out of their minds.
Same shite would've happened to us that happened to Germany.
Russia has endless troops to send to their death. They just keep coming.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 10:26 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Does World War III take place in the 50s or 60s if there are no nuclear weapons?
No.....the nuke build up and "Cold War" was a ruse. Very few on either side really wanted a war.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 11:08 am to RollTide1987
So, if there are no nuclear weapons, Japan would not have surrendered until after an invasion of the main islands of Japan, so lets extend the war for a year and put the end in August 1946. Now, we have to consider how big of a role the Soviets play in the final defeat of Japan. The end result could be anywhere from little to a divided Japan, just like Germany. In the late 1940's, China and North Korea still go communist.
If North Korea still invades the South, could the Korean War be the flash point for World War III? The Malaysia Emergency? Possibly Vietnam in the 1960's? I guess it depends on our commitment to prevent the spread of Communism in Asia.
So, without nukes, I think a war between NATO, SEATO, and the Warsaw Pact (and it's possible Pacific equivalent) is more than likely in the 1950's or 1960's. It would be a two theater war, as there are flash points in both Asia and Europe. Wherever the war begins, it will no doubt spill over to the other. China may side with the Soviets in a 1950's war, possibly attempt to remain neutral in a 1960's war.
All very interesting and would make a good alternate history story.
If North Korea still invades the South, could the Korean War be the flash point for World War III? The Malaysia Emergency? Possibly Vietnam in the 1960's? I guess it depends on our commitment to prevent the spread of Communism in Asia.
So, without nukes, I think a war between NATO, SEATO, and the Warsaw Pact (and it's possible Pacific equivalent) is more than likely in the 1950's or 1960's. It would be a two theater war, as there are flash points in both Asia and Europe. Wherever the war begins, it will no doubt spill over to the other. China may side with the Soviets in a 1950's war, possibly attempt to remain neutral in a 1960's war.
All very interesting and would make a good alternate history story.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 11:15 am to stratman
quote:
One has to remember, though, that the Atomic bomb basically ended the War in Asia, so, no bomb, we have to invade Japan and suffer uncountable casualties to achieve Unconditional Surrender.
This isn't really true according to Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 11:34 am to RollTide1987
No doubt.
Even with the threat of nukes, we had puppet wars with the USSR/China in multiple hotspots.
Even with the threat of nukes, we had puppet wars with the USSR/China in multiple hotspots.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 12:11 pm to Wtodd
quote:
No.....the nuke build up and "Cold War" was a ruse. Very few on either side really wanted a war.
you have no idea of what really starts war huhPosted on 2/20/18 at 12:20 pm to StealthCalais11
quote:
Should've took out the Soviet's after Berlin fell
If the US followed Patton's advice and went after the Soviets, the Army would have mutinied and the folks back home would have supported them. There was nearly a mutiny over the initial plan to ship troops en masse from Europe to the Pacific. As far as John Q. Public was concerned, the war in Europe was over.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 12:25 pm to RollTide1987
The 1940s - probably. Instead of the Berlin airlift, we would have had WWIII - conventionally and it would have been as brutal as you can imagine.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 12:28 pm to RollTide1987
I doubt it. Their nuclear capability is all the USSR had on us. Militarily and economically the USSR didn’t match up. The KGB were hard core and Spetnaz were elite, but overall they were not interested in a conventional war with us. Not to mention the war wouls have been fought over there, not here. And we would have had a lot more allies than them.
That’s just my opinion, man.
That’s just my opinion, man.
Posted on 2/20/18 at 12:29 pm to CarRamrod
quote:
you have no idea of what really starts war huh
Actually I do but there was never going to be a nuke war with the Russians
Posted on 2/20/18 at 1:30 pm to Wtodd
Yes, and not only that, there would be a North and South Japan and probably a United Korea under Kim Il Sung. It wouldn’t be good.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News