# Start of the Cold War: The Marshall Plan or Soviets' exploding first atomic bomb



## FortYorkRifleman (10 Apr 2015)

I'm in the beginning stages of learning about the Cold War from 1917 and the Russian Revolution all the way to 1991. The consensus amongst historians and commentators put the "Cold War" from 1947 - 1991 but which event sparked it seems up for debate. My reading of things is that it was The Marshall Plan that can be seen as the beginning; this is where East and West relations fell apart and lines drawn between those accepting American aid and those sticking to the Soviets, solidifying the Iron Curtain. 

Any insight would be great


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Apr 2015)

Interesting theory and one that I had not considered before now. I suggest relations fell apart between the USSR and the West before the end of the Second World War in Europe. For example the British 6th Airborne Division did a rapid advance to Wismar on the Baltic to prevent the Soviets from getting far enough west to isolate Denmark. This was before VE Day.

Whether or not there was a recognizable start to the confrontation is moot. Certainly by 1946 Canada and the United States were concerned enough about the Soviets actually establishing lodgements in Alaska and Northern Canada for forward basing of bombers to draft a North American defence plan.


----------



## Infanteer (10 Apr 2015)

There probably is no "Cold War Starts Here" point in history; it was rather a steady decline in relations between the USSR and the West.  Old Sweat's point on Second World War relationships is good - even at Tehran, there was a lot of acrimony over Poland.  The Cold War jousting certainly kicked off prior to the Marshall Plan - Western checks on Soviet efforts in Turkey and Iran in 1946 were clearly a break between any sense of allied cooperation.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (10 Apr 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Interesting theory and one that I had not considered before now. I suggest relations fell apart between the USSR and the West before the end of the Second World War in Europe. For example the British 6th Airborne Division did a rapid advance to Wismar on the Baltic to prevent the Soviets from getting far enough west to isolate Denmark. This was before VE Day.
> 
> Whether or not there was a recognizable start to the confrontation is moot. Certainly by 1946 Canada and the United States were concerned enough about the Soviets actually establishing lodgements in Alaska and Northern Canada for forward basing of bombers to draft a North American defence plan.



There's no doubt the "Big 3" were in a relationship of convenience at the time but I think The Marshall Plan gave Europe a glimpse of what could be; America via aide showed Europe what could be under Democracy and Capitalism and this triggered something in the Soviet Union that show of force would no longer be enough and that the old ways of Communism, the rallies, symbols and spreading of Communists in countries would be the only way to subvert the American influence.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (10 Apr 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> There probably is no "Cold War Starts Here" point in history; it was rather a steady decline in relations between the USSR and the West.  Old Sweat's point on Second World War relationships is good - even at Tehran, there was a lot of acrimony over Poland.  The Cold War jousting certainly kicked off prior to the Marshall Plan - Western checks on Soviet efforts in Turkey and Iran in 1946 were clearly a break between any sense of allied cooperation.



Communism and Capitalism were on a collision course with or without Fascism and the Second World War. I don't think the actions of the Soviets (bugging FDR's quarters, usage of spies) were unusual. Because of the Marshall Plan we had "you're either with us or against us" sort of ultimatum where flags were firmly planted


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Apr 2015)

Another theory puts the start of the Cold War at 5 March 1946 when Churchill delivered his Iron Curtain speech.

http://history1900s.about.com/od/churchillwinston/a/Iron-Curtain.htm


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (10 Apr 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Another theory puts the start of the Cold War at 5 March 1946 when Churchill delivered his Iron Curtain speech.
> 
> http://history1900s.about.com/od/churchillwinston/a/Iron-Curtain.htm



That speech was definitely significant and reading the diplomatic cables now available that were sent within the Soviet Union it may have turned up the heat, so to speak. I would say when it was decided that West Germany should receive aid via the airlifts could be seen as the real start of the division that would define the two sides which would put it beginning in 1947. All signs point to what was happening in Germany with the introduction of the two currencies which was enough to almost bring tanks to the border between East and West


----------



## Danjanou (10 Apr 2015)

I've moved this into Military History as I feel it is a serious discussion and not the usual radio chatter stuff.


----------



## Danjanou (10 Apr 2015)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> I've moved this into Military History as I feel it is a serious discussion and not the usual radio chatter stuff.



Another possible "start point" could be the Greek Civil War and US and British Intervention there in 1946

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War ( yeah I know it's wiki but still has the basics)

Finding an actual start date for the Cold War may be as hard as finding an end date. The OP has suggested 1991, I've sen other accounts that put it ending in 1989.  8)


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (10 Apr 2015)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Another possible "start point" could be the Greek Civil War and US and British Intervention there in 1946
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War ( yeah I know it's wiki but still has the basics)
> 
> Finding an actual start date for the Cold War may be as hard as finding an end date. The OP has suggested 1991, I've sen other accounts that put it ending in 1989.  8)



I think the end date is the most defined with the dissolution of the USSR. At that point they were out of the game and the American empire was triumphant. The Korean War was a stalemate, but was it caused by one ideology prevailing over another? No. Likewise with Vietnam and the Soviet Afghan War. This was a conflict defined by actions whether it be coup's, military interventions by proxy and economic aspects. Communism is still around, albeit not in the way Lenin and Marx had envisioned it but what has triumphed is Capitalism which enabled countries to rebuild and heal after wars, recessions, and shifting industries. I'm beginning to feel this isn't a conflict that should be seen as East vs West or Communism vs Capitalism but by who could survive the longest and when the USSR dissolved that was it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Apr 2015)

The Cold war was a phase within a larger global struggle between competing ideologues. The Soviets were certainly busy spying on us likely before and during WWII. Perhaps it started when Stalin began to look beyond the USSR borders? 


http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol12/no1/41-granatstein-eng.asp


----------



## Retired AF Guy (10 Apr 2015)

I always thought the Cold War started here in Canada when Igor Gouzenko walked out of the Soviet Embassy with an armful of documents exposing their espionage operations in the West.


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (10 Apr 2015)

I'd go further back to immediate post WWI and the allied "interventions" in Siberia and Vladivostok ...  There was a brief discussion on it all right here a few years back ...

and found 

http://army.ca/forums/threads/68575/post-652714.html#msg652714


Edit: for link


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (10 Apr 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I always thought the Cold War started here in Canada when Igor Gouzenko walked out of the Soviet Embassy with an armful of documents exposing their espionage operations in the West.



