Red Alert - Our 1953 USSR

[Fratsup]

This is why my entire point is that we should do our increase with budget in mind opposed to trying mindlessly to close the gap with USA, we simply need to make sure that our gap isn't to big like it's now and that we can bomb every major settlement across not just USA, but it's allies as well and third countries if push comes to showe.

I mean at this point would it not make more sense to support our allies own nuclear arsenal instead.

Actually Soviets overtook USA otl when it comes to number of nuclear heads. Generally my point is to mantain the gap and parity with the USA relative to our economic. If our economy is half of their for example then we have half the nukes. Point is that we need to have significant number of nukes if cases like Cuban missle crisis comes around. Sometimes people won't play nice and we need to make sure that USA isn't only power with the monoply on force.

But wasn't the US at a greater overall capacity and strike force during that time anyways? I mean it seemed to me that the reason things did not escalate was that the US and Soviets would rather not have nukes right next to them rather than any potential strike capability especially since the US dominated in that capacity during that time.

I mean it would make more sense to push nukes in strategic regions than simply having more would do us better in any potential negotiations.

It's a cold war , we need to be ready for anything instead of simply ignoring important piece of our defense. More weapons and supplies will also cause mantainance issues and we can achieve that more easily by playing to out strength.

But our strength was in mass manufacturing and military supplies. Also if we are talking on preparing would the bunker/cave gap be a greater issue? I mean I doubt we could even strike the US arsenal before the US unleashes it on us even in a parity scenario. Plus if you do worry about first strike capabilities then would it not make more sense to discover better and more efficient ways for delivery than sheer volume? Having a stronger nuclear fleet, missiles, and even orbital strike capability seems way more efficient in that regard.

 

[Kriss]

I mean at this point would it not make more sense to support our allies own nuclear arsenal instead.

You mean our puppet regimes , neutral powers and China which even if it becomes closer to us will be it's own thing? I would say no, it doesn't make sense.

In China's case, i do want to prevent the split and mantain positive relations but im quite ceartin that down the line we won't always be on the same note on some issues.

I mean it would make more sense to push nukes in strategic regions than simply having more would do us better in any potential negotiations.

I edited my post, but this was generally the idea.

"We can scale down our nukes only when USA decides to sit on negotiations table with us, otherwise we are basically just throwing in the towel here and are letting USA to have biggest Nuclear Arsenal which it can actually mantain without a lot of issues as it wouldn't really have a real challenger to it's hegemony to overspend in the first place.

If they have someone willing to contest them they'll be forced to spend more which will make them a lot more willing to sit down and start denuclearization talks. That's the point of maintaining the decent parity , to force other side to realize that it needs to deescalate before the gap is closed."

Generally not pursuing parity means conceding to the USA in that regard which would make them more unwilling to sit on negotiation table.

Basically if we just throw in the towel and decide to have 500 nukes nothing is stopping USA from simply deciding to comfortably sit on 5000 nukes which is the number USA can mantain quite easily and due to us being so kind not to contest them they can avoid overspending themselves and will be able to focus more money on other things as well, i don't know about you but im far from comfortable to allow one country to have that kind of advantage over us. This is why my goal is gradual increase to a better number, at least 1/3rd of what USA has and further with us closing the gap in our gdp to at least half of the number USA has. Until USA doesn't decide to sit on negotiation table so we can get their number to 2000 to our 1000, or whatever number we have relative to them.

But our strength was in mass manufacturing and military supplies. Also if we are talking on preparing would the bunker/cave gap be a greater issue? I mean I doubt we could even strike the US arsenal before the US unleashes it on us even in a parity scenario. Plus if you do worry about first strike capabilities then would it not make more sense to discover better and more efficient ways for delivery than sheer volume? Having a stronger nuclear fleet, missiles, and even orbital strike capability seems way more efficient in that regard.

Point is that we are super power, we can pursue both quantity and quality down the line as long as we make economically sound decisions (basically not overfocus on nuke number opposed to having gradual increase in line with our economic capacities). Overfocusing on one will just leave us woefully weak in other sectors. As for striking USA, we can close that gap when we get there but we ceartinly need to work on having those capabilities.

