World War III Question

[crnagora99]

What would have been THE BEST reason to start WWIII between Warsaw Pact and NATO?

[Darkest]

Soviet spies steal all US nuclear weapons overnight! (except for a 1 KT nuke, with no delivery system, that the US administration decides to detonate anyway, just to join the party, in the White House).

Woah dang, worker's paradise here we come!

[Johnestauffer]

During a Warsaw Pact military exercise, some of the aircraft become disoriented, and drop their bomb loads on West German troop concentrations (rather than the simulated targets they had expected)
West German troops fire back. Warsaw Pac units respond. Gradually the situation escalates to a point where Warsaw Pac units cross the border and enter West Germany.
At this point, the NATO forces in Germany respond and assist the West German forces.
The situation continues to grow and gradually more and more forces are drawn into the situation.

(This senario would have not gotten so out of hand, had not the WP forces already been on a war footing for their exercises and already deployed near the border)

[Gremlin]

No Nuclear bombs developed.

Conventional wars can be won and lost, Nuclear ones tend to get iffy.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by crnagora99

What would have been THE BEST reason to start WWIII between Warsaw Pact and NATO?

Define best? Most likely? Reason for the west to start one? reason for Stalin to think he could reach the Atlantic?

Otherwise I would be tempted to stick with there's no rational reason at all to start one.

Steve

[arctic warrior]

Originally Posted by Johnestauffer

During a Warsaw Pact military exercise, some of the aircraft become disoriented, and drop their bomb loads on West German troop concentrations (rather than the simulated targets they had expected)
West German troops fire back. Warsaw Pac units respond. Gradually the situation escalates to a point where Warsaw Pac units cross the border and enter West Germany.
At this point, the NATO forces in Germany respond and assist the West German forces.
The situation continues to grow and gradually more and more forces are drawn into the situation.

(This senario would have not gotten so out of hand, had not the WP forces already been on a war footing for their exercises and already deployed near the border)

Well you know, West Germany WAS and Germany IS part of NATO, so... So of course everybody would be drawn into the conflict. That was the general scenario. Everybody in Western Europe knew that the WP was always on a near to war footing when conducting excercises that was to diverge at the border.
But the best excuse - helping the Poles against Soviet aggression post 1980.

[Dayton Kitchens]

The book "Red Thrusts" has the best scenario.

Soviets badly mishandle a local crisis in East Berlin prompting riots.

East German army troops are reluctant to fire on their own people and after even more heavy handed Soviet tactics actively start assisting protesters.

East German troops open gaps in the Berlin Wall for people to flee. Soviet troops fire on East Germans pouring through the gaps, hitting and killing numerous West Berliners gathering on their side of the gaps.

The West German troops in Berlin begin firing on Soviet troops to protect their own people.

The Soviet Union shuts down all access to West Berlin until the situation is resolved. West Germany flies in supplies escorted by fighters. Air battles ensue.

The Soviet Union, fearing that the situation is getting out of their control decide to invade and occupy West Germany in order to prevent their eastern european empire from unraveling.

[Agentdark]

That is a good one

[Dayton Kitchens]

It doesn't take much to imagine it.

What if someone in the Politburo in the Soviet Union or East Germany had a sudden change of heart and ordered East Berlin guards to disperse those crowds tearing down the Berlin Wall in 1989?

It starts with shots fired in the air. Protestors respond by hurling stones at the guards. Eventually guards start firing on the protestors, killing Germans on both sides of the wall.

[talonbear01]

The best, or most likely way for a war to have started was during the Soviet blockade of Berline during 1948-1949. If, instead of an airlift, the US and Britian had decided to force their way through to the city by land. Or a single gun or tank shot at checkpoint charlie could have esclated and started the thing.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Hell, I'd take something during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I'd give 40/60 odds that the war doesn't go nuclear (at least partially.)

[Darkest]

The Soviet Union would get mopped up if war broke out over the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Americans have, at this time in 1962, have about 25,000 nuclear warheads. The Soviets? Less than 5,000.

Only at around 1975 does World War III really become fair (though really only considering nuclear stockpiles). At around 1985 the Soviets could mop up the Americans with their 45,000 nuclear warheads against their 25,000.

