The year of living dangerously: 1983

[Oberon]

I'm thinking post Whiskey on the Rocks, I mean there are many who suspect NATO of sending subs up there to spook the Swedish into maintaining a hardline anti-Soviet stance, and the part of me that is a sneaky little sod would agree with that suspicion. Likewise it's entirely likely that the Soviets sent subs in there to see what the Swedes were up to, I mean I find it very hard to believe that a navigational error caused that Whiskey to ground itself. They were supposed to be there, but they took the wrong turning and ran aground...then there's the question of whether she had nuclear weapons on board.
Things like that, it's very hard to get a definite answer.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I'm thinking post Whiskey on the Rocks, I mean there are many who suspect NATO of sending subs up there to spook the Swedish into maintaining a hardline anti-Soviet stance, and the part of me that is a sneaky little sod would agree with that suspicion. Likewise it's entirely likely that the Soviets sent subs in there to see what the Swedes were up to, I mean I find it very hard to believe that a navigational error caused that Whiskey to ground itself. They were supposed to be there, but they took the wrong turning and ran aground...then there's the question of whether she had nuclear weapons on board.
Things like that, it's very hard to get a definite answer.

Regarding the incident of the U 137 or S-363 as she was called, (Karlskrona, Blekinge, October 27, 1981) the violation was deliberate and part of illegal activities against Sweden, and nothing wrong with the navigational instruments that the Russians claimed then, and even some time later, the violation has been going on several other, more strategic locations, and not only from the Soviets even NATO has had his finger in the game,I am familiar with the waters surrounding Karlskrona archipelago, and it requires great skills to take control device right there is very hindered, and I am not on the net or another,but rather a natural environment of rocks and the very shallow water.U 137 was far more dangerous than what has been known. If the Swedish armed forces stormed the submarine crew had
orders to blow up the submarine with a nuclear disaster,nuclear torpedoes were therefore.

[Gammelpreusse]

I've seen the same documentary. Scary stuff. The whole nuclear weapons stuff is so over the top, it's outright frightening. I'd personally rather risk another full out world war with conventional weapons then having those planet killers around, at all. Even millions of killed people (me included) do not justify the risk of total annihilation of mankind. Anything that is possible to happen, WILL happen, eventually.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Gammelpreusse

I've seen the same documentary. Scary stuff. The whole nuclear weapons stuff is so over the top, it's outright frightening. I'd personally rather risk another full out world war with conventional weapons then having those planet killers around, at all. Even millions of killed people (me included) do not justify the risk of total annihilation of mankind. Anything that is possible to happen, WILL happen, eventually.

This was not a documentary, but live from the scene,regarding the history of U-137.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Gammelpreusse

I've seen the same documentary. Scary stuff. The whole nuclear weapons stuff is so over the top, it's outright frightening. I'd personally rather risk another full out world war with conventional weapons then having those planet killers around, at all. Even millions of killed people (me included) do not justify the risk of total annihilation of mankind. Anything that is possible to happen, WILL happen, eventually.

Vendor isn't talking about a documentary, he was there...

A German telling/posting others how bad they are.....ridiculous. Those who don't see the hipocracy are in the same sespool.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

A German telling/posting others how bad they are.....ridiculous. Those who don't see the hipocracy are in the same sespool.

Making a troll post without adding to the topic discussion, not the first time. Banned for 30 days. - NS

[TLAM Strike]

Two in twenty. Neal is opening a can of banhammer this afternoon.

[Armistead]

It is scary, I was just out of high school. To think if this ever happens, the way most of us would find out is seeing the blast.

Course, the reason I'm here is because of the Cuban crisis. My dad was in the navy. When all the news hit, my parents decided the world was prolly over and didn't use birth control. They say I was probably made the night after JFK gave his big speech...I did check, dates do add up.


I dare say, I'm not the only one.

[Growler]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Making a troll post without adding to the topic discussion, not the first time. Banned for 30 days. - NS

OK, OK, this abuse has got to stop. I mean, seriously. This is totally, out-of-hand, uncalled for, to the point of absurdity. After all this time, and after all these posts, I just cannot tolerate this blatant abuse of my sensibilities any longer - I really thought that "NS" meant "NeonSamurai" - this is blatant trickery on behalf of our Neal and Neon! Such abuse should not be tolerated! We have been misled! Fooled! Hoodwinked! Confused, even! Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' banhammers is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a banhammer at you. If I went 'round sayin' I was "NS", just because some moistened bint lobbed a thumper at me, they'd put me away.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Making a troll post without adding to the topic discussion, not the first time. Banned for 30 days. - NS

Much appreciated, Neal. Thanks!

Vendor,

I think Gammelpreusse referred to the German docu I was quoting, nothign about the Soviet subs in Swedish waters.

[Gerald]

@Skybird I think so also.

[Bilge_Rat]

Skybird, the video appears to be only in German so I could not look at it in its entirity, but the US was not the only one to blame for rising tensions in the early 80s.