Never knew that happened. So Gouzenko was a defector? Interesting


----------



## George Wallace (10 Apr 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Never knew that happened. So Gouzenko was a defector? Interesting



Whoa!  You really missed out on a very interesting time in Canadian history.  Quite a scandal for the day.  

Guess not being a "Super Power" has its pitfalls in the history books.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (10 Apr 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Whoa!  You really missed out on a very interesting time in Canadian history.  Quite a scandal for the day.
> 
> Guess not being a "Super Power" has its pitfalls in the history books.



To be honest all I can name more US Presidents than I can Canadian Prime Ministers. My knowledge of Canadian history is very limited to the point where between 1945 and 2001 I know very little which pretty much means I know nothing but I am working on changing that


----------



## George Wallace (11 Apr 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> To be honest all I can name more US Presidents than I can Canadian Prime Ministers. My knowledge of Canadian history is very limited to the point where between 1945 and 2001 I know very little which pretty much means I know nothing but I am working on changing that



Have fun with the Diefenbaker years......The Avro Arrow.  Bomarc Missiles.  The Cuban Missile Crisis.  Then the Peason years and the start of the Canadian myth of "Peacekeeping", followed by the Trudeau years with the War Measures Act and "Just watch me".....Then we have the business of "the nations bedrooms", Judy LaMarsh........Wow!.....In between the lines, our history is not quite as boring as some would like to think.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Apr 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Cold war was a phase within a larger global struggle between competing ideologues. The Soviets were certainly busy spying on us likely before and during WWII. Perhaps it started when Stalin began to look beyond the USSR borders?
> 
> 
> http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol12/no1/41-granatstein-eng.asp




_I think_ you are closest to the historical _truth_: the _Cold War_ was a campaign in a large, long, and still ongoing struggle between, essentially: Anglo-American _liberal_, capitalist, secular, democratic, civil society and all the other systems, including communism, fascism, socialism (democratic and not) and, now, Asian/Confucian _conservative_, sometimes democratic, civil society.


----------



## Bass ackwards (11 Apr 2015)

Although AJFitzpatrick beat me to it, I cannot help but wonder how much of an effect our post-WWI intervention had on relations. We (including Canada) sent military forces into their country in an attempt to decide their form of government for them. I doubt that endeared us to them.

Krushchev mentioned that in a 1957 speech in the US:
_"All the capitalist countries of Europe and America marched on our country to strangle the new revolution...Never have any of our soldiers been on American soil. Those are the facts."_


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (11 Apr 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _I think_ you are closest to the historical _truth_: the _Cold War_ was a campaign in a large, long, and still ongoing struggle between, essentially: Anglo-American _liberal_, capitalist, secular, democratic, civil society and all the other systems, including communism, fascism, socialism (democratic and not) and, now, Asian/Confucian _conservative_, sometimes democratic, civil society.



If we went by that definition then we are in a Cold War with Iran now and Russia still. Maybe its the definition that has contributed to us not being able to define the when. With regards to China they pretend to have a Communist system but once again that does not gel with what Marx-Lenin had in mind. I believe the Cold War ended when the USSR failed to compete against a superior ideology, an ideology that has proven the test of time. The lines during ?-1991 were clear whereas now we, in the West, have strange bedfellows of shifting alliances.

I would say that if we were to look at our current state of affairs in the Middle East that in itself is a Cold War where Iran is the USSR; during the Iraq War they financed and supplied weapons to anti US forces, created Hezbollah and have financed acts of terrorism around the world. By all accounts we have an uneasy alliance with them in the fight against ISIS but that story has yet to be played out.


----------



## expwor (11 Apr 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Whoa!  You really missed out on a very interesting time in Canadian history.  Quite a scandal for the day.
> 
> Guess not being a "Super Power" has its pitfalls in the history books.



Lets not forget Fred Rose.  His claim to fame, being a Member of Parliament and member of the Communist Party of Canada, and alleged to be part of the spy ring Gouzenko disclosed
Rose lost his seat, did time in prison, and then after release from prison, he went to Eastern Europe (Poland I think) While there Canada revoked his citizenship
Wish I hadn't sold some of my university textbooks now LOL
Canada indeed has had a very interesting history...just as, if not more interesting  than American 
history

Tom


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (11 Apr 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Have fun with the Diefenbaker years......The Avro Arrow.  Bomarc Missiles.  The Cuban Missile Crisis.  Then the Peason years and the start of the Canadian myth of "Peacekeeping", followed by the Trudeau years with the War Measures Act and "Just watch me".....Then we have the business of "the nations bedrooms", Judy LaMarsh........Wow!.....In between the lines, our history is not quite as boring as some would like to think.



I have a documentary queued up on my Youtube channel about the Avro Arrow along with several documentaries about Canada's involvement in Somalia.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Apr 2015)

There is a great deal to say in favour of the Anglosphere's struggle against totalitarianism in the last century as being at the centre of the Cold War.. To describe all of it as the Cold War is, in my opinion, incorrect. It was not until the end of the Second World War that two competing ideologies emerged and the resulting struggle lasted for almost a half century before communism as a system of government (but not a theory popular with the chattering classes) collapsed. Before then, it was a struggle against fascism that motivated the liberal west and the totalitarian USSR. In fact there was a great deal of support for the Soviets in the west, not least of all because Stalin's murderous excesses passed unreported by the progressive press. Even during the Second World War, President Roosevelt remarked that the American people had more in common with the egalitarian Russians than with the class-ridden British system. 

Communism and its little cousin, Socialism, enjoyed considerable support in Western society for decades, especially among those with a social conscience. In fact, the "soak the rich" philosophy was and is popular and it was not all that long ago that a Canadian prime minister stated in so many words that capitalism was s failure. Toss in support for various revolutionary movements and it did seem in the sixties, seventies and even into the early eighties that communism would prevail. 

So what? To my mind, the Cold War began as the Germans collapsed in 1945 and the USSR imposed its will on the states of Eastern Europe. Whether we are facing a new cold war is moot, but it is not an extension of the old one.


----------



## cupper (12 Apr 2015)

I think you could go well back into WW2 to find a start point of the Cold War. Reading "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes, there was a lot of distrust of Stalin and his intentions regarding the post war. So much so that there was a debate about whether to reveal the bomb development at some point in the various 3 party conference discussions; and finally the subsequent success of the Trinity test to both Churchill and Stalin at the Potsdam Conference.

