Reply to thread

Message

There is a tendency here to view developments in the UK in this period in isolation.
NATO had a process of going through each member's proposed military contributions. JFC Fuller posted a very good NATO review of our contribution which showed the things they thought we needed to do.
The much quoted move to missiles and away from manned systems was driven not by Sandys but by the development of Soviet rocket forces in Eastern Europe.
A prolongued conventional war was thought unlikely with the arrival of Hydrogen bombs.
Until the 1961 Berlin and 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis changes things, resources were skewed to a whole panoply of nuclear weapons aimed at detering war and being used quickly if deterrence failed.
The United States was fortunate in having a large enough budget and global role to produce equipment that could be used in both nuclear and conventional war.
As I keep having to point out none of the projects that died in the period 1956 to 1966 were as good as we like to think.

<blockquote data-quote="uk 75" data-source="post: 426307" data-attributes="member: 234">There is a tendency here to view developments in the UK in this period in isolation.NATO had a process of going through each member's proposed military contributions. JFC Fuller posted a very good NATO review of our contribution which showed the things they thought we needed to do.The much quoted move to missiles and away from manned systems was driven not by Sandys but by the development of Soviet rocket forces in Eastern Europe.A prolongued conventional war was thought unlikely with the arrival of Hydrogen bombs.Until the 1961 Berlin and 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis changes things, resources were skewed to a whole panoply of nuclear weapons aimed at detering war and being used quickly if deterrence failed.The United States was fortunate in having a large enough budget and global role to produce equipment that could be used in both nuclear and conventional war.&nbsp; As I keep having to point out none of the projects that died in the period 1956 to 1966 were as good as we like to think.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="uk 75, post: 426307, member: 234"] There is a tendency here to view developments in the UK in this period in isolation. NATO had a process of going through each member's proposed military contributions. JFC Fuller posted a very good NATO review of our contribution which showed the things they thought we needed to do. The much quoted move to missiles and away from manned systems was driven not by Sandys but by the development of Soviet rocket forces in Eastern Europe. A prolongued conventional war was thought unlikely with the arrival of Hydrogen bombs. Until the 1961 Berlin and 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis changes things, resources were skewed to a whole panoply of nuclear weapons aimed at detering war and being used quickly if deterrence failed. The United States was fortunate in having a large enough budget and global role to produce equipment that could be used in both nuclear and conventional war. As I keep having to point out none of the projects that died in the period 1956 to 1966 were as good as we like to think. [/QUOTE]

Verification