Red Alert - Our 1953 USSR

Reader mode
Population ranking (1953)
  • Index
    • panpiotr

    panpiotr

    1. China - 594,510,000
    2. India - 387,000,000
    3. Soviet Union - 191,471,000
    4. United States - 161,345,000
    5. Japan - 87,712,000
    6. Indonesia - 82,415,000
    7. Pakistan - 80,367,000
    8. Brazil - 58,197,000
    9. West Germany - 52,480,000
    10. United Kingdom - 50,593,000
     
  • Index
    • Military comparison (1953)
  • Index
    • panpiotr

    panpiotr

    Largest Armies
    1. Soviet Union - 5,250,000
    2. United States - 3,391,000
    3. China - 3,069,000
    4. United Kingdom - 848,000
    5. France - 723,000
    6. Taiwan - 582,000
    7. South Korea - 562,000
    8. Spain - 509,000
    9. Turkey - 438,000
    10. Poland - 435,000

    Military Spending
    1. United States - $46,000,000,000
    2. Soviet Union - $22,500,000,000
    3. United Kingdom - $4,486,000,000
    4. France - $3,446,000,000
    5. China - $2,541,000,000
    6. Canada - $1,914,000,000
    7. Italy - $822,000,000
    8. Czechoslovakia - $730,000,000
    9. Poland - $627,000,000
    10. Romania - $591,000,000

    Nuclear Stockpile
    1. United States - 1,814
    2. Soviet Union - 185
    3. United Kingdom - 6
     
  • Index

    • Kriss

    panpiotr said:
    1. China - 594,510,000
    2. India - 387,000,000
    3. Soviet Union - 191,471,000
    4. United States - 161,345,000
    5. Japan - 87,712,000
    6. Indonesia - 82,415,000
    7. Pakistan - 80,367,000
    8. Brazil - 58,197,000
    9. West Germany - 52,480,000
    10. United Kingdom - 50,593,000
    Click to expand...

    Oh dear, we really need to invest more in food and housing, plus greater standards of living and comfort to get our population up. We aren't really that far away from India just yet after all and with right policies we could potentially mantain current gap we have with India and later China.
     

    Ryan lozano

    Oh guys we should allow foreign companies into our nations for more money and influence so we can spread our companies to their imagine the Coca Cola and Comrade cola square off to see which one is the best
     

    Ozpin

    We need to fix the missile gap. Also a need to put a man on the moon before the Americans can. Utter then the usual economics and spreading our influence, prevent the split with the PRC and mediate a border line between China and India, and I believe our own border dispute.
     

    Fratsup

    I mean do we really want to fix the nuclear gap? Making more nukes and missiles is just going to increase our expanses which are practically going to be worthless since unless we get into an actual nuclear war will never be used.
     

    Kriss

    Fratsup said:
    I mean do we really want to fix the nuclear gap? Making more nukes and missiles is just going to increase our expanses which are practically going to be worthless since unless we get into an actual nuclear war will never be used.
    Click to expand...
    We want to because it's a good deterent and prestige thing, what we need to do is to make sure that missle gap is closed relatively together with our economic gap to avoid to much expenses and to have braganing power with USA without being under pressure by expenses of it.
     

    Fratsup

    Ozpin said:
    I merely want enough to ensure mutual deterrence/destruction. I would take 800 to 1,000 nukes.
    Click to expand...
    I mean mutual assured destruction is basically useless unless you are planning to actually use it.
    Kriss said:
    We want to because it's a good deterent and prestige thing, what we need to do is to make sure that missle gap is closed relatively together with our economic gap to avoid to much expenses and to have braganing power with USA without being under pressure by expenses of it.
    Click to expand...
    I mean the problem is if we put to much into the military we will have a harder time putting resources into the economy which will hurt our military performance. At best something like 500 nukes with most of them being missile based would help us out.

    Also if the US is doing worse in general then nuclear performance will not matter as much since losing allies, wars, and influence would hurt the US prestige more than any attempt to gain parity with the US which the Soviets never did OTL. Any increases we make will be meet with a counter increase of the US anyways.
     
    Red Angel

    Red Angel

    I'm in agreement with @Fratsup on the nuclear arsenal, there are other ways of getting prestige that doesn't always involve wasting our expenses, resources and manpower that'll backfire in the long run.

    Besides, let the US waste their time and money in the military, that'll just help with the eventual decaying infrastructure, increase racial unrest and growing corruption in the government.
     

    Fratsup

    Honestly putting more resources into say creating more weapons/supplies to anti-western actors make more sense than fallowing the nuclear confrontation.
     

    Kriss

    Fratsup said:
    I mean the problem is if we put to much into the military we will have a harder time putting resources into the economy which will hurt our military performance. At best something like 500 nukes with most of them being missile based would help us out.
    Click to expand...

    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.

    Fratsup said:
    Also if the US is doing worse in general then nuclear performance will not matter as much since losing allies, wars, and influence would hurt the US prestige more than any attempt to gain parity with the US which the Soviets never did OTL. Any increases we make will be meet with a counter increase of the US anyways.
    Click to expand...

    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 economy. If our economy is half of their for example then we have half the nukes, or just have fixed budget precent dedicated to nukes to make entire thing more sustainable. 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.

    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.

    Fratsup said:
    Honestly putting more resources into say creating more weapons/supplies to anti-western actors make more sense than fallowing the nuclear confrontation.
    Click to expand...

    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.

    In case of anty Western actors? I would be cautious about throwing money on empty propaganda.
     
    Last edited:
    Reader mode
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Top
    Top