One thought was that if they revealed the development prior to a successful test would potentially force their hand and reveal too much information to the Soviets to allow them to advance their own program. But to not inform them prior to the bombing of Japanese targets would ultimately cause a breakdown and rift within the uneasy allied alliance, with the Soviets closing off the east, which it ultimately did.

In a sense you could argue that the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the historical points for the start of the Cold War.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Apr 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> To be honest all I can name more US Presidents than I can Canadian Prime Ministers.



So can I, but that's normal: They've had 44 presidents to our 22 Prime Ministers. 

But personally, I would put the beginning of the cold war in the months that followed the Yalta conference, when Roosevelt learned of the "naughty document" and his Moscow ambassador informed him that Stalin had no intentions of allowing free elections in the post-war zone under his control.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2015)

The think "our," the _liberal_, capitalist West's, problem with communism dates back to _circa_ 1865 and the 1st International. We (the liberal, _capitalist_ West, again) got really upset in 1871 when the French Civil War (one of them, anyway) dissolved into the Paris Commune.

Our fear of communism was quite rampant at the turn of the 19th/20th century and, in 1918/19, we, that same "we" including Canada, sent an expeditionary force to Russia to help the _Whites_ in their ongoing war against the communist _Reds_. US President Woodrow Wilson was one of the main proponents of defeating communism (no _containment_ for Wilson) and it is important to note that the Dulles brother, Allen and Foster, who would later become head the CIA and Secretary of State, respectively, and who were important allied leaders in the Cold War, were staunch _Wilsonians_.

The anti-communist _movement_ in the West is very firmly grounded in the 19th century.


----------



## YZT580 (12 Apr 2015)

Except that the issue is the commencement of the Cold War and not our opposition to communism and the two are not the same at all.  Fighting godless communism was a good rallying cry for the post WW1 invasion but of perhaps greater significance was the need to re-establish the status quo i.e the monarchy lest the push towards other forms of government result in a revolution that encompassed all of Europe.  As long as Stalin was willing to stay within the pre=WW2 boundaries Europe learned to live with, if not accept the communist regime but his treatment of the enslaved eastern European nations resulted in the growth of fear in the west, particularly when he kept his armies massed on the borders.  Fear was the motivator for the cold war.


----------



## expwor (12 Apr 2015)

Other factors playing into the West's distrust of the Soviet Union (and Stalin) is the USSR signed with Nazi Germany (the West's enemy) the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact, the infamous non aggression pact between Germany and the Soviet Union
Besides the obvious non aggression aspect of the pact, the pact divvied up Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence and also prohibited each other from attack from third party alliances.
And there was also an economic agreement in which the German's would trade manufactured goods for Soviet raw materials
Only after Hitler broke the pact did the USSR then want Allied support. But hardly Allies in the conventional sense of the word
As a sidebar, the stupidest thing Hitler did was invade the USSR...he might very well have won and consolidated gains in Europe had he left the Soviet Union alone

Tom


----------



## exspy (12 Apr 2015)

expwor said:
			
		

> As a sidebar, the stupidest thing Hitler did was invade the USSR...



You can get quite a good argument started over what was Hitler's stupidest move during the War.  (In my opinion it was declaring war on the United States the day after Pearl Harbor.)

But as to the start of the Cold War, I think I'll go with Winston Churchill's 'Iron Curtain' speech in 1946.  All of the Soviet Union's moves prior to that can be viewed as setting up puppet states on their western borders to protect them from another German invasion.  In 1945 enslaving Poland and repatriating the Cossacks were accepted by the western politicians as the price to be paid for having had the Soviet's as allies.

By 1946 you had the Gouzenko revelations, the fact that the Soviet Army was remaining in the occupied nations at full strength, and the beginning of the closing of Eastern Europe to the rest of the world.

Just my 2 kopecks.

Cheers,
Dan.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (14 May 2015)

It's interesting most people overlook the importance of the Soviet's first atomic bomb and its role in ensuring things wouldn't become hot (outright war between East and West). I'd imagine most people involved, from politicians to military figures, realized the improbability of a conflict and settled for propping up governments and supporting them during their own wars (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Cuba).I think the Cold War has been defined by the conflicts that sprung out of them and when the Soviet's debuted their own atomic weapon that was them planting their flag as a superpower and a check against aggression by the West


----------



## Old Sweat (14 May 2015)

I wonder! The Soviets and their proxies were rather aggressive in the early 1950s, see Korean War. While they were paranoid, Europe really was in no shape to sustain a ground war. Thus the old wartime Western powers stepped into the breach. The rationale for ground based tactical nuclear weapons may look odd today, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. For the better part of two decades the Canadian Army trained (and was equipped) to fight a nuclear war on the North German plain. 

And the only military qualification I have that I am glad I never got to use is nuclear target analysis. For whatever it is worth, the Canadian Army had the best land-based nuclear delivery unit in NATO for close to a decade.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (14 May 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I wonder! The Soviets and their proxies were rather aggressive in the early 1950s, see Korean War. While they were paranoid, Europe really was in no shape to sustain a ground war. Thus the old wartime Western powers stepped into the breach. The rationale for ground based tactical nuclear weapons may look odd today, but it seemed like a good idea at the time. For the better part of two decades the Canadian Army trained (and was equipped) to fight a nuclear war on the North German plain.
> 
> And the only military qualification I have that I am glad I never got to use is nuclear target analysis. For whatever it is worth, the Canadian Army had the best land-based nuclear delivery unit in NATO for close to a decade.



I would have thought the only training any nation needed was CBRN because once those bombs go off who would be left to fight? I would think just having nuclear arms would be a deterrent and never knew about our role apart from Korea.


----------



## Old Sweat (15 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> I would have thought the only training any nation needed was CBRN because once those bombs go off who would be left to fight? I would think just having nuclear arms would be a deterrent and never knew about our role apart from Korea.



In the 1960s, for example, our tactics were built around the use of tactical nuclear weapons, say .5 to 10 KT with a few perhaps up to nominal yield, which was the phrase for the Hiroshima device which was set at 20 KT. (KT is kilo ton of TNT, by the way.) The ICBM exchange with very destructive devices was assumed to be still in the future and perhaps avoidable by negotiation.

