Sino-Soviet War
- Thread starter tom
- Start date
The Ussuri River incidents in 1969 brought both of those giants VERY close to war.
It would have been very, very, VERY bad. Up to and including nukes bad...
It would have been very, very, VERY bad. Up to and including nukes bad...
1969 Clashes on Soviet Chinese Border In March 1969, the ideological rift between the Soviet Union and Communist China deteriorated into fighting along the border. Thirty Soviet soldiers were killed in one clash on a small uninhabited island in the Ussuri River. The roots of the dispute lay in Chinese claims to parts of the eastern Soviet Union relinquished by the Chinese under the pressure of "the Unequal Treaties." These treaties were forced upon China by the Western powers during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
How would a 1969 Sino-Soviet War compare to a 1962 Cuban Missile War?
How would a 1969 Sino-Soviet War compare to a 1962 Cuban Missile War?
I remember this, they very nearly went off. As I recall, China was barely nuclear, but Russia was worried about the huge size of China's Peoples' Army.
If it had happened, it is interesting to consider what might have happened afterwards. Think about the other near time events and world hot spots, Vietnam for one, Middle East, Cuba, Eastern Europe.
It is reasonable to believe to consider the following broad questions;
If victorious, would the S.U. have been in a position to hold onto its satillites? What would have happened to China? Would the Nationalists have 'surged forward to take advantage of the situation, maybe splitting China?
What if China had been victorious? What would the effect been on the S.U. and Eastern Europe?
If it had happened, it is interesting to consider what might have happened afterwards. Think about the other near time events and world hot spots, Vietnam for one, Middle East, Cuba, Eastern Europe.
It is reasonable to believe to consider the following broad questions;
If victorious, would the S.U. have been in a position to hold onto its satillites? What would have happened to China? Would the Nationalists have 'surged forward to take advantage of the situation, maybe splitting China?
What if China had been victorious? What would the effect been on the S.U. and Eastern Europe?
If a Cuban war had broken out (I remain HIGHLY skeptical), the number of missiles involved (in Cuba) were relatively small, and unless it escalated to an all-out 'wargasm', there was little likelihood of strikes against population centers.
A Sino-Soviet war would be a very, very different matter. We now know that the USSR approached the US with what amounts to a plan for genocide against the PRC in 1970, massed nuclear strikes against population centers. If they were willing to discuss this with us, think of what they were willing to consider that they wouldn't have shared with us. Soviet forces in the Far East are traditionally their best (highest readiness, best troops, though the newest equipment typically went West first), and were kept at a very high state of preparedness for war. The Soviets kept a significant number of nuclear-armed aircraft on alert in the Far East, and built a great many IRBMs and MRBMs that had no other viable targets other than China. Soviet doctrine revolved around mass deployments and mass strikes on the offensive, particularly with nuclear weapons. Finally, the nature of any soviet strike into the PRC would have virtually demanded nukes to take out the core foci of resistance (Beijing wasn't high on the target list, but the way, Harbin was much more likely to be the key pivot, as this would detach Manchuria as an industrial base for the rest of China), leading to immense temptations for early use.
I saw some silly speculation of elsewhere about a 3-4 year war with 15-20 million military casualties. Nonsense... Assuming it didn't escalate out of control (i.e. suck us in as well), The war wouldn't last 90 days, but the casualties (including immediate civilian deaths) would likely have topped 100 million...
Very, very, VERY bad...
A Sino-Soviet war would be a very, very different matter. We now know that the USSR approached the US with what amounts to a plan for genocide against the PRC in 1970, massed nuclear strikes against population centers. If they were willing to discuss this with us, think of what they were willing to consider that they wouldn't have shared with us. Soviet forces in the Far East are traditionally their best (highest readiness, best troops, though the newest equipment typically went West first), and were kept at a very high state of preparedness for war. The Soviets kept a significant number of nuclear-armed aircraft on alert in the Far East, and built a great many IRBMs and MRBMs that had no other viable targets other than China. Soviet doctrine revolved around mass deployments and mass strikes on the offensive, particularly with nuclear weapons. Finally, the nature of any soviet strike into the PRC would have virtually demanded nukes to take out the core foci of resistance (Beijing wasn't high on the target list, but the way, Harbin was much more likely to be the key pivot, as this would detach Manchuria as an industrial base for the rest of China), leading to immense temptations for early use.
I saw some silly speculation of elsewhere about a 3-4 year war with 15-20 million military casualties. Nonsense... Assuming it didn't escalate out of control (i.e. suck us in as well), The war wouldn't last 90 days, but the casualties (including immediate civilian deaths) would likely have topped 100 million...
Very, very, VERY bad...
I doubt China could have won; the imbalance in the quantity and quality of equipment (far more important than crude numbers of troops), the Soviet nuclear advantage and superior Russian tactical and opertaional doctrines make a Soviet victory of some sort inevitable,
The key questions are:
1. How complete would the victory be? if Mao refuses to back down after loosing the battle for the frontiers the Russians could be forced to carry things through to the virtual destruction of his regime. The PRC could have experienced civil war between moderate and radical communist factions, tempting the Nationalists to get involved.
2. How is Vietnam affected?
3. How much do the Russians have to pull out of Europe to achieve victory?, I doubt the time's really ripe for liberation movements in the satelites, but the impact of large withdrawls on Russo-NATO relations would obviously be huge.
The key questions are:
1. How complete would the victory be? if Mao refuses to back down after loosing the battle for the frontiers the Russians could be forced to carry things through to the virtual destruction of his regime. The PRC could have experienced civil war between moderate and radical communist factions, tempting the Nationalists to get involved.
2. How is Vietnam affected?
3. How much do the Russians have to pull out of Europe to achieve victory?, I doubt the time's really ripe for liberation movements in the satelites, but the impact of large withdrawls on Russo-NATO relations would obviously be huge.
Effects elsewhere
Any war makes a huge demand on a nation's resources, it is building and using equipment at a very fast rate. Equipment and lives are placed in the field and destroyed.
Let's say that the USSR determines to bomb China preemptively, destroying several of its major population centers. What does it do then?
It will occupy, if only to ensure that what ever happens next won't threaten it. This takes more troops and resources, particularly if large parts of China are in states of chaos.
All of this is certain to draw resources away from other parts of an economy that even then is sputtering.