The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, forced Poland to impose martial law and crush the "Solidarity" movement in 1981, shot down flight KAL 007 in sept. 1983 killing 269 civilians.

The rise in military spending in the USA was more of a reaction to Soviet moves than the other way around. Since Reagan's diary has come out, we now know that he was personally opposed to nuclear weapons.


On another note, I am not convinced the early 80s were worse than the 50s and 60s in terms of coming close to the brink.

In the 1962 Cuban crisis, the USSR sent 4 diesel submarines to Cuba, each armed with nuclear torpedoes. The Captain of each could order their use on his own and each was given only the vaguest of ROE, basically "use you best judgement". At least two of the subs were intercepted on the high seas as part of the blockade and were forced to surface after lengthy hunts by US ASW TFs. Thankfully, none of the Soviet skippers was a hot head...

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

Skybird, the video appears to be only in German so I could not look at it in its entirity

You mean it is locked, or that the language is German? The first would be bad, the second is correct.

but the US was not the only one to blame for rising tensions in the early 80sThe Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, forced Poland to impose martial law and crush the "Solidarity" movement in 1981, shot down flight KAL 007 in sept. 1983 killing 269 civilians.

Note that neither me nor the docu nor the people interviewed in it were about a simple "me good you bad" scheme or anti-americanism. But Reagan has set up incrediobnle military pressure and tension at that time, and none of the example you mention above were to be perceived by the US as such a direct, imminent miliutary threat to the Us itself as were the two fleet and very huge fleet maneuvers close to two of the most vital military inst5allations of the Soviets. Without wanting to read something into itthink that the US shares at least a certain moral responiosbility for having triggered and created the events which led to the Soviets mistaking the Korean airliner with just another american combat plane - a B-52 for example.

The rise in military spending in the USA was more of a reaction to Soviet moves than the other way around. Since Reagan's diary has come out, we now know that he was personally opposed to nuclear weapons.

It was McNamara and the Kennedy amdinistration that accelerated the arms race with first massive boost of SLBM and later ICBM. This was to "out-threat" the Soviets on the nuclear terrain as well as their numerical tank superiority in Europe. The Soviets reacted to that boost in American nukes with for example the SS-20. To which the US then reacted with the Pershing-II and nuclear Cruise Missiles. None of the two sides is free of guilt in having helped the nuclear arms race. But I tend to think that it was the US really igniting the nuclear arms race.

On Reagan, they mentioned his memoires in that docu, if I remember correctly quoting it witha hint on that Reagan already felt sad after 1981, but was really depressed after he had seen "The DFay After", and even more after the drama in 1983. It chnaged him. And maybe withoiut this depressive state he was in he would not have been rerady to shake hands with the later representative of the empire of evil - Gorbatchev. They also said that this is the only time in his memoires were Reagan mentioned his depressive mood, or wrote passages in an obviously tone of sadness and pessimism. The docu made it look as if 1983 rfeally did not pass Reagan without leaving deep traces.

On another note, I am not convinced the early 80s were worse than the 50s and 60s in terms of coming close to the brink.

In the 1962 Cuban crisis, the USSR sent 4 diesel submarines to Cuba, each armed with nuclear torpedoes. The Captain of each could order their use on his own and each was given only the vaguest of ROE, basically "use you best judgement". At least two of the subs were intercepted on the high seas as part of the blockade and were forced to surface after lengthy hunts by US ASW TFs. Thankfully, none of the Soviet skippers was a hot head...

Comparing it with the reported level or readiness to strike German cities with nukes and the general alrm of Soviet air forces in Germany that were readied on the runway and had nuclear arms, I think the crisis in late 1983 was much more immediate and threatening. If the blockade runners at Cuba would not have stopped and gunfire had been used on them, or a sub would have launched a missile, there would have been still an opportunity to rethink the situation and to communicate. But Russian airplanes five flightminutes from Berlin - after the first German city would hjave been nuked, the mechnaism of the warmchine in East and West would have completely taken over.

Do not misatake me, I have said myself in an old thread that I think during Cuba things were pout of control and we were just lucvky. It was close. But 1983 - was even closer, I got the impression. Some of the militaries they interviewed in that docu, also indicated that.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Skybird

It was McNamara and the Kennedy amdinistration that accelerated the arms race with first massive boost of SLBM and later ICBM. This was to "out-threat" the Soviets on the nuclear terrain as well as their numerical tank superiority in Europe. The Soviets reacted to that boost in American nukes with for example the SS-20. To which the US then reacted with the Pershing-II and nuclear Cruise Missiles. None of the two sides is free of guilt in having helped the nuclear arms race. But I tend to think that it was the US really igniting the nuclear arms race.

The US started development on Polaris one year before the 1st Zulu class SSB was fielded. Polaris and their USN SSBNs was deployed in 1960 3 years after the Soviets had a SLBM and the same year the Soviets deployed their 1st SSBN.

Actually the Soviet had the initial lead in SLBM development, but we caught up and surpassed them with in three years.