Now, the nuclear battlefield was not a healthy place, so we sought wide dispersion between subunits to minimize casualties. This made us vulnerable to defeat in detail by land forces, so tactics were built on concentrating to force the Warsaw Pact forces to in turn concentrate. We also made use of natural and manmade obstacles to force this concentration. When they had done so, we dropped a nuke on them and then counterattacked to restore the battlefield. At least that was the theory.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (15 May 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> In the 1960s, for example, our tactics were built around the use of tactical nuclear weapons, say .5 to 10 KT with a few perhaps up to nominal yield, which was the phrase for the Hiroshima device which was set at 20 KT. (KT is kilo ton of TNT, by the way.) The ICBM exchange with very destructive devices was assumed to be still in the future and perhaps avoidable by negotiation.
> 
> Now, the nuclear battlefield was not a healthy place, so we sought wide dispersion between subunits to minimize casualties. This made us vulnerable to defeat in detail by land forces, so tactics were built on concentrating to force the Warsaw Pact forces to in turn concentrate. We also made use of natural and manmade obstacles to force this concentration. When they had done so, we dropped a nuke on them and then counterattacked to restore the battlefield. At least that was the theory.



That sounds like a nightmare. I had always assumed nuclear war went hand in hand with the Air Force and never knew ground units were involved. I have very little knowledge of nuclear weapons and always assumed they just came out of silos. I actually learned a lot about the START treaty in the 90's when I was still in Middle School because my teacher wanted to get rid of her husband's books whom she was divorcing and gave me a ton of books that I still have now. I still have a long ways to go in regards to all of this on top of learning about CAF history, specifically Infantry regiments as I am currently applying as an NCM for the Regular Force (hopefully PPCLI)


----------



## Old Sweat (15 May 2015)

None of us really believed we would ever see Canada again if we went to war. There was comfort, though, in the knowledge that there was a plan in place to evacuate dependents back to Canada on the aircraft there were bringing the two brigades and the "divisional troops" earmarked to reinforce 4 CIBG to Germany.


----------



## George Wallace (15 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> That sounds like a nightmare. I had always assumed nuclear war went hand in hand with the Air Force and never knew ground units were involved. I have very little knowledge of nuclear weapons and always assumed they just came out of silos. I actually learned a lot about the START treaty in the 90's when I was still in Middle School because my teacher wanted to get rid of her husband's books whom she was divorcing and gave me a ton of books that I still have now. I still have a long ways to go in regards to all of this on top of learning about CAF history, specifically Infantry regiments as I am currently applying as an NCM for the Regular Force (hopefully PPCLI)



The 'nuclear battlefield' was (and is) quite complicated.  In the days of Old Sweat we had the Honest John which was capable of delivering nuclear warheads.  The Americans also had artillery of delivering nuclear rounds.  In my day, the Americans also had Special Forces who were capable of delivering "Backpack Nucs" behind enemy lines.  Delivery is limited only by the imagination, and sometimes "Hollywood" portrays reality.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 May 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> In the 1960s, for example, our tactics were built around the use of tactical nuclear weapons, say .5 to 10 KT with a few perhaps up to nominal yield, which was the phrase for the Hiroshima device which was set at 20 KT. (KT is kilo ton of TNT, by the way.) The ICBM exchange with very destructive devices was assumed to be still in the future and perhaps avoidable by negotiation.
> 
> Now, the nuclear battlefield was not a healthy place, so we sought wide dispersion between subunits to minimize casualties. This made us vulnerable to defeat in detail by land forces, so tactics were built on concentrating to force the Warsaw Pact forces to in turn concentrate. We also made use of natural and manmade obstacles to force this concentration. When they had done so, we dropped a nuke on them and then counterattacked to restore the battlefield. At least that was the theory.



Very interesting.  So hat the Cold War turned hot and your skills put to use would fighting have been conducted in the impact area ?  Or were these highly radioactive zones intended to be "battlefield obstacles"  that had to be traversed ?


----------



## Old Sweat (15 May 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Very interesting.  So hat the Cold War turned hot and your skills put to use would fighting have been conducted in the impact area ?  Or were these highly radioactive zones intended to be "battlefield obstacles"  that had to be traversed ?



A comprehensive answer would be quite lengthy. Normally one aimed to minimize radiation, especially on ground one's own troops would have to cross. Mind you, the best way was to avoid these areas as much as possible and/or to avoid exposure by staying in them for the least amount of time. Easier said than done. One often created a more effective obstacle over a larger area by maximizing tree blowdown and building destruction, which was dependent both on the yield and the height of burst. Fires could also be started by the thermal pulse, and this could deny areas to movement. Radii of effects for this sort of thing could be found in the appropriate manuals.

It sounds cold-blooded and it was, but all we worried about (at least in military terms) was something called militarily significant radiation, which more or less was a dose that would incapacitate troops within the duration of the operation. Nobody really liked to think about what happened to troops who received a non-militarily significant dose at sometime in the future.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 May 2015)

I cant imagine that these were fun things to work on. 

Thank god cooler heads prevailed, no pun intended.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (15 May 2015)

I'm still amazed that even today nuclear weapons are still an issue. I don't just mean having them in nations' armaments but countries still wanting them. Bringing the issue into modern times with Iran gunning for them along with terrorists' groups I would still think some of the tactics Old Sweat brought up should still be taught


----------



## Blackadder1916 (15 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> That sounds like a nightmare. I had always assumed nuclear war went hand in hand with the Air Force and never knew ground units were involved. I have very little knowledge of nuclear weapons and always assumed they just came out of silos. . . . . . I still have a long ways to go in regards to all of this on top of learning about CAF history, specifically Infantry regiments as I am currently applying as an NCM for the Regular Force (hopefully PPCLI)



If you are interested in the mindset of the times (well, mostly from the American military institutional viewpoint), this gem from youtube may help.  "The Big Picture" was a weekly program produced by the US Army and shown on US network television. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr4o6CAeU1k

"Troop Test Smokey" referred to in the program included 43 Canadians, a platoon from 2nd Bn, QOR.

A report on the test is found at http://www.dtra.mil/Portals/61/Documents/1957%20-%20DNA%206004F%20-%20Shot%20SMOKEY%20-%20Operation%20PLUMBBOB.pdf


> Describes the activities of DOD participants in the atmospheric nuclear
> test, SMOKY, conducted on 31 August 1957 as part of the PLUMBBOB series,
> The various levels at which DOD personnel participated within the Nevada
> Test Organization and Desert Rock projects are described. Those projects
> ...