In addition, the West will now see that the USSR will use it weapons, so it now begins a research race.
What of the countries that are engaged in 'struggles for liberation' such as Vietnam. Which side would they see as the better opportunity for national self expression, the USSR, that just bombed the bejeebers out of the PRC, or neutral status.
Any war makes a huge demand on a nation's resources, it is building and using equipment at a very fast rate. Equipment and lives are placed in the field and destroyed.
Let's say that the USSR determines to bomb China preemptively, destroying several of its major population centers. What does it do then?
It will occupy, if only to ensure that what ever happens next won't threaten it. This takes more troops and resources, particularly if large parts of China are in states of chaos.
All of this is certain to draw resources away from other parts of an economy that even then is sputtering.
In addition, the West will now see that the USSR will use it weapons, so it now begins a research race.
What of the countries that are engaged in 'struggles for liberation' such as Vietnam. Which side would they see as the better opportunity for national self expression, the USSR, that just bombed the bejeebers out of the PRC, or neutral status.
raharris1973
Gone Fishin'
The key questions are:
1. How complete would the victory be? if Mao refuses to back down after loosing the battle for the frontiers the Russians could be forced to carry things through to the virtual destruction of his regime. The PRC could have experienced civil war between moderate and radical communist factions, tempting the Nationalists to get involved.
They could end up with the most appeal among Chinese survivors. The Communists will have had a record of moving from failure to failure. The screw-ups of Cultural Revolution could also actually leave the Chinese less resistant to occupying Soviet forces than they might otherwise be.
2. How is Vietnam affected?
The US has an easier time escalating, or withdrawing as it becomes geopolitically irrelevant.
Option 1 is to escalate - Bombing the dikes will look like small potatoes after what the Russians do to China. Russia will have to reserve its energies fighting the war in China and then holding Eastern Europe - which leaves its allies in Vietnam, the Middle East and Cuba at least temporarily getting less support. So, Nixon can do all-out bombing on Hanoi while do crooss-border ground operations.
Option 2 is to negotiate and get out quicker - Hanoi would be more amenable at the bargaining table, while the US could decide that the crack-up in the communist world is now severe that it is geopolitically irrelevant if Hanoi eventually takes over the south.
3. How much do the Russians have to pull out of Europe to achieve victory?, I doubt the time's really ripe for liberation movements in the satelites, but the impact of large withdrawls on Russo-NATO relations would obviously be huge.[/QUOTE]
Good question.
1. How complete would the victory be? if Mao refuses to back down after loosing the battle for the frontiers the Russians could be forced to carry things through to the virtual destruction of his regime. The PRC could have experienced civil war between moderate and radical communist factions, tempting the Nationalists to get involved.
They could end up with the most appeal among Chinese survivors. The Communists will have had a record of moving from failure to failure. The screw-ups of Cultural Revolution could also actually leave the Chinese less resistant to occupying Soviet forces than they might otherwise be.
2. How is Vietnam affected?
The US has an easier time escalating, or withdrawing as it becomes geopolitically irrelevant.
Option 1 is to escalate - Bombing the dikes will look like small potatoes after what the Russians do to China. Russia will have to reserve its energies fighting the war in China and then holding Eastern Europe - which leaves its allies in Vietnam, the Middle East and Cuba at least temporarily getting less support. So, Nixon can do all-out bombing on Hanoi while do crooss-border ground operations.
Option 2 is to negotiate and get out quicker - Hanoi would be more amenable at the bargaining table, while the US could decide that the crack-up in the communist world is now severe that it is geopolitically irrelevant if Hanoi eventually takes over the south.
3. How much do the Russians have to pull out of Europe to achieve victory?, I doubt the time's really ripe for liberation movements in the satelites, but the impact of large withdrawls on Russo-NATO relations would obviously be huge.[/QUOTE]
Good question.
Xen
Banned
The US would have likely remained neutral, constantly on the phone making sure neither side will use nuclear weapons, and probably able to throw its weight around to make sure that doesnt happen. Meanwhile the Soviets and Chinese are killing eachother by the thousands, and the US is sitting back grinning. The war would be a huge disaster for the Communist cause, the US could easily say we were in Vietnam fighting an idealogical enemy, meanwhile the Soviets and Chinese are in Asia fighting eachother, this is the world of communism.
The Soviets will eventually pull in the Warsaw Pact nation, and perhaps recruit India as an ally to invade Tibet. China will finally reaching a breaking point and give up, although it is allied with North Korea. The USSR could very well get South Korea to attack NK.
The Chinese lose some ground with the Soviets taking the mineral rich Uighur region, Tibet being declared independent and neutral, and perhaps Inner and Outer Mongolia unite. I dont think the USSR could take Beijing, so Mao and his ilk remain. After the war Mao begins a series of purges, brining forth a very conservitive government more in line with his thinking. The USSR also has purges but remains on the same course.
There is no invasion of Afghanistan, no Sino-American raproachment (if there is it is limited), and no Chinese economic reforms. Communism as we know it ends in the 1980's with, eastern Europe using the Soviet Civil War to break away from the dependence on the USSR. Germany unites in 1987, and the US supports the Nationalists over the communists in the Civil War. China breaks apart in the late 1980's with an incident similiar to that of the Tinanmen Square one in OTL, only this time soldiers cross over and join their civilian counter parts. The military overthrows the Communist party, and begins to rule the ancient Empire.
The Soviets will eventually pull in the Warsaw Pact nation, and perhaps recruit India as an ally to invade Tibet. China will finally reaching a breaking point and give up, although it is allied with North Korea. The USSR could very well get South Korea to attack NK.
The Chinese lose some ground with the Soviets taking the mineral rich Uighur region, Tibet being declared independent and neutral, and perhaps Inner and Outer Mongolia unite. I dont think the USSR could take Beijing, so Mao and his ilk remain. After the war Mao begins a series of purges, brining forth a very conservitive government more in line with his thinking. The USSR also has purges but remains on the same course.
There is no invasion of Afghanistan, no Sino-American raproachment (if there is it is limited), and no Chinese economic reforms. Communism as we know it ends in the 1980's with, eastern Europe using the Soviet Civil War to break away from the dependence on the USSR. Germany unites in 1987, and the US supports the Nationalists over the communists in the Civil War. China breaks apart in the late 1980's with an incident similiar to that of the Tinanmen Square one in OTL, only this time soldiers cross over and join their civilian counter parts. The military overthrows the Communist party, and begins to rule the ancient Empire.
