It was a "cold war" only as long as it didn't turn "hot". Most of the preparations were toward mutual nuclear destruction. A successful invasion by either side wasn't feasible; if anything, it would have been self-destructive. As daft as it is to initiate a nuclear strike, it's no less so to send your own troops into it (even could they all be given radiation suits, they can't stay in those suits forever any more than they could efficiently fight in them ).

I agree with H and with the premise of "WarGames".  Global thermonuclear war would be horrible beyond imagination.

The only way to win is to avoid it at all costs.

Hey,

I beleive that conventional warfare would have been more prevalent than the British idea of a "broken backed"war, that being a war based on economic recovery, although this theory is most feasable.

Data, you imply that what would have followed would have been a land war and so what I say here will be based on that premis.

a) Due to a good level of technological development and an advantage, numerically speaking, WARPAC could have afforded to fight a one front war/naked front war, with troops being focussed mainly on the western front, the eastern part of the Eurasian continental plate being dominated by the Asian communists at that point.
So, it could be seen that before the times of economic hardship set in for the countries of WARPAC (although, one could argue that there was always a sense of economic disparity in these countries) WARPAC would have had a clear tactical advantage.

However,

b) Had conflict broken out in the 70s and or 80s, Britain's then theory of "Broken Backed War" would have stood true, with Britain being the clear winner, not just because Britain and The Empire rules, and is superior to all...
Britain, by that stage was almost as unrestricted economartially as the USA and therefore it could be seen that economically, they would have won a broken backed war, which would have centred on nuclear strikes and economic strength, as opposed to pure military might and power, which would have been altogether more nessesary than in the scenario previously mentioned. The nature, also, of the highly mobile nature of the British nuclear deployment capability, i.e the Polaris submarines, and V-Force, would have played a large role in the overcoming of the WARPAC forces, V-Force constantly being able to use alternate tactics that would have constantly bested the WARPAC air defences, and the general difficulty of trying to find a black submarine in the black sea....

In conclusion, it can be stated that, even though WARPAC would have had a considerable advantage in the early stages of the war, or the conventional phase, it can be seen that NATO and its allies, primely Britain, would have been much more effective and had a bigger (comparable) advantage, than WARPAC in the mid to late stage of the war, which would have involved considerable militio-economic tactics and organization, which the British Empire had control over, and skill in managing.
So, it can be seen that the NATO powers would have, a considerable advantage over the WARPAC countries than previously seen on the surface.


A.

You forget, H, that Britain had launched its first H bomb, using a Valiant, if I remember correctly, back in the 50s...so nuclear technology on an industrial scale WAS! present....


A.

At least the nutballs had enough sense to do that...