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

Honestly, instead of just putting all of our eggs in the "make MOAR nukes" basket, we oughta invest instead in missile and interception systems to both avoid such nukes as well as develop our tech in general, the former is especially important if we are to try and land in the moon first

 

[Kriss]

Honestly, instead of just putting all of our eggs in the "make MOAR nukes" basket, we oughta invest instead in missile and interception systems to both avoid such nukes as well as develop our tech in general, the former is especially important if we are to try and land in the moon first

That's understandable and no one is advocating for "make MOAR nukes" opposed to avoid having to little nukes and have balanced budget overall. Just investing enough to keep some semblance of parity with the USA will still leave more than enough money for other projects while giving us decent deterent and an extra barganing Chip if we start denuclearization talks.

 

[dunHozzie]

I have an issue with almost all plans: they cost goodwill, time and money. The USSR had to rebuild itself and the Warsaw pact, while still keeping somewhat up with the West. So before you all start spending billions, what will we not spend them on?

And again, please keep in mind that something reducing the army to a volunteer force of say about one million takes years and massive hit on goodwill. New weaponry: about 5-10 years. New factories: 1-3 years pending scope and availability of subcomponents. Rail: about 60 months per 500 miles / 800 km (planning and building). Administrative reform: 1-3 years best case.

 

[Ryan lozano]

@panpiotr may I propose options for us to do things in South America

 

[Fratsup]

Generally not pursuing parity means conceding to the USA in that regard which would make them more unwilling to sit on negotiation table.

But was it not more due to changing leadership and more importantly the populations demands that did more to limit the amount of nuclear weapons or at least try to contain them? Seems like the US always held an advantage in that regard with them only coming into the negotiation table after it became clear that outright nuclear war was no longer the only or even the winning move.

Basically if we just throw in the towel and decide to have 500 nukes nothing is stopping USA from simply deciding to comfortably sit on 5000 nukes which is the number USA can mantain quite easily and due to us being so kind not to contest them they can avoid overspending themselves and will be able to focus more money on other things as well, i don't know about you but im far from comfortable to allow one country to have that kind of advantage over us. This is why my goal is gradual increase to a better number, at least 1/3rd of what USA has and further with us closing the gap in our gdp to at least half of the number USA has. Until USA doesn't decide to sit on negotiation table so we can get their number to 2000 to our 1000, or whatever number we have relative to them.

But the US will always have an easier time in making more nukes than us simply due to having less damage from WW2, a stronger market and a strong economic policy, far larger access to resources, a stronger scientific and industrial base, greater education and so on. If anything the whole attempt to gain a nuclear parity was something that greatly hurt the Soviets who simply were never able or would ever be able to both reach full parity or maintain it without massive sacrifices to themselves.

Really if we want some form of parity simply having nukes in Cuba while having Turkey not have US nukes stationed there would do more for gaining parity than any attempt at making enough to have an equal or slightly higher amount.

 

[John Howard]

1. Please write down, how should the Soviet government react to ongoing uprising in East Germany?
I'll add my agreement to the plans of @ruffino and @Fratsup.
2. Please write down, how should the Soviet government handle the topic of Gulag forced labor camps system and 2.5 million political prisoners in USSR?
I'll add my agreement to the plans of @Kurd Gossemer and @TheImperialTheorist.
3. On the invitation of General Secretary Zhukov, China's leader Mao Zedong will soon arrive to Moscow. Please write down, which topics should be discussed during this meeting in Moscow?
I'll add my agreement to @Kurd Gossemer and @ruffino.
4. Should the USSR end occupation of Austria?
I'll add my agreement to @Imperador Pedro III

 

[panpiotr]

@panpiotr may I propose options for us to do things in South America

Sure

 

[Kriss]

But was it not more due to changing leadership and more importantly the populations demands that did more to limit the amount of nuclear weapons or at least try to contain them? Seems like the US always held an advantage in that regard with them only coming into the negotiation table after it became clear that outright nuclear war was no longer the only or even the winning move.

Those demands from the population were there due to USA being stuck in arms race, let's not assume that they will be there if we throw in the towel and settle for 500 nukes. They can simply stop at 5000 nukes and say that they limited the number while having absolute dominance over the globe and enough money to spend on other things. They as heck won't go for 10k, or 20k bombs if we don't do it but they also won't really have a reason to settle for 1000, or 2000 when they can have 10 bombs to every Soviet bomb and still have enough money to throw at other things conpeting against us across the globe (basically throwing in the towel in nuclear race won't really make USA any weaker opposed to it being stronger abd more confident in their dealings with us). If you exit the race USA can simply decide to win and then race you in other stuff and 10 bombs to every Soviet one is a win.