Manhattan
Britians Problem with Hong Kong, was the Lease on the new territories expired.
Hong Kong Proper was ceded to Britian in Peputurity. except with out the NTs it wasn't viable [like NYC without Long Island , or the City without London]
if China was in some kind of termoil, Britian may just hold on to the whole thing. Just till every thing settles of course.
Britians Problem with Hong Kong, was the Lease on the new territories expired.
Hong Kong Proper was ceded to Britian in Peputurity. except with out the NTs it wasn't viable [like NYC without Long Island , or the City without London]
if China was in some kind of termoil, Britian may just hold on to the whole thing. Just till every thing settles of course.
Duquesne, of course. 
I believe the most volatile moment was in the late 1970s, under Jimmy Carter...boy was he a magnet for trouble! At this point the US was in the post-Vietnam phase and was both militarily and morally unlikely to do anything in Asia for some while. Therefore, if the USSR or PRC felt able to win a victory, that would be the time, when the other great power was unable to take advantage or otherwise get involved.
Some questions.
1) Do we assume that it is the USSR that attacks or could someone find a concept where PRC starts the fight? This could include a shrewd Soviet tactic to goad Mao into being the aggressor.
2) Do we assume it goes nuclear immediately or would that be too disastrous a propoganda blow to the aggressor?
3) Can we imagine a scenario where some changes occur to the advantage of one, probably the Soviets, WITHOUT nuclear weapons?
My impression of this would be a steady increase of tensions and escalating border clashes, at the end of which the USSR determines to seize Manchuria, the heart of Chinese industry(including the nukes) and vulnerable at the narrow waist. The war goes well for some months but eventually bogs down in the face of a miserable supply line and Chinese resistance. In fact, USSR does hold Manchuria but finds itself facing an interminable conflict and the supply situation and manpower problems suggest that time is on PRC's side. In addition, weapons just entering service in the 1980s appear more rapidly due to developments. Soviet massive helicopter forces prove exceptionally valuable while American M72 shipments or a PRC copy threaten to inflict shattering losses on Soviet vehicles. As a result of the war, the gigantic factory Togliashtadt for automobiles and trucks is never built as the Italian aid is canceled. Thsi will eventually be disastrous for Soviet motor transport and the existing lack is enabling the US to start squeezing concessions for grain, as the war enters Reagan's time in office. In the end, the Soviets see a limited use of nuclear weapons as the only option to a long-term defeat.
By this time Vietnam has entered the war on Moscow's behalf. India hopes to get Tibet liberated. North Korea is not taking sides. In the Middle East, the collapse of Soviet assistance makes Sadat look even wiser. Other Arab regimes begin moving slightly to the West. In Nicaragua, the fall of the Somocistas results in a slightly-left of center coalition, Daniel Ortega gets nothing. In Ethiopia, US support enables the king to hold on. No communists and no Ethiopian famine. Jonas Savimbi takes over in Angola in 1976. The entire Soviet expansion into Africa and Latin America is never even attempted. Peaceful and small scale militant resistance begins in Eastern Europe as resources and possible 'volunteer' units are pulled in while a quarter of Soviet forces(and most potential reinforcements) are pulled out.
The use of nuclear weapons tranforms the situation as dozens of military concentrations are hit, along with key Chinese cities. Tibet is given autonomous status under Indian protection, Mongolia is enlarged, and Manchuria is at least partially annexed. Radiation causes further problems in the world. Unfortunately, the Chinese do get a handful of their own nukes off. Having recognized their inferior position, they decide to choose carefully. Hanoi and Haiphong are destroyed in Vietnam, combined with fighting in Cambodia, leaves SE Asia in a miserable shambles. The USSR loses two or three secondary cities in Asia(Vladivostok and one or two others) but the Tran-Siberian rail network is shattered. This, plus the need to permanently raise their forces in the region and help to rebuild Vietnam, leaves the USSR militarily impotent elsewhere.
As the 1980s proceed, the first notable change is the destruction of Iraq in 1982 under the Iranian invasion by Khomeini. The lack of Soviet hardware proved catastrophic and no one else could supply so much. Faced with the seizure of Kuwait in 1983 President Reagan...
Shall I go on?
I believe the most volatile moment was in the late 1970s, under Jimmy Carter...boy was he a magnet for trouble! At this point the US was in the post-Vietnam phase and was both militarily and morally unlikely to do anything in Asia for some while. Therefore, if the USSR or PRC felt able to win a victory, that would be the time, when the other great power was unable to take advantage or otherwise get involved.
Some questions.
1) Do we assume that it is the USSR that attacks or could someone find a concept where PRC starts the fight? This could include a shrewd Soviet tactic to goad Mao into being the aggressor.
2) Do we assume it goes nuclear immediately or would that be too disastrous a propoganda blow to the aggressor?
3) Can we imagine a scenario where some changes occur to the advantage of one, probably the Soviets, WITHOUT nuclear weapons?
My impression of this would be a steady increase of tensions and escalating border clashes, at the end of which the USSR determines to seize Manchuria, the heart of Chinese industry(including the nukes) and vulnerable at the narrow waist. The war goes well for some months but eventually bogs down in the face of a miserable supply line and Chinese resistance. In fact, USSR does hold Manchuria but finds itself facing an interminable conflict and the supply situation and manpower problems suggest that time is on PRC's side. In addition, weapons just entering service in the 1980s appear more rapidly due to developments. Soviet massive helicopter forces prove exceptionally valuable while American M72 shipments or a PRC copy threaten to inflict shattering losses on Soviet vehicles. As a result of the war, the gigantic factory Togliashtadt for automobiles and trucks is never built as the Italian aid is canceled. Thsi will eventually be disastrous for Soviet motor transport and the existing lack is enabling the US to start squeezing concessions for grain, as the war enters Reagan's time in office. In the end, the Soviets see a limited use of nuclear weapons as the only option to a long-term defeat.