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (15 May 2015)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> If you are interested in the mindset of the times (well, mostly from the American military institutional viewpoint), this gem from youtube may help.  "The Big Picture" was a weekly program produced by the US Army and shown on US network television. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr4o6CAeU1k
> 
> "Troop Test Smokey" referred to in the program included 43 Canadians, a platoon from 2nd Bn, QOR.
> 
> A report on the test is found at http://www.dtra.mil/Portals/61/Documents/1957%20-%20DNA%206004F%20-%20Shot%20SMOKEY%20-%20Operation%20PLUMBBOB.pdf



Appreciate the link.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (15 May 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The 'nuclear battlefield' was (and is) quite complicated.  In the days of Old Sweat we had the Honest John which was capable of delivering nuclear warheads.  The Americans also had artillery of delivering nuclear rounds.  In my day, the Americans also had Special Forces who were capable of delivering "Backpack Nucs" behind enemy lines.  Delivery is limited only by the imagination, and sometimes "Hollywood" portrays reality.



Thankfully we don't have to worry too much about that anymore. Even though the Nuclear Age is essentially over the risk is always there and from what I understand there are safeguards to protect people from it. I never understood why WMD's were even thought of as a viable weapon given that the Cold War was no different than most conventional wars in that through a successful campaign a country was added to East or West. Destroying or making a nation unlivable seems counter productive to the idea that one ideology or another can benefit mankind


----------



## George Wallace (15 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Thankfully we don't have to worry too much about that anymore. Even though the Nuclear Age is essentially over the risk is always there and from what I understand there are safeguards to protect people from it. I never understood why WMD's were even thought of as a viable weapon given that the Cold War was no different than most conventional wars in that through a successful campaign a country was added to East or West. Destroying or making a nation unlivable seems counter productive to the idea that one ideology or another can benefit mankind



On the contrary.  Not to be a 'Tinfoil hat wearing' conspiracy theorist or anything, but the fact is that there have been a large number of nuclear isotopes, and even weapons, gone missing, predominantly in the former Soviet Union; but in other places as well.  Hollywood movies present that danger, the danger of a small nuclear device or a dirty bomb, being brought to our cities.  It is, and will always be, a serious security concern.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (15 May 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> On the contrary.  Not to be a 'Tinfoil hat wearing' conspiracy theorist or anything, but the fact is that there have been a large number of nuclear isotopes, and even weapons, gone missing, predominantly in the former Soviet Union; but in other places as well.  Hollywood movies present that danger, the danger of a small nuclear device or a dirty bomb, being brought to our cities.  It is, and will always be, a serious security concern.



I think they would have shown up by now, one way or another. I'm sure the FSB has a bullseye on anyone and everyone who knows anything and everything about WMD's from the Soviet Union. As crazy and aggressive as Russia is I doubt they want something from their arsenal, or at least a scientist culled from their programs in the 80's and 90's, showing up in the worst way in a major city after a attack


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Thankfully we don't have to worry too much about that anymore. Even though the Nuclear Age is essentially over the risk is always there and from what I understand there are safeguards to protect people from it. I never understood why WMD's were even thought of as a viable weapon given that the Cold War was no different than most conventional wars in that through a successful campaign a country was added to East or West. Destroying or making a nation unlivable seems counter productive to the idea that one ideology or another can benefit mankind




It was a question of *ground* and _*numbers*_:

     1. The North German Plain the favoured invasion route for millennia is long and flat and (relatively) open: perfect for offensive operations by heavily armoured forces; and

     2. The Warsaw Pact outnumbered and outgunned NATO on paper and in fact by a huge ratio. Even when one factored in inept (corrupt) Russian logistics and lousy (Russian) maintenance (not the same low standards, by the way
         in the excellent East German and quite good Czech armies) the numbers were still, overwhelmingly, in their favour. Tactical nukes made good, sound military sense. The West germans were unhaoppy, to be sure, but ...


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (15 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It was a question of *ground* and _*numbers*_:
> 
> 1. The North German Plain the favoured invasion route for millennia is long and flat and (relatively) open: perfect for offensive operations by heavily armoured forces; and
> 
> ...



Didn't know NATO was outnumbered which makes sense now that I think about it; China, Soviet Union, North Korea yikes! Interesting still is what many who were involved with the Cuban Missile Crisis would later say regarding whether or not they would have actually used nukes or not. I don't think there's a point during the Cold War where it was so close to happening and, at least according to Soviet cables sent afterwards, they were really, *really hesistant in doing so*


----------



## Kirkhill (16 May 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Very interesting.  So hat the Cold War turned hot and your skills put to use would fighting have been conducted in the impact area ?  Or were these highly radioactive zones intended to be "battlefield obstacles"  that had to be traversed ?



I believe that is one of the reasons the M113 was introduced. IIRC we were told the M113 could carry us buttoned up across the nuclear battlefield for 72 hours.  The armour on it was supposed to be sufficient to protect from rifle caliber ammunition, shrapnel and blast and to slow radiation effects.

It was as much a mobile fallout shelter as it was an armoured fighting vehicle.

I stand to be corrected but that was my understanding.


----------



## a_majoor (16 May 2015)

I don't recall the M-113 being advertized as a mobile radiation shelter; in my time it was a "battlefield taxi". 

The BMP was introduced for the purposes you describe above, to rapidly ferry troops across contaminated dead zones and allow them to fight (in a limited fashion) even when buttoned up. I don't think *our* side fully understood the thinking of the Sovets when we dubbed the BMP an Infantry Fighting Vehicle.

Of course the idea wasn't very viable and neither was the vehicle itself, but the Soviets had thousands of them so they flailed about with various concepts for the tactical use of the BMP (pictures of Soviet units in training exercises durig the advance show the positions of the BMP, tanks and dismounted troops in various positions over the years, early versions had a line of BMP's between the tanks and dismounted troops following behind, while by the 1980's the troops were dismounted and marching in line ahead of the BMP's..)