But the US will always have an easier time in making more nukes than us simply due to having less damage from WW2, a stronger market and a strong economic policy, far larger access to resources, a stronger scientific and industrial base, greater education and so on. If anything the whole attempt to gain a nuclear parity was something that greatly hurt the Soviets who simply were never able or would ever be able to both reach full parity or maintain it without massive sacrifices to themselves.

This is why im speaking about doing it appropriatly to our budget instead of going to a spending spree to gain nukes. We build up out arsenal gradually based on our own capabilities with a goal of closing the gap with USA somewhat over couple of decades. In 20, to 30 years all the problems you are speaking about will be resolved and we will also close the gap with USA in terms of GDP, Science and industrial base. Not completely but probably enough to have half of what USA has including nukes.

USA for all it's power cannot really adopt 10 nukes for every Soviet nuke if we continue to build up gradually, proof being that USSR eventually catched up in otl.

So us taking more easy and gradual approach to nuclear race is a sound decision that basically resolves all those problems you are speaking about while still forcing USA to overspend and to sit to negotiating table with us in the future all the while closing the gap eventually to a less threatening number.

Basically point is if USA has 2 % of its spending for nukes and if we take 1,5% of our spending we will still close the gap somewhat relative to our gdp achieving 1/4rth if we follow current numbers.

 

[Fratsup]

Those demands were there due to USA being stuck in arms race, if we throw in the towel and settle for 500 nukes they can simply stop at 5000 nukes and say that they limited the number while having absolute dominance over the globe and enough money to spend on other things. They as heck won't go for 10k, or 20k bombs if we don't do it but they also won't really have a reason to settle for 1000, or 2000 when they can have 10 bombs to every Soviet bomb and still have enough money to throw at other things. If you exit the race USA can simply decide to win and then race you in other stuff and 10 bombs to every Soviet one is a win.

I mean why enter the race in the first place? As long as we have enough nuclear weapons to be a threat and more importantly increasing influence to contain the US, it becomes a bit of a moot point on the amount of nukes the US has. If anything this would help us both in terms of optics since the US will seem as both the aggressor and overtly nuke happy but it would also see a major disapproval from those against the military industrial complex, mass militarization, and nuclear war.

Also how does one even win the nuclear arms race if all everyone does is increase payloads, delivery services, and amount of weapons? It seems like a complete waste of time and resources especially on account that we wont use them since the whole MAD situation.

 

[Ryan lozano]

Sure

I say we do some things to make South America to our side making the USA have less control in their playground as there bigger Soviet nations there

 

[Fratsup]

Those demands were there due to USA being stuck in arms race, if we throw in the towel and settle for 500 nukes they can simply stop at 5000 nukes and say that they limited the number while having absolute dominance over the globe and enough money to spend on other things. They as heck won't go for 10k, or 20k bombs if we don't do it but they also won't really have a reason to settle for 1000, or 2000 when they can have 10 bombs to every Soviet bomb and still have enough money to throw at other things. If you exit the race USA can simply decide to win and then race you in other stuff and 10 bombs to every Soviet one is a win.

How is having more nukes going to help us gain more influence across the world or the US for that matter?

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

@panpiotr may I propose options for us to do things in South America

Same thing with Africa, we oughta start supporting certain leaders and leaking intelligence from Western powers to avoid people like Lumumba and give support to the likes of Mosaddegh in order to build up good relations with anti colonial nations already

 

[Kriss]

I mean why enter the race in the first place? As long as we have enough nuclear weapons to be a threat and more importantly increasing influence to contain the US, it becomes a bit of a moot point on the amount of nukes the US has. If anything this would help us both in terms of optics since the US will seem as both the aggressor and overtly nuke happy but it would also see a major disapproval from those against the military industrial complex, mass militarization, and nuclear war.

Also how does one even win the nuclear arms race if all everyone does is increase payloads, delivery services, and amount of weapons? It seems like a complete waste of time and resources especially on account that we wont use them since the whole MAD situation.