By this time Vietnam has entered the war on Moscow's behalf. India hopes to get Tibet liberated. North Korea is not taking sides. In the Middle East, the collapse of Soviet assistance makes Sadat look even wiser. Other Arab regimes begin moving slightly to the West. In Nicaragua, the fall of the Somocistas results in a slightly-left of center coalition, Daniel Ortega gets nothing. In Ethiopia, US support enables the king to hold on. No communists and no Ethiopian famine. Jonas Savimbi takes over in Angola in 1976. The entire Soviet expansion into Africa and Latin America is never even attempted. Peaceful and small scale militant resistance begins in Eastern Europe as resources and possible 'volunteer' units are pulled in while a quarter of Soviet forces(and most potential reinforcements) are pulled out.
The use of nuclear weapons tranforms the situation as dozens of military concentrations are hit, along with key Chinese cities. Tibet is given autonomous status under Indian protection, Mongolia is enlarged, and Manchuria is at least partially annexed. Radiation causes further problems in the world. Unfortunately, the Chinese do get a handful of their own nukes off. Having recognized their inferior position, they decide to choose carefully. Hanoi and Haiphong are destroyed in Vietnam, combined with fighting in Cambodia, leaves SE Asia in a miserable shambles. The USSR loses two or three secondary cities in Asia(Vladivostok and one or two others) but the Tran-Siberian rail network is shattered. This, plus the need to permanently raise their forces in the region and help to rebuild Vietnam, leaves the USSR militarily impotent elsewhere.
As the 1980s proceed, the first notable change is the destruction of Iraq in 1982 under the Iranian invasion by Khomeini. The lack of Soviet hardware proved catastrophic and no one else could supply so much. Faced with the seizure of Kuwait in 1983 President Reagan...
Shall I go on?
Oooooh, popularity!
OK, where were we?
Around 1983...
Soviet Union is in hideous shape. While the military equipment and industry is more advanced, and it is also likely that the 'march of the dying' under Reagan's first term was averted by younger and more robust leaders, the overall situation is bad.
The expansion into Africa and Latin America never happened, and the unique Carter openings will not come again. Bad ideologically.
They have effectively battered the other communist power. Bad ideologically. Now there is a THREE way split in communism, between Soviet-style, PRC-style, and Euro.
The far east will probably occupy a much larger portion of the Red Army. Remember, the Soviets had 180 divisions, but this included Category B, Category C and even mobilization-only divisions. Now they must maintain a larger standing army, at a time of economic crisis, or wind up with barely enough to hold Eastern Europe.
Or do they have enough there?
I do predict economic reforms under the pressure of war. To start with, the Soviets finally expand private farm plots from 5 percent of the arable land to 25 percent, later reducing it in the aftermath, but only to 10-15 percent. By that time the ability to feed themselves would just be too important. The ability to save gold on American grain will help too. On the other hand, Chinese resistance and commandos likely mean the cancellation of the natural gas sales, not to mention the pipeline.
While times will be tough for many years, IF the country can hold together and avoid any further crisis, the new and ruthless but far more pragmatic leadership may be able to do something.
China is a shambles, natch. Enormous death toll, probably above 100 million, industrially crippled and whatever remains goes to the military(no navy, just army and limited air force). Possible Taiwan offers aid as a crack in the door?
Far from collapsing, I would predict a massive hard-line approach towards rebuilding their strength. Hmm, by 1990 we may have Russia improving and China breaking apart.
Vietnam? Ick. On top of France, and the US, and Cambodia, and China and now nuclear destruction and little Soviet aid? Hardly bears considering.
Will continue the topic soonest!
OK, where were we?
Around 1983...
Soviet Union is in hideous shape. While the military equipment and industry is more advanced, and it is also likely that the 'march of the dying' under Reagan's first term was averted by younger and more robust leaders, the overall situation is bad.
The expansion into Africa and Latin America never happened, and the unique Carter openings will not come again. Bad ideologically.
They have effectively battered the other communist power. Bad ideologically. Now there is a THREE way split in communism, between Soviet-style, PRC-style, and Euro.
The far east will probably occupy a much larger portion of the Red Army. Remember, the Soviets had 180 divisions, but this included Category B, Category C and even mobilization-only divisions. Now they must maintain a larger standing army, at a time of economic crisis, or wind up with barely enough to hold Eastern Europe.
Or do they have enough there?
I do predict economic reforms under the pressure of war. To start with, the Soviets finally expand private farm plots from 5 percent of the arable land to 25 percent, later reducing it in the aftermath, but only to 10-15 percent. By that time the ability to feed themselves would just be too important. The ability to save gold on American grain will help too. On the other hand, Chinese resistance and commandos likely mean the cancellation of the natural gas sales, not to mention the pipeline.
While times will be tough for many years, IF the country can hold together and avoid any further crisis, the new and ruthless but far more pragmatic leadership may be able to do something.
China is a shambles, natch. Enormous death toll, probably above 100 million, industrially crippled and whatever remains goes to the military(no navy, just army and limited air force). Possible Taiwan offers aid as a crack in the door?
Far from collapsing, I would predict a massive hard-line approach towards rebuilding their strength. Hmm, by 1990 we may have Russia improving and China breaking apart.
Vietnam? Ick. On top of France, and the US, and Cambodia, and China and now nuclear destruction and little Soviet aid? Hardly bears considering.
Will continue the topic soonest!
Where to begin?
Lets start with your presumption that the PRC gets 'a few' nukes off. The actual number will likely be more like a few dozen or so, though most of them will be very, very short ranged. No more Vladivastok, Irkutsk, Khabarovsk, etc. Possibly no more Hanoi/Haiphong (though why the Chinese will waste precious nukes on distinctly secondary targets is beyond me..), and likely several Indian cities will be slagged if they are foolish enough to enter into a war (they wouldn't by the way). Major Soviet airfield complexes will be taken out as well, and a few choice chokepoints on the TSR will be glowing in the dark for years to come. The PRC had a few IRBMs/MRBMs as well, so there is a decent chance that they will lob a few at Soviet population centers in central asia and the Urals region, possibly even one or two for the big targets of Moscow/Leningrad/Kharkov/etc. Tell you what, we will pretend that the largely worthless soviet ABM system around Moscow stops those, for if it doesn't, this whole thing ends much more quickly.
