I seriously doubt they had that many problems in '84{if this had been the late '50s and early '60s we were talking about, then yeah}..............and most of those 2,000 warheads you mentioned absolutely would have been targeted at the silos, so the U.S. couldn't launch a second massive nuke attack in the future{we almost certainly would have, sadly; we did have a Republican administration at the time, and there was always a good chance of anti-Communist fervor reaching the point where people would want the enemy totally destroyed no matter the cost..........not to mention many of our bombers wouldn't be able to make it home.}. It just made more sense in '84 then, than in say.........1962 or something.
Protect and Survive: A Timeline
- Thread starter Macragge1
- Start date
I seriously doubt they had that many problems in '84{if this had been the late '50s and early '60s we were talking about, then yeah}..............and most of those 2,000 warheads you mentioned absolutely would have been targeted at the silos, so the U.S. couldn't launch a second massive nuke attack in the future{we almost certainly would have, sadly; we did have a Republican administration at the time, and there was always a good chance of anti-Communist fervor reaching the point where people would want the enemy totally destroyed no matter the cost..........not to mention many of our bombers wouldn't be able to make it home.}. It just made more sense in '84 then, than in say.........1962 or something.
I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he meant "strategic" to be inserted in the appropriate place.
If you don't like "unprovoked", how about a "disproportionate response"?
This seems an accurate description of the Soviets responding to a tactical burst in Germany with tit-for tat tactical on US forces plus a total strategic strike on all NATO military and civilian targets in Europe and North America. (London alone received 10 megaton-range weapons). Plus all the neutrals hit in general principles.
I don't think there is a human being on Earth who wouldn't have gone ape after receiving that load of goodies, regardless of his political persuations.
This seems an accurate description of the Soviets responding to a tactical burst in Germany with tit-for tat tactical on US forces plus a total strategic strike on all NATO military and civilian targets in Europe and North America. (London alone received 10 megaton-range weapons). Plus all the neutrals hit in general principles.
I don't think there is a human being on Earth who wouldn't have gone ape after receiving that load of goodies, regardless of his political persuations.
I certainly agree on that. The fact that in that scenario there are likely to be rather fewer humans on Earth to have that reaction is of course moot.
Macragge1
Banned
Yeah - I saw some video of an exercise where they were landing Hercules and Thunderbolts on a strip of Autobahn. Very cool.
Thanks for the kind words.
That's the heart of it of course - it's not so much who started it, as who finished it.
Hmmm, but the Soviets did respond to the US tactical use with a tactical response on US forces in Germany. Presumably both sides over this six hour period were attempting to control the escalation but it escalated so much towards the end of this period that the US were using large warheads on "logistics" sites in Eastern Europe. Presumable at this stage the Soviets decided on a full scale strike because
1) Evidence showed over the past 6 hours it was proving impossible to limit rapid escalation.
2) US strikes on rear areas showed escalation to targets that one or the other side considered strategic was imminent
3) The USSR was more vulnerable to a steady escalation to strategic targets than the US (let alone it's vulnerability to a US first strike)
If your strike is in response to a situation were on good grounds you believe a strategic exchange was inevitable and imminent and were any delay would make the destruction your country would suffer much worse , is it disproportionate?
I suppose it is impossible to accurately imagine the thought processes involved in this situation, whether Soviet or NATO, and the pressure would be on to make every warhead count.
Having said that........
You are suggesting I believe that the Soviet escalation was pre-emptive in nature as opposed to being a first strike, (Shades of Herman Kahn
) and therefore not disproportionate.
I have to disagree with this due to the Soviets going for the whole spectrum of military, industrial and demographic targets at once. This was grossly irresponsible imo as it merely brought down a similar attack on their own society. A more sensible attack strategy would have been counterforce only, giving the NATO NCA some incentive to spare Soviet cities also.
I only bought into this because of the post that inferred that a Republican Prez was more likely to go all-out as opposed to a Democrat because of anti-communist hatreds.
Having said that........
You are suggesting I believe that the Soviet escalation was pre-emptive in nature as opposed to being a first strike, (Shades of Herman Kahn
) and therefore not disproportionate. I have to disagree with this due to the Soviets going for the whole spectrum of military, industrial and demographic targets at once. This was grossly irresponsible imo as it merely brought down a similar attack on their own society. A more sensible attack strategy would have been counterforce only, giving the NATO NCA some incentive to spare Soviet cities also.
I only bought into this because of the post that inferred that a Republican Prez was more likely to go all-out as opposed to a Democrat because of anti-communist hatreds.
And I agree with your main point too, I don't think a Carter administration would have made a different decision than a Reagan administration on whether or not to use the nukes under these circumstances.
And the origin of this mess is a Soviet invasion of Germany which must have pretty strong justification given the risks involved if it is not to be disproportionate.
Though the Brits nuking of BA strode me as disproportionate too and has a good chance at causing them all sorts of grief in the future.
And the origin of this mess is a Soviet invasion of Germany which must have pretty strong justification given the risks involved if it is not to be disproportionate.
Though the Brits nuking of BA strode me as disproportionate too and has a good chance at causing them all sorts of grief in the future.