You are basically ignoring every thing i just said. USA won't mantain nuclear race with us for eternety, if we stop at the number you propose we do they can basically adopt 10 nukes to every Soviet nuke and then stop. They won’t get any bad PR, they'll have absolute nuclear dominance over us and 10 of their nukes to our one is a victory in every metric. They will basically win while ending the nuclear race as they'll be free to end it on their terms at any time.

As for payloads and everything else? Why do countries have nuclear weapons today? Nuclear weapons pay for themselves with security and barganing power they offer and if you give USA the privilege to dictate how much parity they want to keep with us then they'll do it.

Otherwise 500 nukes is the number we can achieve easily, far before we achieve economic parity, this will leave USA free to take more gradual approach (im proposing for us) to nuclear armament and use their far greater resources to invest them in other area's to ensure that they won't fall behind.

Basically they'll be free to dictate how to end nuclear race opposed to negotiating it with us and will be free to invest their money elsewhere to compete with us. USA won't behave like otl opposed to to taking our moves into the account and then making their policies accordingly.

How is having more nukes going to help us gain more influence across the world or the US for that matter?

Well for example in situations like Vietnam war they can simply act like they did in N. Korea and threaten us to stop sending weapons abd suplies. They have 10 nukes to our one not counting their allies. Forceful diplomacy is always an option and from the experience i had in last Soviet quest here people do like to be confrontational, something that won't work against USA that has wast nuclear advantage.

So if you decide that you don’t want Nuclear Race then you can expect that USA will respond to every threat we issue with the threat of their own as they'll have monoply on force. So you can forget that proposal about stationing nukes to Cuba. USA will have monoply on force abd will be stronger, thus it will feel that it's free to dictate where we station our nukes.

Economic power and influence can only happen with appropriate military power to back it up.

 

[Fratsup]

Economic power and influence can only happen with appropriate military power to back it up.

I mean how does outright nuclear brinkmanship help in that regard? If we want to secure economic power and influence it seems we should build more AKs and tanks to send to allies, and freedom fighters than further nuclear escalation.

 

[Kriss]

I mean how does outright nuclear brinkmanship help in that regard? If we want to secure economic power and influence it seems we should build more AKs and tanks to send to allies, and freedom fighters than further nuclear escalation.

It helps because USA can simply order us to stop it, or Block the sea like they did in Cuba. What will we do? Threaten them with war when they can flatten us?

Also if we give up nuclear race USA can also end it (just on their terms) and then invest in all those things as well, of course they'll have greater confidence when dealing with us.

 

[Ryan lozano]

@panpiotr since Zhukov won’t be replace til 1976 when he’s close to death I believe this will have enough influence where instead of Stalinism and his cult being in power or influence it’s Zhukovism
Because he’s like so influential right now hes down right the Washington, Roosevelt, and Lincoln combine for the USA that many people will literally follow his lead

 

[Red Angel]

@panpiotr, Can we put a vote on how to handle the expenses on nuclear weapons and the like since this discussion gonna keep going back and forth?

 

[Kriss]

To distance myself from nuclear discussion (it keeps me away from other issues) i want to talk about our priorities a little, short term and long term plans.

Honestly our immediate priorities are probably rebuilding from the war, destalinization of our economy and society, rebuilding of Eastern Europe and establishment of our hegemony over it via economic, political and military integration of Eastern Europe in our system.

In case of China i believe we should try to avoid the split under understanding that China will eventually become it's own thing, still i want to delay that and forge economic ties with China as we and Eastern Europe can sell our industrial products to them for quite some time and benefit from their industrialization (they'll achieve it anyway so we may as well be the ones getting the credit and money for it).

Otherwise i also hope to mantain ideological alliance with China with them staying in global non European (we need to keep our dominance here) Communist institutions and working with us in spread of Communism across the world.

In case of Cold War? I believe our focus should be on pushing the Western influence from third world (in Cold War those were basically nonalinged countries) while working on integrating those countries in Soviet formed Organisations and systems while supporting them in adoption of Left Leaning policies and governments. I believe that Cold war can be won in third world by pushing Western influence from those countries and from their resources and monetizing on that.

We should also try to get Yugoslavia back in the fold, or at least get them economically Integrated with us.