Once this happens, the entire soviet logistics network collapses, and their army runs out of supplies and dies within a week or two. POL and ammo would be the biggest problem (Soviet divisions carried only a weeks worth of each even in assualt load-outs) The Far East Military district probably has some stockpiles (lets pretend that the PRC is foolish enough to ignore ALL of them, as well as the distriubtion centers, which are large, easily attacked, and cannot be hardened by their very nature), so lets give them USSR about 4 weeks before their troops are literally eating their belts and throwing rocks at the PLA. The entire logistics network runs directly along the TSR, even the major airfields, so only a few bombs are necessary to do the job.
Of course all of this is going to look like paradise compared to what happens to the Chinese. Soviet strikes against airfields, missile launch sites, troop concentrations (harder than it sounds, the PRC is mostly light infantry, and they dont' bunch up much), and of course population centers (what they heck, they might as well go in for genocide while they commit suicide) are going to kill a VERY large number of people (if both sides do what we now know their pre-war planning involved, the figure of 100 million is likely to be low by at least half, maybe more, and that counts only prompt deaths, disease, starvation, social collapse, etc, could easily double or triple that), and destroy a large fraction of the infrastructure.
My point here is that any use of nuclear weapons will be highly problematic for both sides, but primarily for the USSR. China has a LOT of people, and it has enduring horrible suffering and loss in the past. Circa the Carter era (a good time for this...after all, the rest of the world was miserable anyway, why not them...), the PRC was far, far less developed than the Soviet Union, and thus had less to lose. To be crude, they could be bombed back to the stone age, but it wouldn't be a long trip. The Soviets, on the other hand, couldn't endure the kind of losses suffered in WWII (whether they beat the PRC or not, particularly in a war that THEY STARTED) again without a serious threat to their govt. An attack on the PRC, particularly a nuclear one, would almost certainly invite nuclear retaliation, retaliation that would be far, far worse for the Soviets than it would be for the PRC. Now I can imagine some scenarios when a war might start, but I can imagine absolutely none (post 1970 or so) where the Soviets would use nukes unless the PRC did first.
Lets move on... Why no mention of gas? The soviets had lots of it, their troops were well-trained in its use, and the PRC had no effective defense against it. Light infantry (the bulk of the PRC) is most vulnerable to chemicals, and the terrain is almost perfect for it. Gas makes a wonderful area denial weapon as well, which is going to be important to the Soviets, who are advancing significant distances through highly hostile terrain...
Now, for fantasy, one cannot beat your suggestion that India and Vietnam would join in this insanity. The Indians had their heads handed to them in 1962, and until the 1990s, their foreign policy was largely centered upon not creating waves with the PRC. Why would they engage in a war that would net them almost nothing (Tibet?...risk nuclear retailiation over Tibet?), and would cost them a great deal. Not to mention that they have a far stronger (and more profitable) role as a mediator when both sides tire of this silliness if they simply stay out and wait. Nobody but an idiot would fail to recognize that even the 'winner' of this dust-up is going to be in really bad shape. So if the Indians stay out and wait, they can pick up some nice tidbits for free (or nearly so) when the PRC is in no position to complain. If they get involved, they could lose a city or two. Which one do you think that these folks are going to choose?
Vietnam is more problematic, but since they would be attacking a force that outnumbers them roughly 3:1, and is deeply entrenched (and lets remember, the PRC won't be advancing INTO Vietnam, so the tactics that worked so well during the last PRC incursion won't pay off this time), not to mention nuclear-armed. Once again, what does Vietnam get out of this? <crickets chirping>....anyone?....Bueller?....
All of this discussion of Eastern Europe...do you think that NATO is going to decide that this is Der Tag, and go to snatch up the Warsaw Pact? I am sure that the Brits, Italians, etc (not to mention the French) will just love that idea, especially since it almost inevitably leads to German reunification. Want to piss of EVERYONE, just go for that. And the Eastern Europeans, do you think that they are going to cooperate? A few protests, certainly, maybe even some serious rioting. But remember that the bulk of the Soviet military (including the overwhelming fraction of their Category A formations) would still be in Central Europe, and I rather doubt that anyone is going to play games with them there.
Lets return to the far east. I like your war aims, they are limited, make sense, and are achievable. Best guess is that the Soviets would use Harbin as a target for their primary axis of advance, with secondary strikes enveloping it from both sides of the Manchurian 'finger'. Given the terrain and the nature of the opposition, they will bet on a 30-45 day campaign, with a contingency plan for 60 days. Lets assume that they can stockpile 120 days high tempo supplies (tough to do, but possible), and not give away their mobilization until 10 days before the head out.
Barring any real surprises, this thing is doable, though very, very risky. Remember that the Soviets didn't have any real deepstrike capability at this time (I am working with 1979 as my target date, earlier - say 1972 or so - things go nuclear very quickly, later - say 1984 or so - the PRC is much stronger), so the PLAA will still be in operation and we should expect some truly awesome dogfighting as two huge incompetent airforces tear each other apart. Soviet armored formations should be able to penetrate very deeply without much difficulty, and assuming extensive use of gas, PLA casualties should be very high. I agree that eventually things will bog down, but not before the Soviets roll into Harbin, snipping off Manchuria and switching over to a garrison mode. The Chinese might wish to continue the war in low-intensity mode (guerillas, terror strikes, whathaveyou), but the real fighting would be over in about 5-6 weeks.
The aftermath would be horrible for both sides, which is why this would only happen if the Soviets were convinced something worse was in the offing. That scenario I leave as an exercise for the alert reader...
Lets start with your presumption that the PRC gets 'a few' nukes off. The actual number will likely be more like a few dozen or so, though most of them will be very, very short ranged. No more Vladivastok, Irkutsk, Khabarovsk, etc. Possibly no more Hanoi/Haiphong (though why the Chinese will waste precious nukes on distinctly secondary targets is beyond me..), and likely several Indian cities will be slagged if they are foolish enough to enter into a war (they wouldn't by the way). Major Soviet airfield complexes will be taken out as well, and a few choice chokepoints on the TSR will be glowing in the dark for years to come. The PRC had a few IRBMs/MRBMs as well, so there is a decent chance that they will lob a few at Soviet population centers in central asia and the Urals region, possibly even one or two for the big targets of Moscow/Leningrad/Kharkov/etc. Tell you what, we will pretend that the largely worthless soviet ABM system around Moscow stops those, for if it doesn't, this whole thing ends much more quickly.
