Speculations about a conflict between NATO and Warsaw Pact

MrHola · Jun 6, 2008

Is there anyway we can cause a short, non-nuclear flashpoint (kinda like Red Storm Rising) between NATO and the Warsaw Pact preferably set in 1981/1982 with a POD no sooner then 1979. I was thinking of a possible escalation of the Polish Martial Law in 1981. What would be the short and long term effects?

Berra · Jun 6, 2008

Afganistan war? NATO send a mechanised brigade to Pakistan to help the refugees from Afganistan. Meanwile, the soviets preform a cross border raid against guerilla fighters...

Billi the Axe · Jun 6, 2008

NO NO NO ,It's really not likely that a limited war happens.I've seen multiple wargames played at the Puzzle Palace and it never ends in ay other than i-plementation of the SIOP and BOOM where all dead.

Limited war strategies fail in most part to account for automatic reponses to any aggression by the other party and then it's Aug '14 all over again. With the events taking over the process and the Genie comes out of the bottle.

Ther were very sound reasons behind Detente

Jukra · Jun 7, 2008

Billi the Axe said:
Limited war strategies fail in most part to account for automatic reponses to any aggression by the other party and then it's Aug '14 all over again. With the events taking over the process and the Genie comes out of the bottle.

But that prevents all these meaningful discussions about how US military sucked before Reagan and M1-AH-64-A-10etc so wonderful technology and this somehow magically prevents European militaries (filled with, what, conscripts? They'll run like Iraqis in 1991!) to carry out the brunt of the fighting...

I do agree with you, although with no experience like you have. Conventional hot war in cold war context is a fantasy. Although there's still couple of hot war scenarios in Cold War Europe which might be possible, although very unfeasible.

First would be WP invasion of Yugoslavia, but, for what, really? Maybe Yugoslavian civil war in the 1970's with WP putting in "peacekeeper" troops.

Then there's the scenario of Soviet Union reacquiring Finland as Grand Duchy, which would again, be of more negative than positive repercussions for Soviet Union.

Finally there could be WP invading Sweden in 1970's when integrity of Western Europe and USA seemed to be at it's lowest, and it seemed that Palme had managed to disgruntle even US leadership. This scenario could be a result of a CSCE process going wrong, and Soviet Union showing that without agreement on post-war-European order violent conflicts could be possible. Invading Sweden would also provide Soviet economy fairly lot of advanced technology and various production facilities, as well as providing Soviet military machine something to do. It's an infeasible scenario, but about the best I can imagine for a wholly conventional war in Europe involving WP during the Cold War.

Alexius · Jun 7, 2008

Jukra said:
European militaries (filled with, what, conscripts? They'll run like Iraqis in 1991!) to carry out the brunt of the fighting...

I disagree with your assessment of European militaries. After all-
The Soviet army is full of conscripts.
Conscript armies do not automatically lose a war. After all, look at WW1, WW2, Korea...
The reason why the Iraqis ran wasn't because they were conscripts, it was because they were outnumbered and had far worse equipment and training. Most European armies are equipped and trained to something closer to American than Soviet levels, and have a sizeable core of volunteers as well as the conscripts doing their year's military service.

Jukra · Jun 7, 2008

Alexius said:
I disagree with your assessment of European militaries. After all-
The Soviet army is full of conscripts.
Conscript armies do not automatically lose a war. After all, look at WW1, WW2, Korea...

I was trying to be ironic without smileys, which is hard. It's just that many of those hypothetic WW III discussions are entirely US-centric, without considering NATO allies which provided the vast bulk of forces, or even much considering Soviet forces. I do completely agree with your estimate. It might be pointed out that given long service periods of Cold War I would guess many European conscript militaries might be better off than the professional US Army as an average conscript tends to be of better physical and psychological material than an average professional army recruit.

MerryPrankster · Jun 7, 2008

Why is it fantasy to hold that cooler heads might prevail in the event of a limited war?

It is true that events can spiral out of control, but it is also true that the costs of a nuclear war are so massive that it gives both sides' leadership incentive to STOP the mayhem before it grows into a nuclear exchange.

Billi the Axe · Jun 7, 2008

It's fantasy because the USSR unilaterally would shift to Chemical WMD's ,The second they bogged down, It's taught in there trade school's and inscribed in stone to the General officers who would be running the war on the Soviet side. Soviet era doctrine called for immediate and massive bombardment with
Chemical's . SACEUR in whose opinion matters most will vie this as WMD per NATO doctrine and respond accordingly.

MerryPrankster · Jun 7, 2008

Billi the Axe said:
It's fantasy because the USSR unilaterally would shift to Chemical WMD's ,The second they bogged down, It's taught in there trade school's and inscribed in stone to the General officers who would be running the war on the Soviet side. Soviet era doctrine called for immediate and massive bombardment with
Chemical's . SACEUR in whose opinion matters most will vie this as WMD per NATO doctrine and respond accordingly.

Ah.

Thing is, what if the politicos intervened to stop the chemicals from being used?

