Sir Basil H. Liddell Hart Quote

Strauss, German minister of defense,and the indicated successor of Adenauer ,said the following :
''The epoch is over,where European and American interests were running in parallel ''.
Source : Reinhard Gehlen,Geheimdienstchef in Hintergrund der Bonner Republik .
After 1957,US would be faced with the following choices if the Soviets started a conventional war in Europe
a Using in Germany nuclear weapons to stop the Soviets
b Using nuclear weapons against the USSR .
Both cases would result in the destruction of Germany
Both choices were unacceptable for West Germany,especially as these choices would be taken by the US only,without any German participation .
No wonder that Adenauer and Strauss were rebelling and no wonder that they were eliminated by the BND which was the German extension of the CIA.
 
The nuclear umbrella exist still and it is a part of the 2010 Strategic Concept. The nuclear umbrella commitment includes not only the US allies in NATO, the Strategic Concept includes Australia, South Korea, and Japan so you are obviously wrong. What you don't understand is; nuclear weapons are a deterrent. Your statement about the nuclear umbrella is not correct.

http://hrp.law.harvard.edu/wp-conte..._Umbrella_Arrangements_Treaty_Prohibition.pdf

https://www.defense.gov/Explore/New...nds-to-allies-partners-defense-official-says/
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The nuclear umbrella exist still and it is a part of the 2010 Strategic Concept. The nuclear umbrella commitment includes not only the US allies in NATO, the Strategic Concept includes Australia, South Korea, and Japan so you are obviously wrong. What you don't understand is; nuclear weapons are a deterrent. Your statement about the nuclear umbrella is not correct.

http://hrp.law.harvard.edu/wp-conte..._Umbrella_Arrangements_Treaty_Prohibition.pdf

https://www.defense.gov/Explore/New...nds-to-allies-partners-defense-official-says/
Click to expand...

NO : the nuclear umbrella disappeared in 1957 .
A commitment to use nuclear weapons against Russia if she starts a conventional war against NATO in Europe is totally laughable ,because it would result in the destruction of Europe, Russia and the USA.
Treaties, promises,arrangements are not credible .
Why should the US commit suicide if Russia attacked NATO ?
Tell me : why ?
The nuclear umbrella ( a threat that US would destroy the USSR if it started a war ) worked as long as the Soviets could not destroy the US . In 1957 ,they could .
Till 1957 the US could and would nuke the USSR, after 1957 , they no longer would do it .That's why France wanted its own nuclear weapons .Us unwillingly accepted this, but refused to admit that Germany could have its own nuclear weapons .
 
Wrong again. The nuclear umbrella exist. It's a part of the US agreement to defend NATO countries, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. Do your homework before saying things, because what you are saying is wrong and only show your own incompetence. I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Read the other two references and you will see you are wrong


https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a537931.pdf

https://cup.columbia.edu/book/japan-south-korea-and-the-united-states-nuclear-umbrella/9780231157995
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
Wrong again. The nuclear umbrella exist. It's a part of the US agreement to defend NATO countries, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. Do your homework before saying things, because what you are saying is wrong and only show your own incompetence. I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Read the other two references and you will see you are wrong


https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a537931.pdf

https://cup.columbia.edu/book/japan-south-korea-and-the-united-states-nuclear-umbrella/9780231157995
Click to expand...

An agreement is only blahblah : US will not risk the destruction of New York to stop a conventional Russian or North Korean attack .
 
lljadw said:
An agreement is only blahblah : US will not risk the destruction of New York to stop a conventional Russian or North Korean attack .
Click to expand...

BS, just another example of your incompetence and your ignorant opinions. Nuclear weapons are for deterrence. That's why NK and Iran want to have them, to deter an attack. A child understand that, but you don't.

The Russian; earlier the Soviet nukes deter the west from attacking them. The Chinese nukes have the same purpose
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
BS, just another example of your incompetence and your ignorant opinions. Nuclear weapons are for deterrence. That's why NK and Iran want to have them, to deter an attack. A child understand that, but you don't.

The Russian; earlier the Soviet nukes deter the west from attacking them. The Chinese nukes have the same purpose
Click to expand...

BS :nuclear weapons can only deter IF the other party is convinced that they will be used .
The Soviet nukes did NOT deter the west from attacking them, because between 1945 and 1957 the West could have nuked the Soviets without any danger .
Iran does NOT want nukes to deter the West (= the US ) to attack them, because,as with the Soviets, the West could have nuked and can still nuke Iran without any problem .Thus, why would Iran need nukes ?
NO ONE in the West wants to attack Iran . Except the stupid Bolton .
Iran wantss nukes to blackmail the West /to attack the West and Israel .
 
lljadw said:
BS :nuclear weapons can only deter IF the other party is convinced that they will be used .
The Soviet nukes did NOT deter the west from attacking them, because between 1945 and 1957 the West could have nuked the Soviets without any danger .
Iran does NOT want nukes to deter the West (= the US ) to attack them, because,as with the Soviets, the West could have nuked and can still nuke Iran without any problem .Thus, why would Iran need nukes ?
NO ONE in the West wants to attack Iran . Except the stupid Bolton .
Iran wantss nukes to blackmail the West /to attack the West and Israel .
Click to expand...

