The USSR Never Develops Nuclear Weapons?

Hkelukka

Banned
If the US is the only country with a military, the only battlefield will be in the minds of the US electorate. A place where the soviet union can surely funnel hundreds of billions of USD's if it sees it as a war for ideology and not a war for russian dominance.

But then again.

The Soviet policies made about as much sense for the good of communism than the Manifest Destiny did for Native american rights.

If you want to pick apart how the soviets should have lead their country we can have a nice state-theory debate.

But that being said.

If the soviet never developes nuclear weapons, maintains a small professional army capable of projecting power succesfully in all territories which border the soviet and defence the soviet against any ground invasion that might happen in any situation. The US population will absolutely cry for blood in the elections and the cuts in military spending.

A isolationist communist state which focuses on doing everything in its power to influence the voters in other countries, forgoes all military posturing and focuses on generating as many goods for sale at "communist" prices as possible.

That is to say.

Run the state as one giant factory that is designed to produce "better culture" at "cheaper rates" for "capitalist consumption" and you win the war.
 
Hardly. After the war Truman would have been very happy to put aside the US Nuclear Arsenal. Under the Baruch Plan, the US would have agreed to dismantle its Nuclear Weapons, and but its Nuclear Energy program under UN supervision. The only catch was the USSR would have to do the same, and Stalin would never agree to any type of international regulatory regime that would actually enforce such an agreement.

Now, the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission actually controlling the World's nuclear weapons for any length of time would have been rather unlikely. But it cannot be said that the US attempted to use its four year nuclear monopoly to dictate policy to the rest of the world. Rather, it made a great effort towards Nuclear non-proliferation, and gave up on the effort only after such a regime proved to be impossible to implement.

yea...cos the united states has never gone back on its word or policies, or changed their mind the next president over...cos the usa would never go against the wishes of the un...

but seriously...the un was pretty weak at the time, so what would make you think, if the us continued to have a sole monoply on nuclear power and arms, that they wouldnt just keep it to themselves, either after trumans death, or some president down the line, and use it as a power play in the very young, and still forming, un
 
If the US is the only country with a military, the only battlefield will be in the minds of the US electorate. A place where the soviet union can surely funnel hundreds of billions of USD's if it sees it as a war for ideology and not a war for russian dominance.

But then again.

The Soviet policies made about as much sense for the good of communism than the Manifest Destiny did for Native american rights.

If you want to pick apart how the soviets should have lead their country we can have a nice state-theory debate.

But that being said.

If the soviet never developes nuclear weapons, maintains a small professional army capable of projecting power succesfully in all territories which border the soviet and defence the soviet against any ground invasion that might happen in any situation. The US population will absolutely cry for blood in the elections and the cuts in military spending.

A isolationist communist state which focuses on doing everything in its power to influence the voters in other countries, forgoes all military posturing and focuses on generating as many goods for sale at "communist" prices as possible.

That is to say.

Run the state as one giant factory that is designed to produce "better culture" at "cheaper rates" for "capitalist consumption" and you win the war.

1. NOt so much the US electorate, but the hearts and minds of Europe and the Third World? Could be.

2. THe Soviet army is an army of conscripts, Hell, so was ours at the time You're not going to have a small army.

3. There were cuts in military spending. That's what Massive Retaliation was about. Nuclear weapons are cheap. Compared to the divisions they replace.

4. That being said,
isolationist communist state which focuses on doing everything in its power to influence the voters in other countries, forgoes all military posturing and focuses on generating as many goods for sale at "communist" prices as possible.

If you replace voters with workers, I could see this as barely possible.

5. But victory is not assured by any means. THe op merely asks for survival, and with this I think it possible.

Stalin has to die, fast. Maybe a lot of the upper leadership.

Mmm, starting to sound like the nazi's took moscow...;)
 
Top