Once this happens, the entire soviet logistics network collapses, and their army runs out of supplies and dies within a week or two. POL and ammo would be the biggest problem (Soviet divisions carried only a weeks worth of each even in assualt load-outs) The Far East Military district probably has some stockpiles (lets pretend that the PRC is foolish enough to ignore ALL of them, as well as the distriubtion centers, which are large, easily attacked, and cannot be hardened by their very nature), so lets give them USSR about 4 weeks before their troops are literally eating their belts and throwing rocks at the PLA. The entire logistics network runs directly along the TSR, even the major airfields, so only a few bombs are necessary to do the job.
Of course all of this is going to look like paradise compared to what happens to the Chinese. Soviet strikes against airfields, missile launch sites, troop concentrations (harder than it sounds, the PRC is mostly light infantry, and they dont' bunch up much), and of course population centers (what they heck, they might as well go in for genocide while they commit suicide) are going to kill a VERY large number of people (if both sides do what we now know their pre-war planning involved, the figure of 100 million is likely to be low by at least half, maybe more, and that counts only prompt deaths, disease, starvation, social collapse, etc, could easily double or triple that), and destroy a large fraction of the infrastructure.
My point here is that any use of nuclear weapons will be highly problematic for both sides, but primarily for the USSR. China has a LOT of people, and it has enduring horrible suffering and loss in the past. Circa the Carter era (a good time for this...after all, the rest of the world was miserable anyway, why not them...), the PRC was far, far less developed than the Soviet Union, and thus had less to lose. To be crude, they could be bombed back to the stone age, but it wouldn't be a long trip. The Soviets, on the other hand, couldn't endure the kind of losses suffered in WWII (whether they beat the PRC or not, particularly in a war that THEY STARTED) again without a serious threat to their govt. An attack on the PRC, particularly a nuclear one, would almost certainly invite nuclear retaliation, retaliation that would be far, far worse for the Soviets than it would be for the PRC. Now I can imagine some scenarios when a war might start, but I can imagine absolutely none (post 1970 or so) where the Soviets would use nukes unless the PRC did first.
Lets move on... Why no mention of gas? The soviets had lots of it, their troops were well-trained in its use, and the PRC had no effective defense against it. Light infantry (the bulk of the PRC) is most vulnerable to chemicals, and the terrain is almost perfect for it. Gas makes a wonderful area denial weapon as well, which is going to be important to the Soviets, who are advancing significant distances through highly hostile terrain...
Now, for fantasy, one cannot beat your suggestion that India and Vietnam would join in this insanity. The Indians had their heads handed to them in 1962, and until the 1990s, their foreign policy was largely centered upon not creating waves with the PRC. Why would they engage in a war that would net them almost nothing (Tibet?...risk nuclear retailiation over Tibet?), and would cost them a great deal. Not to mention that they have a far stronger (and more profitable) role as a mediator when both sides tire of this silliness if they simply stay out and wait. Nobody but an idiot would fail to recognize that even the 'winner' of this dust-up is going to be in really bad shape. So if the Indians stay out and wait, they can pick up some nice tidbits for free (or nearly so) when the PRC is in no position to complain. If they get involved, they could lose a city or two. Which one do you think that these folks are going to choose?
Vietnam is more problematic, but since they would be attacking a force that outnumbers them roughly 3:1, and is deeply entrenched (and lets remember, the PRC won't be advancing INTO Vietnam, so the tactics that worked so well during the last PRC incursion won't pay off this time), not to mention nuclear-armed. Once again, what does Vietnam get out of this? <crickets chirping>....anyone?....Bueller?....
All of this discussion of Eastern Europe...do you think that NATO is going to decide that this is Der Tag, and go to snatch up the Warsaw Pact? I am sure that the Brits, Italians, etc (not to mention the French) will just love that idea, especially since it almost inevitably leads to German reunification. Want to piss of EVERYONE, just go for that. And the Eastern Europeans, do you think that they are going to cooperate? A few protests, certainly, maybe even some serious rioting. But remember that the bulk of the Soviet military (including the overwhelming fraction of their Category A formations) would still be in Central Europe, and I rather doubt that anyone is going to play games with them there.
Lets return to the far east. I like your war aims, they are limited, make sense, and are achievable. Best guess is that the Soviets would use Harbin as a target for their primary axis of advance, with secondary strikes enveloping it from both sides of the Manchurian 'finger'. Given the terrain and the nature of the opposition, they will bet on a 30-45 day campaign, with a contingency plan for 60 days. Lets assume that they can stockpile 120 days high tempo supplies (tough to do, but possible), and not give away their mobilization until 10 days before the head out.
Barring any real surprises, this thing is doable, though very, very risky. Remember that the Soviets didn't have any real deepstrike capability at this time (I am working with 1979 as my target date, earlier - say 1972 or so - things go nuclear very quickly, later - say 1984 or so - the PRC is much stronger), so the PLAA will still be in operation and we should expect some truly awesome dogfighting as two huge incompetent airforces tear each other apart. Soviet armored formations should be able to penetrate very deeply without much difficulty, and assuming extensive use of gas, PLA casualties should be very high. I agree that eventually things will bog down, but not before the Soviets roll into Harbin, snipping off Manchuria and switching over to a garrison mode. The Chinese might wish to continue the war in low-intensity mode (guerillas, terror strikes, whathaveyou), but the real fighting would be over in about 5-6 weeks.
The aftermath would be horrible for both sides, which is why this would only happen if the Soviets were convinced something worse was in the offing. That scenario I leave as an exercise for the alert reader...
Thousand of Strategic Nuclear Weapons Used
China had no air defence, it had lots of little factories in lots of not so little cities, it was very decentralized industrially, militarily, and politically. There is no one or few targets you can hit.
So the Russians kill every city in China with the biggest bombs there bombers can carry, about 10 megatons each. They keep their missiles to threaten the US with.
We lose the next harvest.
China wins the war because they have warmer weather than Russia and they can logistically supply their armies. But they don't grab Siberia because after three fourths of their population has died they don't want it.
Western, Central, and Eastern (Russia) Europe starve, badly. England and America don't have a population reduction to the extent that Europe does. We make it through on our stored crops and the southern states. England and Canada get food from Australia, and because Canada has a lot of grazing land. Japan loses a lot of population too.