No, they don't. Nuclear weapons deter an aggressor and with the alliance (NATO and the countries the US has bilateral security treaties with deter any attack, with or without nukes) Btw, Soviet tested their first nuke in 1949, so didn't even got that right. Read more empirical facts before exposing how ignorant you are. Iran view itself being threatened by the US.
 
1949 was NO threat to the US, as in 1949 the Soviets had not ICBMs or long range bombers to nuke the American cities . Thus,you are again wrong .
The danger existed only in 1957 .
Nuclear weapons deter only an aggressor who has no nuclear weapons .
No one believes in the US nuclear deterrent .
About Iran : Iran has said openly that it wants to dominate the ME, destroy Israel with nuclear weapons and attack Europe and the US .
And, due to the help from the Obama administration and of the European governments, Iran is very near to its aim :
Iranian forces/ terrorists funded by Iran are in Iraq,Yemen, Syria and Gaza .
Very soon Iran will start a nuclear war with Israel and such a war will destroy not only the ME ,but also Europe and kill hundreds of millions of people .
And, we all know that Biden will do nothing .
Even the far left Newsweek has said openly in July that the Democratic Party is now anti Israel and pro Iran .
The nuclear deal with Iran will be renewed .
Would any one have signed a nuclear deal with Hitler ?
Thus : why with Iran ?
 
The Soviets had captured B-29 and more or less copied it, it was called Tu-4. It could have reached the US from the Asian part of Soviet Union or cross the Artic. Neither side had the amount of nukes to annihilate each other in the 1950s and early 1960s. They could have caused severe damage to each other.

The nuclear doctrine aka the nuclear umbrella protected and deterred each other from attacking each other. It was called the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine, so when you are saying nuclear deterrence works only toward those without any nukes, you are wrong.

Iran knows what happened to them if they use a nuke and the government wants to stay in power without making its own country a nuclear wasteland. Btw, the US is using proxies too.

Begin to read and learn from what you are reading because you are really uneducated.
 
I really don't know why you bother 13. he'll only argue some bulltshite rubbish to try and prove you wrong

It not worth having a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The Soviets had captured B-29 and more or less copied it, it was called Tu-4. It could have reached the US from the Asian part of Soviet Union or cross the Artic. Neither side had the amount of nukes to annihilate each other in the 1950s and early 1960s. They could have caused severe damage to each other.

The nuclear doctrine aka the nuclear umbrella protected and deterred each other from attacking each other. It was called the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine, so when you are saying nuclear deterrence works only toward those without any nukes, you are wrong.

Iran knows what happened to them if they use a nuke and the government wants to stay in power without making its own country a nuclear wasteland. Btw, the US is using proxies too.

Begin to read and learn from what you are reading because you are really uneducated.
Click to expand...

It is not because there was a MAD doctrine that this doctrine was working .
The fact is that till the end of the USSR ,NATO would lose a conventional war against the Soviets and that it could only survive if it was nuking Central Europe,if it did this, the Soviets would nuke London and Paris,and the US would NOT nuke Moscow ,otherwise it would be the end of the world .
The fact that the Soviets did not attack NATO,had nothing to do with MAD,the Soviets knew very well that the US would not risk the survival of New York to stop the advance of their divisions to the Rhine .No one could stop the advance of the Red Army .
The only reason why the Soviets were not going to the Rhine and to Gibraltar was that it was not in their benefit .
All the rest is Cold War propaganda .
Give me ONE reason why it would be good for the Kremlin if its army was at Gibraltar .
It would only be a suicide .And the Soviets knew it very well . They had already lost their grip on their satellites, thus why should they need more satellites ?
Between 1945 and 1957 US could easily have nuked the USSR.They didn't do it . Why ?Because it was not in their benefit .

And, your knowledge about the fanatics who rule Iran, is lacking . A lot .
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
So the MAD doctrine didn't work because the doctrine worked?

The Strategic Air Command (SAC) had attacked Moscow and Leningrad if the cold war turned hot. Moscow had 179 designated ground zero and Leningrad had 145. So you are wrong again.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/
Click to expand...