The BMP-2 was closer to the idea of an IFV with a two man turret and an automatic cannon, and the BMP-3 is essentially a fire support vehicle for dismounted infantry, with the ability to carry infantry troops in the back


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (24 May 2015)

I think one of the most interesting questions about the USSR and Stalin is if even if Hitler had not initiated a Second World War would a comparable conflict have taken place between Communism and Fascism in Europe?I think a Cold War was inevitable between the dominating ideologies in the West and East and WWII was a major turning point but just that: a turning point


----------



## vonGarvin (24 May 2015)

More as a thought experiment, I would offer that the Cold War could have had as its start on 23 August 1939 when von Ribbentrop and Molotov signed the so-called "Non-Agression Pact" that effectively set the conditions that allowed the Germans to feel safe in invading Poland a few days later.
When Germany defaulted on that pact on 22 June 1941 and until 7 May 1945, we were "Allies of Convenience".  As stated in previous posts, there were some blatant and some not so blatant signs of mistrust between the two sides long before Hitler put a pistol up to his temple.


----------



## a_majoor (25 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Thankfully we don't have to worry too much about that anymore. Even though the Nuclear Age is essentially over the risk is always there and from what I understand there are safeguards to protect people from it. I never understood why WMD's were even thought of as a viable weapon given that the Cold War was no different than most conventional wars in that through a successful campaign a country was added to East or West. Destroying or making a nation unlivable seems counter productive to the idea that one ideology or another can benefit mankind



Oh?

The USSR and even post Soviet Russia carried out extensive work on biological warfare, using an organization known as _Biopreparat_ and creating biological weapons on an industrial scale. Several accidents, including an outbreak on anthrax in the city of Sverdlovsk gave a hint of what was going on, and there were also records of tests of Soviet ICBM warheads which were quite different from normal, nuclear ones. The only explanation which seemed to make sense of the data (Americans and others would use radar and other means to track ICBM tests and try to determine what was going on) was the re entry vehicles were much larger and heavier than normal, consistent with a refrigerated capsule carrying bioweapons like smallpox.

In the 2000's there were occasional articles about Al qeda training bases being evacuated because they had become sources of some sort of infectious disease. While unhygienic conditions may have contributed, in some cases they may have been trying to experiment with bioweaponry.

And of course we now have a world where nations like Pakistan and the DPRK have nuclear weapons, but it is not clear they have proper custody and command and control of the weapons (on story passed on the rumor that Pakistan had dispersed their nukes in delivery vans driving around Islamabad to prevent American SoF from taking them and keeping them from Islamic militants...), while Iran is igniting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, as Saudi Arabia is openly calling for a nuclear force of its own, and nations like Turkey and Egypt, which also have hegemonic designs on the region, must be thinking about this as well.

Making things even more interesting is the skills and equipment are now widely dispersed to make chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, even in your own basement. A simple fission bomb is actually not that difficult to make, once you have the proper materials (which is really the hard part), and genetic engineering of pathological organisms is getting easier all the time.

And WMD was thought of not as a "viable" battlefield weapon, but rather as a way to destroy a society which was an existential threat to the other, which is how radical Islamists and possibly others see the West, which makes them more, rather than less attractive in some people's eyes.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (25 May 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Oh?
> 
> The USSR and even post Soviet Russia carried out extensive work on biological warfare, using an organization known as _Biopreparat_ and creating biological weapons on an industrial scale. Several accidents, including an outbreak on anthrax in the city of Sverdlovsk gave a hint of what was going on, and there were also records of tests of Soviet ICBM warheads which were quite different from normal, nuclear ones. The only explanation which seemed to make sense of the data (Americans and others would use radar and other means to track ICBM tests and try to determine what was going on) was the re entry vehicles were much larger and heavier than normal, consistent with a refrigerated capsule carrying bioweapons like smallpox.
> 
> ...



I was under the impression Pakistan's nuclear arsenal was under the command of an authority other than the conventional military. I think the threat of CBRN attacks is over exaggerated but always a possibility. No nation wants to be responsible, whether it be allowing one of their scientists' to fall into the hands of a group, allowing materials to fall into the hands of terrorists' groups, for the releasing of WMD's on another nations soil. Honestly, if it hasn't happened already I can't see it ever happening, .


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 May 2015)

ISIS claims they will be able to buy a nuke from Pakistan within a year.... 8)


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (25 May 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ISIS claims they will be able to buy a nuke from Pakistan within a year.... 8)



Not if Jack Bauer can help it...

But seriously advertising that they can acquire weapon's from the Pakistani smells like BS to me. Like I stated earlier no nation wants to be the one whom allowed a WMD to detonate on another nation's soil via terrorists. WMD's are our boogieman that's unfortunately here to stay


----------



## George Wallace (25 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Not if Jack Bauer can help it...
> 
> But seriously advertising that they can acquire weapon's from the Pakistani smells like BS to me. Like I stated earlier no nation wants to be the one whom allowed a WMD to detonate on another nation's soil via terrorists. WMD's are our boogieman that's unfortunately here to stay



Not to be cynical or a skeptic, but Pakistan has been known to play both sides.  Often Pakistan's military left and right hands do not have a clue what its other hand is doing.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (25 May 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not to be cynical or a skeptic, but Pakistan has been known to play both sides.  Often Pakistan's military left and right hands do not have a clue what its other hand is doing.



True but double dealing with the Taliban and facilitating WMD's are two very different things.


----------



## George Wallace (25 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> True but double dealing with the Taliban and facilitating WMD's are two very different things.



I would not trust the ISI.  I would not put it past them to facilitate the passage of WMD's to belligerents.


----------



## cupper (25 May 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would not trust the ISI.  I would not put it past them to facilitate the passage of WMD's to belligerents.



True, but I suspect the possibility of having the entire country wiped off the map would be a significant deterrent. 

Or at least a significant portion of the ISI infrastructure.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (25 May 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> True, but I suspect the possibility of having the entire country wiped off the map would be a significant deterrent.
> 
> Or at least a significant portion of the ISI infrastructure.



If any country were to allow WMD's to fall into the hands of terrorists' the entire world would want their head on a platter. I'm certain if it were to happen it would have already. I like to think the FSB, CIA, MI6, and all the other intelligence agencies in the world have a uniform interest in making sure no one obtains such weapons.


----------



## cupper (25 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> If any country were to allow WMD's to fall into the hands of terrorists' the entire world would want their head on a platter. I'm certain if it were to happen it would have already. I like to think the FSB, CIA, MI6, and all the other intelligence agencies in the world have a uniform interest in making sure no one obtains such weapons.



Never overestimate the value of self preservation as a motivator.


