Scenario 1:
rest of the WW1 world.
Scenario 2:
Rest of the WW2 world. ( nukes allowed for WW2 world too use )
Scenario 3:
Vietnam war
Scenario 4:
The US army from WW1
Scenario 5:
The US army from WW2 ( nukes allowed for WW2 America too use )
Scenario 6:
The US army from the Vietnam war
Scenario 7:
The US army from 2001 ( Nukes not allowed )
Scenario 8:
The rest of the world from 1991 ( Nukes allowed for rest of the world )
This post rests on native land
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I have a better fun alternative scenario for you
US vs USSR in
1949 (first Soviet atomic test)
1962 (Cuban Missiles Crisis)
1983 (Able Archer incident)
It's interesting because the US can win the first 2, but the third one is Mutually Assured Destruction.
!historychads
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
@gigachad_brony think 2050 US could defeat Able Archer incident.
This post rests on native land
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I think you're right, although like the other guy said #2 would still be pretty bad. While there were fears of a "bomber gap" and a "missile gap" for a while, the Soviets were really way behind the US in strategic nuclear weapons. They had a few ICBMs but they took ~24 hours to fuel so a B-52 could get in and bomb them first. Some of their bombers would get through, but probably only a fraction. Enough to kill many millions of people, but America wouldn't be wiped out.
This was important because US strategy in the 1950s under Eisenhower was that we didn't need a huge expensive army to refight WW2. We had a huge advantage in nukes, so if the commies went for a full scale war we'd let them have it. This gradually makes less and less sense until around the late 1960s the Soviets have so many missiles that can't be stopped that they can effectively destroy us.
In Europe they still up until the 1980s figured that the Russians would win the ground war but then NATO would hit them with lots of tactical nuclear weapons where we also had an advantage. Seems pretty darn risky to me. By the 1980s tho new weapons were coming online that let the US take on vastly superior numbers of commies in a conventional war.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
In the case of 1962 it also depends on who strikes first. Thanks to the U2 planes the US knew where the missiles in Cuba and the ICBM silos in the USSR were located. Asuming american first strike there would be fewer casualties in the United States. The missiles in Cuba could destroy most East Coast and Southern East cities but the West-Coast would be safe from them. The Soviet Union and Europe on the Other hand would be hit hard.
One thing that is for certain is that had WW3 erupted in 1962, Cuba would have been obliterated and turned into a radioactive wasteland.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Are you feeling okay bud?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Arguably the second is also MAD. The US then didn't have the means to shoot down ICBMs then, and even if they could knock out all those Bears, the nukes would likely still explode in Canada and irradiate the world anyway.
Definitely would win #1 scenario with some nukes tossed around.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context