End Of Days 1973

Straha · Aug 7, 2004

Most alternate '73 wars in the Mideast focus on the endgame in Egypt with the Russians airlifting an airborne division into Egypt as the US goes on full nuclear alert.

The actual crisis point happened on the 2nd day on the Golan. The Israeli line essentially collapsed. Had the Syrians not been cautious in the extreme their spearheads could essentially have driven off the Golan through the Galilee and straight for Tel Aviv.

Hypothesize that the Syrians were willing to use their army according to current Red Army operational doctrine as opposed to the tightly controlled red doctrine from 41-mid 43. That they had formed an Operational maneuver
Group of two reinforced Mech Infantry Divisions with heavy airmobile additions to exploit the breakthrough in the straight ahead manner the Red Army used in Manchuria in 45 and trained for for half a century in Germany. As the OMG goes over the crest of the Golan, the Israelis nuke the OMG, Damascus and maybe Beruit for good measure.

Does the whole world blow?

Do the Arabs ever start pumping oil again?

Do any of the conservative Gulf states survive?

Does Israel survive?

Does Watergate become an issue?

Valamyr · Aug 7, 2004

Does the whole world blow?

Probably not.

Do the Arabs ever start pumping oil again?

Probably.

Do any of the conservative Gulf states survive?

Probably a few.

Does Israel survive?

Probably not.

Does Watergate become an issue?

Probably not.

It would be a fine mess. For sure.

Straha · Aug 7, 2004

the TL doesn't seem like a utopia to me

panzerjay · Aug 8, 2004

no doubt. Damascus is gone. and soon after Tel Aviv is glassed by the soviets. i see no middle east troubles after that

Straha · Aug 8, 2004

panzerjay said:
no doubt. Damascus is gone. and soon after Tel Aviv is glassed by the soviets. i see no middle east troubles after that

the arabs would be too scared of Isreal/America to do anything.

panzerjay · Aug 8, 2004

Straha said:
the arabs would be too scared of Isreal/America to do anything.

screw the arabs. the russians would try to save face/back ally at this point. believe me the reds are sure not to leave any of their fingerprints on this.

aktarian · Aug 8, 2004

Straha said:
the arabs would be too scared of Isreal/America to do anything.

LOL, you make a POD in war that was one of largest conventional clashes in region and then make claim that Arabs were to scared of US and Israel to do anything.

A bit less of that Dutch imports prior to your postings.

Another interesting and unexplored PODs is Egypt. Refidim AB and passes fall to Egyptian commandos and with that Israel can't mount significant counter offensive. Final offensive is columns instead of steamroller.

Armilus · Aug 8, 2004

WI Cairo & Damascus are nuked by the Israelis, and the Soviets err in their coordinates & nuke Jerusalem (30% Muslim + the Dome of the Rock) instead of Tel Aviv? In fire You destroyed Jerusalem and in fire You will rebuild her. "I will be a wall of fire around her and I will be glorious in the midst of Jerusalem" (Zechariah 2).

Grimm Reaper · Aug 8, 2004

No way the Syrians could have won the war, they were utterly pathetic. In fact, a strong case can be made that Syria lost the entire war for the Arabs, and not just on the Golan. Had Egypt not been forced to jettision her plans, going EXTREMELY well by the by, to save Syria, she might not have seen Sharon crossing the Suez Canal.

Hmm, how about this idea? Syria gets whipped and is forced to surrender once Israel starts shelling Damascus. Meanwhile, Sadat's decision to throw Syria asided enables the Egyptians to move their SAM batteries to the east side of the Suez Canal, and ultimately occupy half of the Sinai before a cease-fire is arranged. Sharon is killed in some counter-attack.

Where could we go from here?

Uh, why would Israel nuke Beirut(Lebanon) back when the two nations were enjoying peaceful co-existance?

And would the USSR really use nukes over a couple of associated nations, as Syria and Egypt were never really full fledged allies? What if the US responds accordingly, perhaps on Hanoi?

Or how about Israel is indeed overrun following a Soviet nuclear strike, but some of Israel's nukes survive(said to be 20-30 total)? In 1975 Kiev or Leningrad is suddenly destroyed by a nuke, and the Israeli remnants issue some chilling ultimatum. The US announces we didn't get involved in 1973, we're not involved now, and the Soviets will have to cave or lose some cities. Where does that go?

JimmyJimJam · Aug 8, 2004

Would the Soviets put their balls on the line for a few piddling arab states like that?

DMS · Aug 8, 2004

Minor Soviet response, only

Did some academic type research on the Soviet threat to intervene in 1973 and they just weren't that interested. Attempt to score some diplomatic points, sure. Military threats they'd have trouble carrying out, sure. Nukes, no.