----------



## a_majoor (25 May 2015)

Pakistan is already playing both sides of the nuclear fence. It is widely suspected that they have been passing secrets from their nuclear arms research to Iran (as a powerful neighbour right on their border, this is probably not too surprising); while Saudi Arabia has broadly hinted that they will be able to acquire a nuclear arsenal from Pakistan if Iran gets nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia also has a great deal of clout, being a huge supplier of foreign aid to Pakistan, and can certainly "buy" the skills and expertise needed.

And Pakistan also has their own nuclear neighbour on the other border; India is certainly not noted for playing nice if their interests are being threatened, so their nuclear threshold is probably a lot lower than would be desirable under normal circumstances (and India's "Cold Start" nuclear weapons policy is not something to make people sleep well at night either).


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (25 May 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Pakistan is already playing both sides of the nuclear fence. It is widely suspected that they have been passing secrets from their nuclear arms research to Iran (as a powerful neighbour right on their border, this is probably not too surprising); while Saudi Arabia has broadly hinted that they will be able to acquire a nuclear arsenal from Pakistan if Iran gets nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia also has a great deal of clout, being a huge supplier of foreign aid to Pakistan, and can certainly "buy" the skills and expertise needed.
> 
> And Pakistan also has their own nuclear neighbour on the other border; India is certainly not noted for playing nice if their interests are being threatened, so their nuclear threshold is probably a lot lower than would be desirable under normal circumstances (and India's "Cold Start" nuclear weapons policy is not something to make people sleep well at night either).



You guys may be onto something as Obama was once asked what country keeps him up at night and he responded: "Pakistan". I think for many like myself who didn't grow up during the Cold War the idea of WMD's are like a relic. I think many people nowadays are so used to the idea of "lone wolves" or "soft targets" that the idea of an organization such as al-Qaeda or ISIS obtaining dirty bombs or the like are straight out of a movie and unlikely. Truth be told, the more I think about it the more I remember many people never expecting airplanes to be used as weapons again (Pearl Harbor) but sure enough 9/11 proved them wrong


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 May 2015)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

I don't think he acted alone and represents a group that believe in the "Sunni Muslim Bomb". I don't believe he would willingly help the Iranians as they would be considered to great a threat.


----------



## Brasidas (26 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Thankfully we don't have to worry too much about that anymore. Even though the Nuclear Age is essentially over the risk is always there and from what I understand there are safeguards to protect people from it. I never understood why WMD's were even thought of as a viable weapon given that the Cold War was no different than most conventional wars in that through a successful campaign a country was added to East or West. Destroying or making a nation unlivable seems counter productive to the idea that one ideology or another can benefit mankind



The Ukraine-Russia conflict is going to be looked at as a reason to acquire and stockpile nukes.

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to others threatening your interests. Ukraine agreed not to be a nuclear power because Russia promised not to mess with it. Since unbacked promises were less than effective, and Russia might not have changed the borders in its favour if it was risking a nuclear response, countries may be less receptive to anti-nuclear rhetoric. Iran and Saudi Arabia say hello.

The nuclear age is not over.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (26 May 2015)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> The Ukraine-Russia conflict is going to be looked at as a reason to acquire and stockpile nukes.
> 
> Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to others threatening your interests. Ukraine agreed not to be a nuclear power because Russia promised not to mess with it. Since unbacked promises were less than effective, and Russia might not have changed the borders in its favour if it was risking a nuclear response, countries may be less receptive to anti-nuclear rhetoric. Iran and Saudi Arabia say hello.
> 
> The nuclear age is not over.



The nuclear bomb as a deterrent is ever present and will have a new chapter when Middle Eastern countries acquire them but the likelihood of them being used as weapons is unlikely. Several of the posters here have written about their time in the CAF during the Cold War where tactics, equipment and actual units were built around the idea of them being used. As far as I know this doesn't happen anymore, not just in the Canadian Forces, but in other armed forces.


----------



## Brasidas (26 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> The nuclear bomb as a deterrent is ever present and will have a new chapter when Middle Eastern countries acquire them but the likelihood of them being used as weapons is unlikely. Several of the posters here have written about their time in the CAF during the Cold War where tactics, equipment and actual units were built around the idea of them being used. As far as I know this doesn't happen anymore, not just in the Canadian Forces, but in other armed forces.



We still train for and deploy with gear for an NBC environment. Everybody knows how to use an atropine needle and practices how to work in MOPP gear for biological and chemical weapons. We have "an actual unit built around the idea of [nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons] being used".

There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but you're opining quite a bit. Reference the quote in my previous post.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (26 May 2015)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> We still train for and deploy with gear for an NBC environment. Everybody knows how to use an atropine needle and practices how to work in MOPP gear for biological and chemical weapons. We have "an actual unit built around the idea of [nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons] being used".
> 
> There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but you're opining quite a bit. Reference the quote in my previous post.



You're right and I apologize. I am speaking out of school with regards to what the CAF teaches and doesn't.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (29 May 2015)

Why was the USSR not able to capitalize on its energy resources during the 80's to sustain itself? It seems like oil is the main export for the country and given that oil was as important during the 80's as today if the USSR had capitalized would it still be here today?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 May 2015)

Poor internal management. 

One thing I have noted that with the exception of Israel, nuclear armed foes generally continue on their conflicts with proxy's as the risks become to high with nuclear weapons.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (30 May 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan
> 
> I don't think he acted alone and represents a group that believe in the "Sunni Muslim Bomb". I don't believe he would willingly help the Iranians as they would be considered to great a threat.



AQ Khan is someone I am learning about now; I watched a documentary about him recently. People like him, moreso than Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi, scares me


----------



## a_majoor (31 May 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Why was the USSR not able to capitalize on its energy resources during the 80's to sustain itself? It seems like oil is the main export for the country and given that oil was as important during the 80's as today if the USSR had capitalized would it still be here today?



In the 80's, the USSR was still seen as a threat, and President Reagan strove mightily to prevent the Europeans from becoming dependent on Russian gas. The USSR was also caught in a price collapse in the 1980's as well (on Albertans can fill you in on), which cratered the budget for the Russians and essentially started the house of cards collapsing.

Since the fall of the wall, Russia was initially seen as a partner, and oil and gas exports were encouraged. Then the "Green" movement and "Climate Change" became a sort of religion in Germany and other parts of Europe, so coal and nuclear was set aside. Since "Green" energy sources are expensive, intermittent and low energy density, the demand for Russian gas exploded. Everyone seemed to get along happily, until Vladimir Putin's 2007 speech in Munich, which may be seen in the future as the start of Cold War II. Mitt Romney wasn't psychic, he just had a foreign affairs advisor team which actually read and interpreted the news.