[CalBear]

Originally Posted by Darkest

The Soviet Union would get mopped up if war broke out over the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Americans have, at this time in 1962, have about 25,000 nuclear warheads. The Soviets? Less than 5,000.

Only at around 1975 does World War III really become fair (though really only considering nuclear stockpiles). At around 1985 the Soviets could mop up the Americans with their 45,000 nuclear warheads against their 25,000.

As I noted in a different thread(http://alternatehistory.com/discussi...d.php?t=41740), number of weapons at that level is completely meaningless.

You can destroy the United States as an economic and military power with 50 weapons, you can REALLY destroy the U.S. as a Nation-State with 100. The same goes for the USSR/Russia or any other country on the Planet. Actually, you can more or less destroy any economy with 10-15 weapons.

Two Ohio's or Delta IV's and the target nation ceases to exist. This was somewhat less true (as far as delivery systems) in 1961, but a Soviet attack, especially using the weapons in Cuba, would have destroyed the Eastern Seaboard and much of the Gulf Coast.

The need for warhead numbers was purely to ensure MAD and a decent counter force after the initial major exchange. (A truly stupid idea, what would be left to hit?)

[backstab]

Originally Posted by Darkest

The Soviet Union would get mopped up if war broke out over the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Americans have, at this time in 1962, have about 25,000 nuclear warheads. The Soviets? Less than 5,000.

Only at around 1975 does World War III really become fair (though really only considering nuclear stockpiles). At around 1985 the Soviets could mop up the Americans with their 45,000 nuclear warheads against their 25,000.

If the US has to resort to Nukes then they have amitted that they have lost the war !

[Cook]

The most likely cause of a nuclear war during the cold war was by accident.
The Soviet panic over Exercise “Able Archer” in 1983 very nearly saw them launch in the belief that NATO was about to attack.
Some other near misses are listed here:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.07/start.html?pg=11

[juanml82]

Even if Soviet troops kill Western Germans by mistake or negligence, would that escalate into WWIII? Governments and diplomats would try to smooth things over. Wars of such a kind typically start by political decisions, not a bunch of conscripts screwing things up.

[Riain]

The best intel during the Cuban Missile Crisis was that the USSR could hit the USA with 340 warheads, and that a US first strike would eliminate 90% of these. So as it turned out the US was effectively deterred by a total of 34 nukes; I suppose 3 on each of the US' 9 or 10 biggest cities plus failures and misses.

That said I think peripheral crises are more likely to set off WW3 than the 'Soviets invade Germany' scenario.

[The Vulture]

Some overzealous tank commander on either side opens fire during the 1961 Berlin Standoff?

[MerryPrankster]

I agree with Riain's point.

The 1973 war in the Middle East could have triggered WWIII. IIRC the US was on a very high level nuclear alert, complete with B-52 "orbiting" in northern Canada, and there were fears of Soviet intervention to defend the Syrians from the Israelis, who were threatening Damascus itself.

Something getting squirrelly in South Africa could be a flashpoint. Say there's a Soviet-backed attempt by the black states bordering South Africa to drive the white people into the sea. The South Africans threaten to use their nukes if the West doesn't intervene, the West refuses, and the South Africans unleash their nukes.

The Soviets, betting on world outrage at the South Africans' behavior (on top of the usual anti-apartheid sentiment), get involved in the war ostensibly to put down a "rogue" state and the US intervenes to ensure the Soviets and their pawns don't take control of the Cape route.

There's a novel called The Sixth Battle involving a war between the US and some kind of reformed Soviet-ish state over South Africa. The Soviets have CBGs of their own, so fun ensues.

[Cook]

Imagine Haiti taking place in a major US city. That would be from ONE NUCLEAR WEAPON.

Now imagine twenty cities, fifty, etc.

Any action that would precipitate an enemy attack with even a single nuclear weapon on a major city can only be seen as an absolute disaster.

No-one sane enough to be given responsibility for nuclear weapons, be they American or Russian, is going to deliberately do anything that will result in having to use those weapons.

That leaves accidental use.