Cold War - response to loss of strategic bases

Discussion in 'Military History and Militaria' started by Voltiguer, May 12, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I know it might not be in the public domain, but a lot of stuff has been unclassified from the Cold War. I'm wondering if anyone's come across any sources or indications of what a likely response might be to the loss of a strategic base by NATO? Not just the loss as in destruction, but the loss as in that real estate could be, or is, occupied by the WP and used for their own purposes. And the sort of real estate that could be used to good effect by the en.

    What got me thinking about all this was picking up from somewhere (can't remember for the life of me) that the likely NATO response to Keflavik being taken from them would be a nuclear strike on the place so Russian forces couldn't use it. Whilst 'Russians occupying Keflavik' is a bit Red Storm Rising really, and I would've expected such places to be flattened rather than captured, the possibility couldn't be discounted I suppose. Even moreso for other vital military sites in Europe or elsewhere which would be far easier for en ground forces to reach - the Skaggerak/Kattegat perhaps...

    Something about a nuclear strike on a fellow NATO member state's territory when the great majority of their population live about 20 miles away in direct line of sight and downwind just didn't ring true for me, it's pretty nightmarish, and surely there are other options on the table. But then again, it would have been desparate times if it all ever kicked off, so who knows?

    So, bit of an outlandish question, but has anyone come across any evidence that this might have been considered or planned for, or what the likely response may have been if this was not the case?

    Cheers!
    V
     
  2. Can't address the Iceland question. However, it was pointed out to me that the WP aircraft single point refueling could accept the NATO nozzle, but the reverse was not true.
     
  3. It was reported through Reuters in June of last year that when the United Kingdom misused the Terrorism Act to freeze £50 Billion of Icelandic assets tied up in the UK when the Icelandic banks went into meltdown, the Russians immediately stepped in with an interest-free £50 Billion long-term loan to Iceland in return for the use of the former NATO base at Keflavic which was abandoned by the United States in the 1990s the closure of which impacted somewhat on the Icelandic economy.

    Iceland applied to join the EU last year. Since the whole point of joining the Union is to open up free trade and end cross-border tarrifs, it seemed a pragmatic move on the part of the Icelandic government in an attempt to revive its economy and pay its way. The European Commission stated that she could be fast-tracked into membership early this year. However, since membership is dependent upon a unanimous agreement of each of the 27 member states, the United Kingdom government stated that it would use its veto to prevent Iceland joining until it repays the money lost to the UK economy. Money Iceland simply does not have the ability to repay until its economy revives. It is analagous to a baillif taking possession of one's motor car in settlement of a debt which is needed by its owner to travel to work in order to generate income to pay one's creditors!

    What the position of the United Kingdom will now be following the departure of the previous odious regime in Downing Street is not known, but geopolitically, the Government of the United Kingdom appears to have created, or at least contributed to a state of affairs in which Russia is a stategic beneficiary.

    Such issues are not generally reported in the UK press which is why Reuters is often a better source of news in my opinion.