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (2 Jun 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> In the 80's, the USSR was still seen as a threat, and President Reagan strove mightily to prevent the Europeans from becoming dependent on Russian gas. The USSR was also caught in a price collapse in the 1980's as well (on Albertans can fill you in on), which cratered the budget for the Russians and essentially started the house of cards collapsing.
> 
> Since the fall of the wall, Russia was initially seen as a partner, and oil and gas exports were encouraged. Then the "Green" movement and "Climate Change" became a sort of religion in Germany and other parts of Europe, so coal and nuclear was set aside. Since "Green" energy sources are expensive, intermittent and low energy density, the demand for Russian gas exploded. Everyone seemed to get along happily, until Vladimir Putin's 2007 speech in Munich, which may be seen in the future as the start of Cold War II. Mitt Romney wasn't psychic, he just had a foreign affairs advisor team which actually read and interpreted the news.



Do you feel America is in the same position in terms of global opinion and strength (military, economy) now as it was during let's say, the Reagan administration? Given how the last ten years have treated America with the Iraq war, financial crisis, debt and the rise of China and India I'd say America would be in a tougher spot should it engage Moscow in a Cold War type situation. With Russia turning East as the West shuns her I feel like this time America along with her allies will be facing a three headed dragon (India, China, Russia) this time rather than a singular one


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jun 2015)

Given the bad relations between India and China, an engaged and adroit Administration could find some leverage to bring India on board with the Anglosphere project as a minimum. And given the increasingly crappy "customer service" India is receiving from Russia on various co development projects (look at the Aircraft carrier which was plagued with long delays and cost overruns, or the PAK-FA fighter), there are some opportunities to ease India away from that relationship as well.

Givven India's potential relationship with the Anglosphere group of nations (and honourary Anglosphere members like the Netherlands and Japan), as well as India's position as a maritime nation rather than a continental one, this job may have to fall on the rest of the Anglosphere nations (either as a coordinated plan, or just everyone pulling in the same direction as they attempt to engage India as a powerful trade partner), rather than wait until 2017 when the decks are cleared and American can start the long process of repair and reconstruction.


----------



## VinceW (3 Jun 2015)

The Cold war was started by the Soviets when they first started taking over countries under their control Soviet fanboys and apologists like to say it was because of the US Marshall plan but events like that happened after the Soviets were being the aggressors in Eastern Europe.


----------



## Harrigan (14 Jun 2015)

I would suggest the Cold War happened well prior to the Marshall Plan and the Soviet bomb.  Once the Allies realized that Germany was on the run and would eventually be defeated, they were all looking ahead to the post-war situation.  If I had to pick a specific event, I would vote for the Yalta Conference in Feb 1945.

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (14 Jun 2015)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> We still train for and deploy with gear for an NBC environment. Everybody knows how to use an atropine needle and practices how to work in MOPP gear for biological and chemical weapons. We have "an actual unit built around the idea of [nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons] being used".
> 
> There's nothing wrong with asking questions, but you're opining quite a bit. Reference the quote in my previous post.



There certainly is "an actual unit", so the threat is considered to be possible.

However, I wouldn't say that the "CAF" is able to "operate" in a CBRN environment, (other than the "unit" mentioned).  For the rest, it is mostly about surviving an event, not operating in that environment.  Two very different beasts.

Harrigan


----------



## FortYorkRifleman (23 Aug 2015)

Was NATO capable of winning a military victory over the Warsaw Pact? I look at The Korean War and Vietnam as major military victories for the Communists while Cuba as a political one. When looking at proxy wars where the US and the USSR supported opposing sides like Iran-Iraq War even then a stalemate was had. I look at the Soviet-Afghan War as being one which the Soviets were gonna lose anyway, regardless of American support of the Mujahadeen. 

I leave it to you guys as to whether I am incorrect in my assertion that NATO couldn't beat the Warsaw Pact pound for pound in a war.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (23 Aug 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Was NATO capable of winning a military victory over the Warsaw Pact?  . . .
> 
> I leave it to you guys as to whether I am incorrect in my assertion that NATO couldn't beat the Warsaw Pact pound for pound in a war.



The best waged wars are those in which neither side fires a shot.  I would assert that we (the military, NATO we) already proved that we won a military victory over them.  Is the Warsaw Pact still in existence?

Yes, I know that you're talking about a probable slug-out in pitched battle, but war (the continuation of politics by other means) isn't a bare-knuckles match.  Outcomes are not necessarily measured by the blood drawn.


----------



## LeonK (23 Nov 2015)

FortYorkRifleman said:
			
		

> Never knew that happened. So Gouzenko was a defector? Interesting



Ditto, I didn't know either. I'm going to have to look at this more, really interesting.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Dec 2015)

This is slightly off topic, but it's close enough ...

America's global supremacy began in about 1898, with the Spanish American War, but you could cite Admiral Perry and the "opening" of Japan in 1853 as an earlier start. The important thing is that Britain _peaked_ in around 1835; Germany began to _ascend_ about then, but America passed them both sometime before 1900.

But while America was a great power, it was not _*the*_ unchallenged "superpower" until 27 Dec 45 when the Breton Woods agreements were ratified and the IMF and World Bank were established. 

The Bretton Woods negotiations (July 1944) had been long and hard but, in the end, Harry Dexter White, of the the US delegation, beat John Maynard Keynes, of the UK, on every single point and the US dollar was _de facto_ the world's "reserve" currency and the financial centre of balance shifted from London to New York ... almost.






Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes at Bretton Woods, in July 1944,
at the last "great battle" of World War II.

The US plan was that New York, _Wall Street_, should supplant _The City_, in London as the centre of the world's financial system. It didn't quite work that way ... for a variety of reasons, including things we used to call "invisible exports," _The City_ still remained, if not exactly dominant, at least not dominated by _Wall Street_.

The USSR, the Russians were, essentially, bit players, not even as important as Australia and Canada, at Bretton Woods.

Bretton Woods was much, much bigger and more important than any nuclear bomb, and the US dollar's status as the world's "reserve currency" meant that the entire world underwrote America's debt and financial growth for over 25 years, until Aug 71 and the _Nixon Shock_.


----------

