Hypothetical Cold War Scenario: Russia vs France - Page 2

Lancer · April 13, 2003, 05:29

The info given for the scn isn't complete. Before judging what France would do, I need to know...to the Rooskies have any cheese?

Az · April 13, 2003, 05:33

The "Arrow" is not design to counter ICBMs, as far as I know. ICBMs reach a NEO, squds and such do not.

Thorgal · April 13, 2003, 07:36

Quote:

Although the latter is not as modern as the (supposedly) great Hetz it was succesful in the 3 experiments my father, an AA missile battery commander in the Kiev voyeniy okrug (military region), has witnessed.

France has MIRV technology. Any anti-missile system would be inutil against that.

Az · April 13, 2003, 07:40

the SU can employ agressive submarine hunter techniques, and track all of the french SSBNs, and then crash them with a co-ordinated strike.

This should be done very intelligently, though. But it can be done.

Menlas · April 13, 2003, 07:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
I agree with your analysis, but I still doubt if France would have carried out the threat of a massive nuclear volley.

From the Soviet PoV they are risking say 75% destruction to conquer France

But France is risking 100% destruction with no other visible gain other than the post-mortem satisfaction of killing off 75% of the USSR.

Would it have been worth it?

Good question. By the way, France had 359 nuclear warheads in 1985, and USSR 44000

.

I think another option would have been to nuke the soviet troops, and not their cities. Then, russians would probably have nuked only militaries objectives (such as air bases etc...).
With 350 warheads, France would have severely damaged the incoming armies, without risking all those civilian destructions.

What do you think about it ?

Az · April 13, 2003, 08:05

The land-based nukes are not a problem. SU could make France glow by a single blow, not allowing France to retaliate. SSBNs are the problem.

Spiffor · April 13, 2003, 09:30

I agree with Carver :
France, at least under De Gaulle, would have seriously threatened to use nukes on the USSR if the conventional war continued on its territory, hoping Russia would never risk such a loss to conquer France.
The building of "Fortress France" would have continued until the Communists take power.

monolith94 · April 13, 2003, 12:02

Technically, the Japanese did invade the U.S., as the Phillipines were U.S. territories at the time. They took some Aleutian islands as well.

"the US would have surrendered even quicker!"
If the president was anyone but F.D.R. that might be almost right, considering the strong pro-nazi sympathies many Americans held.

I think that France would issue a public statement saying that if the Russian army advanced any further, they would unload their entire nuclear arsenal onto Russia. Now how does Russia respond to this? If France attacks Russia, Russia will be severely crippled, while France will be utterly destroyed. So lets take France out of the picture and evaluate the remaining situation. Russia survives but in tatters. What do you think the Soviet satelites and neighboring countries are thinking right now? That's right - high time to invade Russia. I'm thinking China in particular would like to kick some Western ass. In addition, the Soviet system would be so disrupted that active resistance would finally erupt and the Soviet system might well collapse.

Now, knowing that this would probably be their future if France uses its nukes, I'd say that the Russian army would most likely stop its advance.

Urban Ranger · April 13, 2003, 12:07

Quote:

Originally posted by thorgalaeg
France has MIRV technology. Any anti-missile system would be inutil against that.

It depends.

Az · April 13, 2003, 12:29

Well, duh! OF COURSE the SU wouldn't risk itself just to take france. They'd probably creep on them, taking them slowly. Without the "jobs" part in carver's scenario, but in a similar way.

GePap · April 13, 2003, 13:10

Quote:

Originally posted by thorgalaeg
France has MIRV technology. Any anti-missile system would be inutil against that.

Or worthless perhaps?

Current anti-missile theater systems are highly ineffective against ICBM's of any kind.

Master Zen · April 13, 2003, 13:50

Question: wasn't the SA-8 only deployed around Moscow? I thought the ABM treaty only permitted each side to build one system which could defend one point in their territory. The USSR obviously chose Moscow, but the US for political reasons could not get away with only defending one city.

Now, all of these are very good points. However, my still nagging doubt is whether France would have actually carried out it's threat of attacking the USSR with nukes. On paper it seems as a credible force and would certainly made the USSR think twice about invading France. However, if the threat was carried out, France would have risked its complete destruction. The other alternative would be surrender, falling under communist rule, but the hope of eventually being free again.

Therefore, I am still not convinced that France would have carried out that threat.

Thorgal · April 13, 2003, 13:54

Quote:

Or worthless perhaps?

Err... yes, sorry. I meant useless or worthless.

Q Classic · April 13, 2003, 13:55

if i were in charge of france, i'd quickly try to find someone who was either a) not french, or b) psychotic and hears voices in his/her head to lead my remaining army, because those are the only two people ever to have a successful french army.

Az · April 13, 2003, 14:00

the SA-8 "Gecko" is AFAIK, a standard SAM system.

Thorgal · April 13, 2003, 14:10

Are you sure the system was based in SA-8s?.The SA-8 has a range of about 10 km only. I think that for an anti-ICBM system a SA-5 Gammon (300 km) or SA-10 (100 km) would be more adequate.

Alvaro · April 13, 2003, 14:59

I don't remember on what SA it was based (I think I said that) but I thought it was the 8. I cannot ask my father (RIP) so consider that statement null because that's my only source and may have recalled the wrong missile alltogether.

Azazel: the Arrow can do not only the Scud IRBM's but ICBM's too. I had the privilige of working with it's engineers

[edit: must learn how to type!]

Az · April 13, 2003, 15:01

Master Zen · April 13, 2003, 15:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Alvaro

Azazel: the Arrow can do not only the Scud IRBM's but ICBM's too. I had the privilige of working with it's engineers

Care to share some of its secrets or blueprints??

Az · April 13, 2003, 15:07

sure, I'll PM them to you.

. everyone in the ZOG has those.

Sava · April 13, 2003, 15:15

The US would have used tactical nukes before it came to this situation.

Az · April 13, 2003, 15:16

Did they have tactical nukes in europe? I thought they removed them.

Sava · April 13, 2003, 15:17

Nuclear submarines.

Master Zen · April 13, 2003, 15:18

It wouldn't have taken too long to bring them back I think

Az · April 13, 2003, 15:20

Quote:

Nuclear submarines.

Those aren't tactical.

And the assumption of this scen. is that americans don't give a **** about europe, and don't want all of their people to die. So they don't retaliate.

Sava · April 13, 2003, 15:21

Quote:

Those aren't tactical

uhhh yeah they are buddy

A tactical nuke is defined as any nuclear weapon designed for military targets.

Az · April 13, 2003, 15:24

They're not designed for military targets.

. They're designed as a weapon of retaliation against a first strike, and they target cities, just like the boys on the surface.

They could be used in a tactical manner, yes, but that doesn't mean they were designed for it, see?

Master Zen · April 13, 2003, 15:58

SLBM are tecnically and in terms of warhead load the equivalent of ICBMs = strategic nuclear missiles.

Their warhead power and blast effects make them less than ideal for striking at battlefield targets which is the role of tactical nukes.

Az · April 13, 2003, 15:59

Master Zen.