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.

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

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.

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 .

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...ed-First-Ever/

Originally Posted by I3BrigPvSk

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...ed-First-Ever/

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 .

Originally Posted by lljadw

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 .

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

As I expected,you have no answer on post 58 .