That is what YOU are claiming .
There is no proof for your claim(plans are not proofs ) and your claim is also very unlikely,because the Soviets would have nuked all big American cities .
When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan ( and the fact that Carter was soft is irrelevant: Reagan also would nor retaliate ) there was no nuclear response from US,when NK invaded SK,there was no nuclear response from US .
In 1950 US could easily have destroyed the USSR,without a nuclear retaliation from the Soviets, in 1960 US were no longer able to do it .
MAD was a strategy to prevent the Soviets from nuking America, something they would not do .It was after 1957 NOT a strategy to prevent a nuclear/conventional Soviet attack on Europe .
MAD = MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION .
And mutual are US and the USSR, not Europe .
If the Soviets nuked Paris, US would NOT nuke Moscow .
That's why De Gaulle wanted his own nuclear force,because he did not trust the US .
The US were better off with a strong USSR and the USSR was better of with a strong US .And ,as long as there was no stupid one starting a nuclear attack or forcing the other side to retaliate with a nuclear attack,the danger was very small .
 
lljadw said:
That is what YOU are claiming .
There is no proof for your claim(plans are not proofs ) and your claim is also very unlikely,because the Soviets would have nuked all big American cities .
When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan ( and the fact that Carter was soft is irrelevant: Reagan also would nor retaliate ) there was no nuclear response from US,when NK invaded SK,there was no nuclear response from US .
In 1950 US could easily have destroyed the USSR,without a nuclear retaliation from the Soviets, in 1960 US were no longer able to do it .
MAD was a strategy to prevent the Soviets from nuking America, something they would not do .It was after 1957 NOT a strategy to prevent a nuclear/conventional Soviet attack on Europe .
MAD = MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION .
And mutual are US and the USSR, not Europe .
If the Soviets nuked Paris, US would NOT nuke Moscow .
That's why De Gaulle wanted his own nuclear force,because he did not trust the US .
The US were better off with a strong USSR and the USSR was better of with a strong US .And ,as long as there was no stupid one starting a nuclear attack or forcing the other side to retaliate with a nuclear attack,the danger was very small .
Click to expand...

Are you fecking insane? That's not what I'm claiming, that's what the SAC was planning to do in an event of war. Read the link I provided with and check where it comes from.

Are you saying the US should have nuked the Soviet Union as a retaliation for the invasion of Afghanistan? General Macarthur wanted to nuke the Chinese during the Korean War, but Harry S. Truman didn't allow him to do that, he fired him instead.

No, the US couldn't "destroy" the Soviet Union in the 1950s. The US could have caused a lot of damage to the Soviet Union, but the Soviet Union could have inflicted severe damage to the US as well.
 
What the SAC planned to do in event of war,is totally IRRELEVANT, because what the SAC WOULD do,was depending on the orders from the White House .
SAC EXECUTES what the White House decides .And an order from the White House to start a nuclear attack on the USSR would depend on the capacity of the USSR to retaliate . Thus,in last instance,it was the USSR that would decide what the SAC would do .
If the Soviets started a conventional war against NATO which NATO was losing,the White House ( NOT the SAC ) had the choice between
a accept the defeat
b try to stop the Soviets by nuking Central Europe
c try to stop the Soviets by nuking their cities .
option b was out of the question as Europe would prefer to become a Soviet satellite instead of being nuked
if the Soviets could also nuke the US cities ,option c was also out of the question,remaining option a : accepting the defeat and the loss of Europe,thus the US nuclear deterrent was an illusion .
And this situation (=only option a ) was the reality after the launching of the Sputnik till the end of the USSR .
The 6 US and 12 German divisions could never stop a conventional Soviet attack ,and after 1957 the threat of a nuclear reprisal was only a hollow threat .
That's why France wanted its own nuclear force and that's why Germany wanted also its own nuclear force .
As long as the Soviets did not start a nuclear war against the US,SAC/the Triad would remain idle .
The US deterrent applied only for the US .Not for its allies .And the Soviets would not start a nuclear attack on the US .
 
I really don't know if he's deaf, daft or stupid, possibly all three.

The numbnut tried to argue with me about Malta, I served there, did he?

Keith Parks took over as AOC Malta, who used the knowledge he gained as AOC 11 Group during the Battle of Britain to finally beat the Axis attacks on the island. Very clever man. However, thanks to Leigh Mallory and Douglas Bader, Keith Parks was sacked from 11 Group, as was Hugh Dowding from Fighter Command. Both men fought the Battle of Britain exactly right, despite Leigh Mally and Douglas Bader claim regarding big wings.
 
You have NO proof that US would have nuked the USSR if these started a conventional war in Europe .
US would NOT do this: that's why De Gaulle wanted his own nuclear weapons, that's why Britain wanted its own nuclear weapons . That's why Germany wanted its own nuclear weapons .
Besides : if everything depended on the US nuclear deterrent, why did NATO need 12 German divisions, why were there 6 US divisions in Europe ?
The US nuclear deterrent was only bluff and every one knew it, including the Soviets .
 
To reiterate:-

Winston Churchill once said

""A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."".

Says it all really
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top