Mineral prices collapse.
India and South East Asia lose three fourths of it's population.
What's left of Europe federates so they never have to go through that again. Everybody keeps a year's supply of food around, just in case. This will stand us in good shape if Rabaul goes this year like it keeps threatening to.
China had no air defence, it had lots of little factories in lots of not so little cities, it was very decentralized industrially, militarily, and politically. There is no one or few targets you can hit.
So the Russians kill every city in China with the biggest bombs there bombers can carry, about 10 megatons each. They keep their missiles to threaten the US with.
We lose the next harvest.
China wins the war because they have warmer weather than Russia and they can logistically supply their armies. But they don't grab Siberia because after three fourths of their population has died they don't want it.
Western, Central, and Eastern (Russia) Europe starve, badly. England and America don't have a population reduction to the extent that Europe does. We make it through on our stored crops and the southern states. England and Canada get food from Australia, and because Canada has a lot of grazing land. Japan loses a lot of population too.
Mineral prices collapse.
India and South East Asia lose three fourths of it's population.
What's left of Europe federates so they never have to go through that again. Everybody keeps a year's supply of food around, just in case. This will stand us in good shape if Rabaul goes this year like it keeps threatening to.
Not advancing my 'history' yet.
Scott, I am assuming revenge on Vietnam as a motive, and as to what the Vietnamese get out of it, they have already completely alienated the USA and are now an open enemy of the PRC. They'ld BETTER do as the Soviet supplier of weapons demands or...
I probably wasn't clear but I intended that India received some vague 'protectorship' AFTER the war, as the USSR tried to salvage some threads of diplomatic and propoganda success. I did not intend to suggest India actually fought in the war, and your vision of India simply getting a few tidbits in the aftermath fits well with my plans.
As to the nukes, I presume a major Soviet effort to preempt China once the decision is made to go nuclear. Hence my assumption of Vladivostok and one or two other cities in Siberia(Khabarovsk and Irkutsk are two good choices), along with the TSR being ruined and dozens of Red Army units being wiped out. The number of PRC missles that could pass the Urals was rather small back then, and I believe(confirmation anyone?) they had to be fueled prior to launch so the Soviets could probably smother most of them.
In the aftermath of the nuclear exchange, as horrific as you predict, the USSR still has massive forces in reserve and probably establishes the sphere I predicted over the next year or two. China is now reduced to little more than infantry and the poison gas you mention along with massive development of helicopters will likely put paid to Chinese resistance. I do assume great tension, major forces on both sides, and probably constant guerilla activity, weakening the USSR in the West.
As to the Soviets using nukes first, once the alternative is losing a war along several thousand miles of their own border...
I think I should take into account the discovery of the rate at which war devours supplies. Basically weeks of violent advance and months of resupplying, almost like trench warfare, at least in the sense that armies might have a while to dig in before the next attack. Hmmm, how to ensure the opponent is NOT able to dig in that well...tactics anyone?
No, I don't see NATO invading but what is the Pact up to? At best the Soviets are gouging for supplies and equipment, at a hefty cost to the economies. Nor can we rule out the possibility of Moscow demanding 'volunteers' for the far eastern front. Perhaps even a corps or two of three divisions each? But let's assume only a few thousand plus a terrible economic crush, and as the Soviets need more equipment they begin dismantling the Pact's armies for gear. After all, as Soviet units move east, how strong should the Pact be? Since it is highly unlikely the Soviets see NATO invading, they could in theory strip Poland, DDR, etc of all tanks, aircraft, artillery and such without losing too much, except as the credibility of the East Europeans regimes hits a new low. And as the Soviets are forced to reduce THEIR OWN forces in Eastern Europe, and even more so any potential reinforcements, this might well become essential.
If we assume that the Soviets and PRC do NOT rush to atomic war, it might be the crisis for Moscow, when they can no longer safely pull forces from Eastern Europe and have little else to choose from.
As to East European intentions, Poland would likely have fought a Soviet re-occupation, and Hungary and Czechoslovakia would have been willing to try negotiating under an implicit threat of revolt. As to East Germany, well, we never did get an explanation for the equipment secretly stockpiled for another five divisions WITHOUT MENTIONING IT TO THE SOVIETS.
Scott, I am assuming revenge on Vietnam as a motive, and as to what the Vietnamese get out of it, they have already completely alienated the USA and are now an open enemy of the PRC. They'ld BETTER do as the Soviet supplier of weapons demands or...
I probably wasn't clear but I intended that India received some vague 'protectorship' AFTER the war, as the USSR tried to salvage some threads of diplomatic and propoganda success. I did not intend to suggest India actually fought in the war, and your vision of India simply getting a few tidbits in the aftermath fits well with my plans.
As to the nukes, I presume a major Soviet effort to preempt China once the decision is made to go nuclear. Hence my assumption of Vladivostok and one or two other cities in Siberia(Khabarovsk and Irkutsk are two good choices), along with the TSR being ruined and dozens of Red Army units being wiped out. The number of PRC missles that could pass the Urals was rather small back then, and I believe(confirmation anyone?) they had to be fueled prior to launch so the Soviets could probably smother most of them.
In the aftermath of the nuclear exchange, as horrific as you predict, the USSR still has massive forces in reserve and probably establishes the sphere I predicted over the next year or two. China is now reduced to little more than infantry and the poison gas you mention along with massive development of helicopters will likely put paid to Chinese resistance. I do assume great tension, major forces on both sides, and probably constant guerilla activity, weakening the USSR in the West.
As to the Soviets using nukes first, once the alternative is losing a war along several thousand miles of their own border...
I think I should take into account the discovery of the rate at which war devours supplies. Basically weeks of violent advance and months of resupplying, almost like trench warfare, at least in the sense that armies might have a while to dig in before the next attack. Hmmm, how to ensure the opponent is NOT able to dig in that well...tactics anyone?
