DBWI Challenge: No WWIII

Kabraloth · Jun 12, 2006

Greetings from the Commonwealth of Ash!

I know most of us are having very much time to spare (there's only so much to do in the bunkers here, after all), so in my off-time yesterday (with no computer access), it got me thinking:

95% of all timelines here incorporate at least one nuclear war which ends almost all of civilization. I know, it's "common knowledge" that the developement of nukes will inevitably lead into armageddon and nuclear winter, but we are alternate historians, for Allah's sake!

So, with that said, here's my challenge: POD is the Cuban disaster doesn't happen. Prevent the world from experiencing a nuclear world war after that, but without ASBs. I know you can do it!

Max Sinister · Jun 12, 2006

Since WW2 the world had a similar crisis every few years: Berlin (ok, at that time the Soviets had no nukes yet, so Stalin HAD to step back), Korea, Vietnam... if you don't want WW3, you have to put sure that in every such crisis both sides have to be absolutely sane. If one side isn't, just ONCE, it's too late.

BTW, I once read a pre-WW3 article by someone claiming that the US was electing presidents only for the "show value", like Kennedy. Men who were sympathical in TV, but not necessarily more competent. WI the Republicans decided to pull a JFK and nominate a republican actor, or showmaster? Like John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, or whatshisname, Reagan? Starring in a movie is one thing, but can they lead the country in a crisis comparable to Cuba?

Wendell · Jun 13, 2006

If the Bay of Pigs succeeds, the war resulting from the later placement of Soviet missiles in Cuba will not happen.

tinfoil · Jun 13, 2006

Wendell said:
If the Bay of Pigs succeeds, the war resulting from the later placement of Soviet missiles in Cuba will not happen.

Yeah, but the damn godless commies were spoiling for a fight somewheres. They couldn't stand the US way-of-life, and were more than willing to sacrifice most of their population to make sure that we wouldn't have 'apple pie and the girl next door'. We'd have fought over nukes in Turkey, or Poland, or somewhere.

You have to remove the selfish communist party to take away their motivation for nuking everything. Maybe a democratic counter-revolution? What would that take? Was there even a democratic movement in the USSR?

Maybe the Russians and the Chinese could just nuke each other, and leave us alone.

Wendell · Jun 13, 2006

tinfoil said:
Yeah, but the damn godless commies were spoiling for a fight somewheres. They couldn't stand the US way-of-life, and were more than willing to sacrifice most of their population to make sure that we wouldn't have 'apple pie and the girl next door'. We'd have fought over nukes in Turkey, or Poland, or somewhere.

You have to remove the selfish communist party to take away their motivation for nuking everything. Maybe a democratic counter-revolution? What would that take? Was there even a democratic movement in the USSR?

Maybe the Russians and the Chinese could just nuke each other, and leave us alone.

As we now know from records stocked in a bunker, the Soviet Union had been carrying on one large bluff, and it blew up in Nuclear October.

Kabraloth · Jun 14, 2006

Greetings from the Commonwealth of Ash.

So, if you can have the US somehow figure out that the UdSSR was bluffing, do you think there wouldn't have been a WWIII, but a US hegemony instead?
I'm not so sure about that, though. Maybe they could have had some of their secret agents smuggle small nuclear devices into the US government, effectively decapitating it. If anything, the Russians were quick to innovate (just look at the Commonwealth of Dust today).

Wendell · Jun 15, 2006

Kabraloth said:
Greetings from the Commonwealth of Ash.

So, if you can have the US somehow figure out that the UdSSR was bluffing, do you think there wouldn't have been a WWIII, but a US hegemony instead?
I'm not so sure about that, though. Maybe they could have had some of their secret agents smuggle small nuclear devices into the US government, effectively decapitating it. If anything, the Russians were quick to innovate (just look at the Commonwealth of Dust today).

The U.S. would still return fire.

PoorBoy · Jun 15, 2006

Well, it was just a war with warheads limited to military installations...until the South Africans decided to intervene, when they blew up both the Reliant and the Moskva while they were in mid-battle in the Indian Ocean. Up to this day, no one know which side they were on. After that, the gloves were off: Israel, China, and India decided to join in. And when an errant bomb hit Delhi instead of a nearby military installation, everyone began to blow up cities with all the bombs they got.

Well, good thing we ran out of bombs in 1994, and the remaining plutonium is now being diverted to nuclear power.

Getting back to topic, if the bombings were limited to military installations, then eventually the Soviets would eventually pick off the main American cache in Colorado, instead of the bombs being diverted to cities. With most of the American nukes unable to take off, then the atmosphere would still be breathable with only around 75 nukes detonated, and we wouldn't be living in bunkers today. Soviet dominated world, yes. But still a livable place.

Oops, I guess I didn't prevent a nuclear war in this case. Oh well.

Wendell · Jun 15, 2006

PoorBoy said:
Well, it was just a war with warheads limited to military installations...until the South Africans decided to intervene, when they blew up both the Reliant and the Moskva while they were in mid-battle in the Indian Ocean. Up to this day, no one know which side they were on. After that, the gloves were off: Israel, China, and India decided to join in. And when an errant bomb hit Delhi instead of a nearby military installation, everyone began to blow up cities with all the bombs they got.

Well, good thing we ran out of bombs in 1994, and the remaining plutonium is now being diverted to nuclear power.

Getting back to topic, if the bombings were limited to military installations, then eventually the Soviets would eventually pick off the main American cache in Colorado, instead of the bombs being diverted to cities. With most of the American nukes unable to take off, then the atmosphere would still be breathable with only around 75 nukes detonated, and we wouldn't be living in bunkers today. Soviet dominated world, yes. But still a livable place.

Oops, I guess I didn't prevent a nuclear war in this case. Oh well.

The U.S. government had several secret facilities.

PoorBoy · Jun 15, 2006

Wendell said:
The U.S. government had several secret facilities.

Yeah. And as the recently declassified files show, they had no nukes; just command centres. Quite frankly, if the KGB were competent, they should have realized that the US had put all their eggs in one basket.

Well, maybe that's it...a competent KGB would prevent a nuclear war. Well, maybe not. But that would certainly limit it drastically.

Anthony Appleyard · Jun 16, 2006

Are any of you old to remember when sport scuba diving was a common leisure activity? We would still have it now, because some government body would not have had an excuse to get scared of frogman attack risks and the world's governments restricted scuba diving to work and the armed forces and possession and use of scuba gear is under tight control like UK gun control laws.