In actuality, I would be surprised to see either Cleveland or Toledo escape unscathed. Both are/were major centers for auto manufacturing and related components; Toledo, in particular, is/was the main manufacturing plant for Jeep. Cleveland also has a major NASA research facility. Hard to say about fallout; a west/northwest wind dumps fallout from Chicago/Milwaukee on Toledo and fallout from Detroit on Cleveland. Toledo also had some military value; there was/is an Air National Guard unit at the airport that has fighters.
I agree that some cities would survive by chance. And the Soviets would have trouble identifying missed targets, communicating that to their surviving missile units and taking those remaining cities out (though this problem was predictable so would they not bother with a large missile reserve and just let almost everything fly in the initial salvo??)
Also it is possible to find a reason to make just about any US city a valid target given the number of warheads the Russians could use if they wanted to. For a previous post I took four small (30,000 population cities) at random and assuming I was looking for a reason to hit them, I found a reason for each city. Try it, choose some innocuous place and think of a reason to target it - all good morbid fun.
Also it is possible to find a reason to make just about any US city a valid target given the number of warheads the Russians could use if they wanted to. For a previous post I took four small (30,000 population cities) at random and assuming I was looking for a reason to hit them, I found a reason for each city. Try it, choose some innocuous place and think of a reason to target it - all good morbid fun.
Finally managed to get caught up on this again - excellent as always, but I think the last couple of parts - the counter-coup in Newcastle and the "Battle of Whitby" - were the best so far. The scene with the Soviet sailors and the civilians in particular touched me. I think one of the things you've got across well in this TL is the capacity of human beings for either unspeakable cruelty or surprising compassion in high-stress situations, and how often it's a toss-up as to which actually occurs.
Regarding how disproportionate or not the Soviet nuclear escalation was in the strategic circumstances, I suppose the only thing about beginning with a counterforce-only strike on the US and allies would be that they would have no way of knowing what the NATO response would be, but surely under those circumstances it is best to fear the worst. As any strategic attack on the West could well lead to all-out retaliation against the Soviet bloc, I suppose by the skewed logic of nuclear strategic thought it might be just as well to hit them with everything straightaway. Especially seeing, as another poster points out above, that the USSR was likely to be less able effectively to respond to a US first strike than vice versa.
Regarding how disproportionate or not the Soviet nuclear escalation was in the strategic circumstances, I suppose the only thing about beginning with a counterforce-only strike on the US and allies would be that they would have no way of knowing what the NATO response would be, but surely under those circumstances it is best to fear the worst. As any strategic attack on the West could well lead to all-out retaliation against the Soviet bloc, I suppose by the skewed logic of nuclear strategic thought it might be just as well to hit them with everything straightaway. Especially seeing, as another poster points out above, that the USSR was likely to be less able effectively to respond to a US first strike than vice versa.
Sir Chaos
Banned
Plus, as far as the Soviets knew, NATO deliberately started the nuclear escalation with their first tactical strike; they couldn´t have figured out how it actually went.
Oops on the nuclear plants...
The Perry (near Cleveland) and Palacios plants weren't built until the late 1980s.
One source of power in the Southeast Texas area (assuming the Golden Triangle area (the Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange metropolitan area, which had over 300,000 people in 1980) hasn't been hit by warheads (1)) would be from the East Texas Oil Field (assuming the Soviets didn't hit that area). It is the largest oil field in the United States (out of Alaska) and there are probably a few petroleum engineers among the survivors in Southeast Texas who know where to drill.
It would still be bad (understatement), though, because Beaumont (assuming it's still standing) gets a lot of refugees from Houston (which was probably decimated by multiple strikes, IMO).
(1) Macragge1 hinted that Beaumont and Lake Charles got lucky in an earlier post.
Waiting for the next post, and keep it up!!!
How far do you plan on taking this timeline?
The Perry (near Cleveland) and Palacios plants weren't built until the late 1980s.
One source of power in the Southeast Texas area (assuming the Golden Triangle area (the Beaumont-Port Arthur-Orange metropolitan area, which had over 300,000 people in 1980) hasn't been hit by warheads (1)) would be from the East Texas Oil Field (assuming the Soviets didn't hit that area). It is the largest oil field in the United States (out of Alaska) and there are probably a few petroleum engineers among the survivors in Southeast Texas who know where to drill.
It would still be bad (understatement), though, because Beaumont (assuming it's still standing) gets a lot of refugees from Houston (which was probably decimated by multiple strikes, IMO).
(1) Macragge1 hinted that Beaumont and Lake Charles got lucky in an earlier post.
Waiting for the next post, and keep it up!!!
How far do you plan on taking this timeline?
There's nothing like reports of mushroom clouds to over-stimulate response options.
There's nothing like reports of mushroom clouds to over-stimulate response options.
It's the fallacy at the heart of all Cold War nuclear strategy, I suppose - the impossibility of regulating escalation once the first nukes start flying. Regardless of the precise military circumstances, it seems to me that once one side or the other starts that kind of thing, all bets are well and truly off.
it's also the beauty of "Mutual Assured Destruction," which is arguably what kept American and Russian forces from clashing.