No, I don't see NATO invading but what is the Pact up to? At best the Soviets are gouging for supplies and equipment, at a hefty cost to the economies. Nor can we rule out the possibility of Moscow demanding 'volunteers' for the far eastern front. Perhaps even a corps or two of three divisions each? But let's assume only a few thousand plus a terrible economic crush, and as the Soviets need more equipment they begin dismantling the Pact's armies for gear. After all, as Soviet units move east, how strong should the Pact be? Since it is highly unlikely the Soviets see NATO invading, they could in theory strip Poland, DDR, etc of all tanks, aircraft, artillery and such without losing too much, except as the credibility of the East Europeans regimes hits a new low. And as the Soviets are forced to reduce THEIR OWN forces in Eastern Europe, and even more so any potential reinforcements, this might well become essential.
If we assume that the Soviets and PRC do NOT rush to atomic war, it might be the crisis for Moscow, when they can no longer safely pull forces from Eastern Europe and have little else to choose from.
As to East European intentions, Poland would likely have fought a Soviet re-occupation, and Hungary and Czechoslovakia would have been willing to try negotiating under an implicit threat of revolt. As to East Germany, well, we never did get an explanation for the equipment secretly stockpiled for another five divisions WITHOUT MENTIONING IT TO THE SOVIETS.
Lets start with Eastern Europe. The Pact might consider some funny business AFTER a major soviet defeat, but the fact of the matter is that they are going to be facing the better part of half the Red Army even if the Soviets massively reinforced the Far East (there is only so much you cna move over the TSR, no matter how much you want to send there, and Vlad is a port of limited capacity), especially when the Soviets are not feeling restrained in the use of their troops. Absent any political constraints on Soviet responses to Warsaw pact shenanigans, there is simply no way that Poland, East Germany, et.al. are going to risk the kind of response that the Soviets delivered to the Hungarians, Poles, and Czechs over the past few decades...
You mention supply consumption rates, and your analysis would be good if you were talking about Western armies. You are not, however, and it is here that you run into problems. Soviet doctrine is based upon multiple echelons of attack, each one passing through the previous one, which (out of supplies, and burnt out by the tempo of combat) reverts to a defensive status while it is rebuilt. Hence there is no long 'pause' as units resupply/rehab, and the pace of the attack can be maintained for a longer period of time than is the case with Western armies. Of course if the attacks fail, then it is extremely difficult to restart them, but that has never been much of a problem for the Soviet military in the past. Since the invasion of China would require a fairly short penetration, it isn't unreasonable to expect that in a conventional conflict, there wouldn't be too much trouble in sustaining the advance. If the Soviets doubted this, they simply wouldn't invade, as the consequences of a stalled advance would be catastrophic for them.
As to the soviets using nukes first...given the risk of their entire army being cut of and destroyed (you still haven't addressed their logistics situation, particularly the vulnerability of a network totally dependent upon on rail line and one port in a nuclear environment) and the potentially catastrophic effect of a nuke hitting any major city in european Russia (a small number of missiles with that range is still a threat, and the Soviets didn't know where ALL of them were with any degree of precision), it makes little sense for the soviets to 'go nuclear' at any point. Now if they had absolute intelligence of a coming chinese strike, they might consider it, but even then, since the strike couldnt' be deterred or effectively stopped, it might be better to launch on warning, rather than take the geopolitical hit of being a first user. In either case though, there is very little incentive to strike first. By the way, yes, most of the PRC missiles were liquid fueled, but so were most of the Soviet ones at the time, and there is some chance at least that the US might be able to tip-off the Chinese if the USSR was planning something...
As for Vietnam...REVENGE?...you are kidding, right? They are going to risk the kind of wrath that the PRC can bring down upon them for revenge? The leadership of Vietnam aren't my favorite folks, but they are very cautious, very, very conservative leaders, and the idea that they are going to take a chance on millions of deaths, their capital reduced to radioactive junk, and their only large port in the north smashed beyond repair for something as petty as revenge is simply nonsense. Your arguments are worthwhile elsewhere, you should know better than this...
The soviets might indeed have massive forces in reserve after a nuclear exchange, but they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. No rail lines, their ports in the Far East wreckage, and every major concentration point along what was the TSR now gone (there were only three to begin with...), exactly how do they get those troops east?
You mention supply consumption rates, and your analysis would be good if you were talking about Western armies. You are not, however, and it is here that you run into problems. Soviet doctrine is based upon multiple echelons of attack, each one passing through the previous one, which (out of supplies, and burnt out by the tempo of combat) reverts to a defensive status while it is rebuilt. Hence there is no long 'pause' as units resupply/rehab, and the pace of the attack can be maintained for a longer period of time than is the case with Western armies. Of course if the attacks fail, then it is extremely difficult to restart them, but that has never been much of a problem for the Soviet military in the past. Since the invasion of China would require a fairly short penetration, it isn't unreasonable to expect that in a conventional conflict, there wouldn't be too much trouble in sustaining the advance. If the Soviets doubted this, they simply wouldn't invade, as the consequences of a stalled advance would be catastrophic for them.
As to the soviets using nukes first...given the risk of their entire army being cut of and destroyed (you still haven't addressed their logistics situation, particularly the vulnerability of a network totally dependent upon on rail line and one port in a nuclear environment) and the potentially catastrophic effect of a nuke hitting any major city in european Russia (a small number of missiles with that range is still a threat, and the Soviets didn't know where ALL of them were with any degree of precision), it makes little sense for the soviets to 'go nuclear' at any point. Now if they had absolute intelligence of a coming chinese strike, they might consider it, but even then, since the strike couldnt' be deterred or effectively stopped, it might be better to launch on warning, rather than take the geopolitical hit of being a first user. In either case though, there is very little incentive to strike first. By the way, yes, most of the PRC missiles were liquid fueled, but so were most of the Soviet ones at the time, and there is some chance at least that the US might be able to tip-off the Chinese if the USSR was planning something...
As for Vietnam...REVENGE?...you are kidding, right? They are going to risk the kind of wrath that the PRC can bring down upon them for revenge? The leadership of Vietnam aren't my favorite folks, but they are very cautious, very, very conservative leaders, and the idea that they are going to take a chance on millions of deaths, their capital reduced to radioactive junk, and their only large port in the north smashed beyond repair for something as petty as revenge is simply nonsense. Your arguments are worthwhile elsewhere, you should know better than this...
The soviets might indeed have massive forces in reserve after a nuclear exchange, but they aren't going anywhere anytime soon. No rail lines, their ports in the Far East wreckage, and every major concentration point along what was the TSR now gone (there were only three to begin with...), exactly how do they get those troops east?