r/NonCredibleDefense Irradiated Belt of Cobalt 7d ago

Arsenal of Democracy 🗽 30 years ago today

Post image
6.3k Upvotes

130 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.4k

u/mka10mka10 7d ago

I was suggesting we bomb Moscow, I was suggesting we send American pilots in and blow up all the bridges on the Volga.

660

u/justamiqote 7d ago

We should have done that in 1945 tbh

115

u/Geo_NL 7d ago edited 7d ago

It took the Soviet Union years to get nukes. Imagine the leverage the US actually had as only nuclear power at the end of WW2.

"Oh, you don't want to fuck off out of East-Germany?". "What's this? Nice place, want to keep it that way?".

Instead we got the painful decades for all the countries behind the Iron Curtain. To this day the damage is still noticeable in those societies.

105

u/Brogan9001 7d ago edited 7d ago

True, however on the other hand, the fact the US didn’t use its status as the only nuclear power to lord over the world indefinitely and glass anyone trying to develop nukes shows an insane level of self control (and a lot of war-weariness). Doubt any other country at the time would show that much restraint.

8

u/Sevchenko874 5d ago

"b-but muh warmonger US narrative !!!1!1!111!" -a tankie, probably

51

u/Jackbuddy78 7d ago edited 7d ago

Soviet Union had interceptors that could down B-29s by the late '40s and plenty of them. They weren't making kamikaze aircraft and a few Zero fighters. 

The result would have just been another ground war with periodic attempts to strike cities with WMDs. It really wasn't until ICBMs came online in the 1960s that the US could assuredly deliver a large amount of nuclear strikes against the Eastern Bloc. 

-9

u/ain92ru 6d ago

Actually, already in 1945 over its home territory. Also, the US had very few nukes after the end of WWII, which were pretty inaccurate and could only be used against cities. Moreover, not a lot of B-29s were adapted for them, but that could be easily fixed. Much harder to fix was the lack of cartographic information to find strategic targets in the parts of the territory never occupied by Germans (it took U-2s and satellites IRL).

Besides decent fighters and radars to protect the cities, USSR had T-44s and IS-3 tanks in serial production which were vastly superior to any Western tanks, decent stocks of artillery ammunition, upgraded military plants and a huge combat-proven land army.

The postwar planning in the West assumed the Soviet Army would have steamrolled to the English Channel in, IIRC, half a year, occupied all Germany and practically all continental France, and the Western forces would have to defend on the Alps and Pyrenees

15

u/Princep_Krixus 6d ago

"Vastl superior to western tanks" so yea. Tell me you think Ukraine is a fair and responsible military operation lol.

The Russians tanks have been time and time again shown to have been paper tigers. The only reason they didnt well in any conflict was pure numbers. Even then half of them broke down. And yet they had so many it didnt matter. The Russians fucking loved the western tanks they got on lend lease, because they actually fucking worked.

Russian propaganda at its finest.

3

u/Jkay064 3d ago

Always remember that the Soviets had a special department of propaganda up until the 1990s expressly to falsely boast that WW2 Soviet armor was good. They are the pettiest morons on the planet.

-7

u/ain92ru 6d ago

Ukraine has been a predictable catastrophe and Putin is a war criminal. That has noting to do with the fact Russian tanks are not worse than the Western ones (have you heard about Western tanks breaking down in Ukraine? If not, maybe you have a social media bubble), the problem of the RuAF is not in tanks.

The reason crews preferred Lend Lease tanks was because they were comfy! Ukrainian tankers quip that Western armor is "built for people" as opposed to the Soviet one built to achieve the desired combat characteristics.

Still, as the Russo-Ukrainian war illustrates perfectly, two T-62s are more useful in a war than one Challenger 2 even if the former are slightly cramped for 180-cm folks and lack an on-board tea-making facility

12

u/mka10mka10 6d ago

for tanks built to have desired combat characteristics theyre certainly shit at that

4

u/gingerfreddy 5d ago

What? Nuking eastern europe to liberate it?

I wanted to write a long post here but just please think about how a nuclear war in eastern europe would have damaged said societies.

"Man Stalin sure sucked with all that ethnic cleansing and political executions, I wish someone would NUKE US as the path to liberation"

Motherfucker the US bomber nearly every semi-permanent structure in Vietnam and northern Korea. They did not surrender. 

Only boots on the ground would ensure a liberated eastern europe. So, marching an exhausted Britain, german auxiliaries, barely reorganisering france after their civil war, and whatever allied minors were on hand into a freshly nuked USSR? The Red Army was freakishly powerful in 1945, and nuking it out of existence would require tens of millions of deaths, including civillians what the fuck are you smoking the Red Army stood in the very countries you want to liberate in this scenario

This all of course relying on the US having enough nukes and the air power to actually fly them over USSR home soil. Which I am unsure about.Â