Just because the military wants to do something doesn't mean it will get done if the politicians get involved.

Or what if one side or the other calls for a halt after the initial nuclear and chemical use, knowing well what it could lead to?

DTF955Baseballfan · Jun 7, 2008

I think part of the problem some have is that - to my knowledge (and I could be wrong, but I have never heard of them doing it) - the Soviets never used them in Afghanistan, so people don't think of it as an option to escalate a war with NATO. The difference there was that, of course, they expected to win, but more importantly, if they start toing that in Afghanistan, that lets the West know what they have, and they wanted to keep it as secretive as possible.

Of course, maybe they did use them. Or, maybe they did and the West wasn't told till years later.

Jukra · Jun 7, 2008

MerryPrankster said:
Ah.Thing is, what if the politicos intervened to stop the chemicals from being used?

Just because the military wants to do something doesn't mean it will get done if the politicians get involved.

Or what if one side or the other calls for a halt after the initial nuclear and chemical use, knowing well what it could lead to?

Soviet doctrine - about as sensibly as one can imagine - prioritized nuclear delivery systems for targets of their conventional forces in so-called conventional phase of war, making the situation "use it or lose it" for NATO. In similar way, priority target for USN were the Soviet SSBN's.

Additionally, it would be very difficult to execute such a limited nuclear fire plan in which enemy C&C would be left sufficient to prevent spasm use due to distrupted communications etc. Nuclear weapons were too central to cold war military mindset simply to be ignored in Clancyesque style.

The another question of course is if the nuclear war would have been winnable in 1970's to 1980's timeframe for the US, in sense that the USA would have been the last man standing. It's possible, I think, due to much better condition of US strategic forces compared to their Soviet counterparts.

Personally I think, if one would want to develop a realistic WW III scenario for late cold war it would involve first use of nuclear weapons by WP from the outset of the war. With first strike in a bolt out of blue, or virtually bolt out of blue, scenario most of the NATO tactical and operational nukes could have been eliminated along with the best NATO conventional forces. Conventional weapons could be spared to destroy nuclear bases in UK in order to prevent UK independent nuclear deterrent from working. Most of the remaining NATO tactical nuclear weapons and operational nukes would be fired upon Eastern Europe. European NATO countries would be presented with an ultimatum over ultimate destruction or surrender.

Then the US would have been left essentially with option of fighting an intercontinental war with USSR, in which it would fairly surely suffer from massive damage, or enter negotiations with USSR about new security arrangements. The US leadership would be faced with question whether to sacrifice USA over already damaged Western Europe. This scenario is a very long shot.

Alexius · Jun 7, 2008

Jukra said:
Conventional weapons could be spared to destroy nuclear bases in UK in order to prevent UK independent nuclear deterrent from working.

Wouldn't work after 1968- and probably not before then either. After June 1968, Britain has an SSBN at sea at all times, and I sincerely doubt that Russian ASW is good enough to find it and kill it.
Before then, deterrent is provided by Vulcan bombers on constant quick-reaction alert, and dispersed to prevent them being taken out. As soon as they are notified that a strike is on the way, they'll launch.

And your plan is basically for the USSR to roll over Europe, using nuclear weapons, and take a gamble on the USA not striking back if you don't directly attack it. Risky. Very risky indeed. And I haven't even mentioned the French...

Jukra · Jun 7, 2008

Alexius said:
Wouldn't work after 1968- and probably not before then either. After June 1968, Britain has an SSBN at sea at all times, and I sincerely doubt that Russian ASW is good enough to find it and kill it.
Before then, deterrent is provided by Vulcan bombers on constant quick-reaction alert, and dispersed to prevent them being taken out. As soon as they are notified that a strike is on the way, they'll launch.

Poor paraphrasing, what I meant is that UK, or more exactly the nuclear bases in UK, should be struck with conventional weapons only to restrain UK to use it's independent nuclear deterrent.

Alexius said:
And your plan is basically for the USSR to roll over Europe, using nuclear weapons, and take a gamble on the USA not striking back if you don't directly attack it. Risky. Very risky indeed. And I haven't even mentioned the French...

Yes, as I said it's a very long shot for numerous reasons, not only risking annihilation of USSR but also virtual certainty of significant damage for her empire in Eastern Europe. Only way a scenario like this could even be contemplated to work is a situation in which Soviet leadership decides to risk a large scale war in order to somehow revitalize Soviet Union in similar way to Great Patriotic War. Purifying by fire, like various militarists during early 20th Century thought. As reward, rich industrial regions of the Benelux countries, Denmark and Germany could be had.

As for the French, they should be similarly spared to prevent Force de Frappe, or to be more exact, French SSBN's from launching.

But I think a scenario like mine is more realistic in late Cold War context than one involving massive Soviet conventional onslaught, preparation of which would make sure that NATO could mobilize too, and conventional struggle in which everyone would be certain would end in a nuclear warfighting.