Doesn't mean Israel isn't in serious trouble. One appropriate question is: which way is the wind blowing. The weapons available, proximity of the Syrian advance to Israeli population centers, and the state of Israeli command and control early in the '73 war argue that an important chunk of Israel is going to be unlivable.

The Arabs will pump oil again as it becomes clear that they have gotten part of their wish in a seriously impaired and smaller Israel. It's not like the PLO or Lebanon or Iraq or Jordan or anyone else will miss the Syrian leadership.

I don't see much threat to the conservative Gulf states.

Watergate probably doesn't occur but Nixon will discover a whole new host of enemies. Paranoia does that for you.

Next step question:

Does this stunt or quicken the emergence of religious fundamentalism in the region? Is the Shah vulnerable sooner as a quasi-ally of Israel? Do orthodox Jews end their tentative, post-67 embrace of Israel?

DMA · Aug 10, 2004

Sounds like you've been looking in my computer Straha! lol

Pass by Changing The Times in two-three weeks. The Yom Kippur War goes nuclear in the article Hell On Earth...

It's not exactly the scenario you've got running here but I hope it's a good read nevertheless

Peter · Aug 10, 2004

Grimm Reaper said:
No way the Syrians could have won the war, they were utterly pathetic. In fact, a strong case can be made that Syria lost the entire war for the Arabs, and not just on the Golan. Had Egypt not been forced to jettision her plans, going EXTREMELY well by the by, to save Syria, she might not have seen Sharon crossing the Suez Canal.

Hmm, how about this idea? Syria gets whipped and is forced to surrender once Israel starts shelling Damascus. Meanwhile, Sadat's decision to throw Syria asided enables the Egyptians to move their SAM batteries to the east side of the Suez Canal, and ultimately occupy half of the Sinai before a cease-fire is arranged. Sharon is killed in some counter-attack.

Where could we go from here?

Uh, why would Israel nuke Beirut(Lebanon) back when the two nations were enjoying peaceful co-existance?

And would the USSR really use nukes over a couple of associated nations, as Syria and Egypt were never really full fledged allies? What if the US responds accordingly, perhaps on Hanoi?

Or how about Israel is indeed overrun following a Soviet nuclear strike, but some of Israel's nukes survive(said to be 20-30 total)? In 1975 Kiev or Leningrad is suddenly destroyed by a nuke, and the Israeli remnants issue some chilling ultimatum. The US announces we didn't get involved in 1973, we're not involved now, and the Soviets will have to cave or lose some cities. Where does that go?

Ehh? If Israel is overrun, were would they fire the missiles from? And do you really think they would launch an attack upon the Soviet Union evn for the sake of revenge? The Soviets will turn every single piece of Israel, how worthless it can possbile be, into dust. Then some nice off ski progroms aren't that unlikely.

No The Soviets would use nukes against Israel, because you dont allow and ally and client to get nuked. It doesn't matter if it wasn't an official ally, if you let the nukers get away with it you won't get any new allies or clients. People (dictators) dont like to affirm themselves with people who screm them up and stand up for them. So Israel will be nuked.

aktarian · Aug 10, 2004

Peter said:
Ehh? If Israel is overrun, were would they fire the missiles from?

Who said overrun? Do you think Israel would use nukes only if Egypt and syria would meet somewhere around Jerusalem? Hardly. They would start nuking Syrians if they reached Galilee lake or even sooner. Remember that on first day (actually night) they were close to using them.

Peter said:
And do you really think they would launch an attack upon the Soviet Union evn for the sake of revenge?

Yes. Nukes delivered by F-4s used as one way trip. Kiev was most widely mentioned target.

Peter said:
The Soviets will turn every single piece of Israel, how worthless it can possbile be, into dust. Then some nice off ski progroms aren't that unlikely.

Somehow I don't think Israelis would care. Their doctrine was "If we go, we'll drag some people down as well."

JimmyJimJam · Aug 10, 2004

aktarian said:
Somehow I don't think Israelis would care. Their doctrine was "If we go, we'll drag some people down as well."

It was (may be still is) called the "Samson doctrine" by the Israelis.

DMS · Aug 10, 2004

The Russians are not going to use nukes.

Station troops in Iraq, maybe, though even that will take them a while.

I don't know too many cites but there's a book by Israelyan (really) indicating how much it took for Brezhnev to even send the fairly empty letter threatening intervention. Other research on Soviet politics at the time show that SALT and the meeting with Nixon were not to be imperiled while the Chinese still refused to sign the no use-of-force agreements the USSR kept proposing.