Fellatio Nelson · Jun 7, 2008

Jukra said:
Poor paraphrasing, what I meant is that UK, or more exactly the nuclear bases in UK, should be struck with conventional weapons only to restrain UK to use it's independent nuclear deterrent.

Click to expand...

That risks precipitating a nuclear war. No one would sit and wait for their nuclear capability to be destroyed before using it.

Or maybe they would, but the enemy wouldn't risk it.

As for the French, they should be similarly spared to prevent Force de Frappe, or to be more exact, French SSBN's from launching.

Click to expand...

The French'd probably only have used them if the Soviets went onto French territory. IIRC their whole doctrine was based on it being far more trouble than it was worth to attack France: they'd obliterate much of France, but the French would cause disproportionate damage to the enemy for any benefit accrued.

Billi the Axe · Jun 8, 2008

Wait one , There is no way to disable the launch detection satellites that would detect any launch of Soviet rockets. So a bolt from the blue NBC attack doesn't work as its basically impossible to accomplish by the 70's. Any launch enacts the use it or lose it and again where back to a cinder in the making.

By the way it does implicitly stae thatATO members will be defended by US Nukes if attacked by same . It all adds up to the same thing a World War after the early 50's had no winner only losers and was to be avoided at all costs. And despite propaganda to the contrary niether side really wanted an armed conflict.

Jukra · Jun 8, 2008

Fellatio Nelson said:
That risks precipitating a nuclear war. No one would sit and wait for their nuclear capability to be destroyed before using it.

UK's nuclear deterrent was based during 1980's, like now, upon SSBN's, which by virtue are very hard to eliminate. Polaris missiles were also inaccurate even if citing their industry brochures, ruling out their use in any other than city-busting retaliotary strategy. Thus I think their use might be (remember, trying to argue for a scenario here) ordered only after proven enemy intention to destroy UK, eg. at least warning of ballistic missiles inbound UK or after nuclear strikes on UK are confirmed.

However, significant number of US and UK theater nuclear forces were based in UK. Their elimination would have posed a significant problem but would have to be risked through conventional weapons only.

Jukra · Jun 8, 2008

Billi the Axe said:
Wait one , There is no way to disable the launch detection satellites that would detect any launch of Soviet rockets. So a bolt from the blue NBC attack doesn't work as its basically impossible to accomplish by the 70's. Any launch enacts the use it or lose it and again where back to a cinder in the making.

But there's quite a few caveats to this. First off, launch warning systems specify where the launch is made. Thus the ICBM and theater nuke launches can be distinquished from each other from the outset. Also, without attacking missile detection radars this confirmation could have been saved too. In the target end, theater and tactical nukes were not in same level of instant preparedness as strategic nukes were. The instant retaliation was based upon a few Pershing missiles and QRA aircraft kept in short readiness. Based in heavily populated Europe, I'm sure at least most of them can be located. Rest of the tactical and operational nukes were based in various storage areas and kasernes which were known even by public domain.

All operational and tactical nukes could not have been eliminated, but vast majority of them could have been. But only through virtually bolt-out-of-blue attack, maybe on Christmas.

Billi the Axe said:
y the way it does implicitly stae thatATO members will be defended by US Nukes if attacked by same . It all adds up to the same thing a World War after the early 50's had no winner only losers and was to be avoided at all costs. And despite propaganda to the contrary niether side really wanted an armed conflict.

I do agree with you, risks were far too large for an conflict to be initiated in OTL.

But the question is, would the US President, risk up escalating conflict to intercontinental level if it could be "contained" to be fought only in Europe?

I'll post a TL written on this premise, which was left unfinished.

Billi the Axe · Jun 8, 2008

Well lets see about 300,000 plus US citizens just got vapoized as did a significant portion of US Army formations. Any President that didn't respond would probably be removed from office immediatly. It's the one factor not taken into account . In addition the EMP would probably mess up the ELF system, When that goes dead SSBN's would probably launch they had the authority.

Jukra a more interesting TL would be a Soviet Coup when Stavka realized the idiot politicans wanted to kill the world.

MerryPrankster · Jun 8, 2008

Billi the Axe said:
Jukra a more interesting TL would be a Soviet Coup when Stavka realized the idiot politicans wanted to kill the world.

That might be a good idea.

Imagine "Red Storm Rising" with some tactical nukage and gas on both sides and then the generals revolt to stop it from getting out of hand.

After all, it's the behinds of their men (and to a lesser extent they themselves) on the firing line, not the politicians.

Reekwind · Jun 8, 2008

Billi the Axe said:
Jukra a more interesting TL would be a Soviet Coup when Stavka realized the idiot politicans wanted to kill the world.

Unlikely. The Soviet Army had been firmly subservient to the Party since the Revolution. Events would have to spiral badly out of control before the military chiefs decided to step in. Even in OTL it was hardliners from within the CP, and not the military, that led the August Coup as the USSR was on the brink of collapse

This was even acknowledged in Red Storm Rising with it being a Hollywood Hero, and not the military top brass, who decides to take action