Able Archer 83 & Operation Ryan

"Id have assumed an all-or-nothing approach and knock at least the UK, French & Chinese nuclear counterstrike capacity, which I think personaly is achievable in this kind of scenario?"

I think: no. It was possible with China, but it was almost impossible to knock out all French and UK nuclear counterstrike capacity. Hitting France or UK with strategic nukes (SS-20 or worse) means only: lose Moscow. Just one French or British "boomer" submarine could bypass the Soviet ABM system and destroy the Soviet capital. Even if Soviets were sure to sink all the French and British boomers in the first minute of war, they were not sure to avoid a possible US massive retaliation in defense of France or UK. Including UK and France in your war plan, implied an inevitable global exchange and mutual suicide. If you (Andropov) are acting for your own survival and you want to preempt a NATO first strike, I don't think that suicide is the best strategy, even for a paranoid leader as was Andropov. So, I think that the "Seven Days to the Rhine" scenario makes some sense.

"Plus i cant see NATO not responding with a full SIOP in such a limited scenario"
I see it, indeed. Flexible response meant: use tactical nukes against tactical nukes and launch strategic weapons only in case of a Soviet massive launch against the central systems (UK, France and all CONUS: Usa, Greenland and Iceland). It's comprehensible. If you were Reagan, would you have risked the loss of Chicago (or Washington DC) just after the blast of few dozens tactical nukes in Central Europe?

The question would be "can you risk not doing something?" "And how much can you do and not escalate the exchange?" After a brief exchange like mentioned I would think the American people would have a very negative view of the USSR. I doubt they would blame NATO. IMHO, I was 27 at the time, the US would go balls to the wall on building more ICBM'S and an ABM system. It would probably end with the "Evil Empire" launching a first strike in a few years, they see they can't keep up and starving since no one will sell them the food the need and possibly the US launching a first strike, since they have nothing to lose.:mad:
 
First strike

Plus it needs to be consider that the Soviets are launching against the the background of a NATO first strike and that the Soviets genuinely believe the US are out to destroy them utterly. A first strike that's limited mskes little sense as the uk and France will launch regardless once missiles are in the air. The targeting of Germany will be too close for either systems to feel safe. Nukes are very much a use it or lose it weapon. While I don't suscribe to the Soviets targeting everybody a limited strike you speak of is sucuide. Mainly because we know the soviet tracking system is faulty and Sovieys know this at the time. After Petrov they reckon warning times of less than 5 minutes because of system faults
In regards the document the PDF link I had seems to gone down but type it into google and the news articles come up on it from Irish times and the indo. Ref full name is on my first post.
 
I would like to repeat: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/11/26/1132966003058.html
«Red mushroom clouds over western Europe show that Soviet nuclear weapons strikes would have been launched at Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium if NATO had struck first. Red clouds are over the then German capital, Bonn, and other key German cities including Frankfurt, Cologne, Stuttgart, Munich and Hamburg. Brussels, the political headquarters of NATO, is also a target. Blue mushroom clouds, representing the expected NATO nuclear strikes, are drawn over cities in the eastern bloc, including Warsaw and the then Czechoslovakian capital, Prague. France would have escaped attack, probably because it was, and still is, not a member of NATO. Britain, which has always been at the heart of NATO, would also have been spared, suggesting Moscow wanted its ground forces to stop at the Rhine».

Maybe this is not the actual Soviet war plan. But it is the most detailed thing we have about Soviet intentions in case of NATO-WP confrontation. The scenario, as you can see, is a NATO first strike. Very close to the Able Archer crisis.
 
This is another analysis, by John O'Sullivan (former Thatcher's advisor): http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20051225/news_lz1e25nuclear.html

«In these circumstances a NATO invasion of Eastern Europe was not really thinkable. The Warsaw Pact's "counter-attack" looks very much like a plan for a first-strike invasion of Western Europe. One tip-off is that neither Britain nor France is attacked in the war game. This is a plan for a lightning dash to the Rhine followed by a cease-fire, an offer of negotiations, and a "peace settlement" that would allow the Soviet Union to swallow all Germany and dominate a nominally independent Franco-British rump of NATO»
 
Hmmm

Well giobastia i may do a bit more research into that then as that would change any sequence of an exchange.
My personal view on such limited strike would be to include UK & France and damage there counterstrike capacity. Yes they'll likely get a few off but not much and then the Soviets & US negiote. Though i doubt they'll work. Nuclear war is alot like summer 1914, once the train got going it proved almost impossible to stop. Paranoia & fear become the man drivers.
An exchange would be something like this then?
> Able Archer on
> Regan & Nato leaders head to C&C
> Soviet launch UK/Europe (Nato only) - complete surprise - targets include all NATO naval forces & ground forces)
> limited UK/French counterstrike (nothing in the air nuclear armed during able archer so assume SSBN's)
> Soviets conventioal warfare europe / naval forces clash - nuclear armed
> negiotation phase (combat continues) (basically why lose Washignton or New York over some dead Limeys or Frogs)
> all nuclear powers on alert (China/India)
> breakdown - combat spirals out of control (i find China panicking likely with first strike been proven effective as there particularly vunerable to one, and with high alets Soviet & Chinese forces WILL start to clash)
> US / Soviets launch - China launches
> Assuming targets include all bloc "allies" and "surogates"

Would this sound a logcal development based upon a limited Soviet limited strike doctrine & upon attempts to reduce an escalation.
It does change of my inital TL ideas as this would take place over several hours rather than within one as id initially envisioned.
Though attempting this kind of atack does seem a logical attempt at "winning" a nuclear war with a percieved fear of attack.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I've already wrote a detailed timeline for this scenario, which is a bit similar to yours. While it could take a lot of time to translate it in English (it's in Italian), I can summarize it as follows:

November 9th: Soviet first strike on Central European targets. Germany, Denmark, Netherland, Belgium and Italy are hit with tactical and theater nukes (both aimed at land and naval systems); NATO is cought by surprise. Soviet Union calls for immediate cease-fire. Some NATO members exit: Italy, Greece open negotiations, while France (allied, but not an active member of NATO) remains neutral. UK holds on, but limits its retaliation to European theater only. US orders limited reteliation with tactical nukes on European theater

First and second weeks: limited nuclear exchanges in Central European theater of operations and Soviet land offensive. Soviets confide in a quick victory (because of surprise and first NATO defections) in one or two weeks. Fleets clashes with nuclear weapons, with no clear winner. Meanwhile, on the other theaters of operations: US invades Cuba and Nicaragua (with conventional forces only), Ussr invades Iran (also with conventional forces only) and US sends its Rapid Deployment Force in the Gulf. Syria, Israel, North and South Korea and China order full mobilization. The central systems (both Ussr and Us) deploy existent or readily available ABM defenses (Spartan, Sprint and even nuclear Nike Hercules in Us and UK; Galosh and Gazelle and improved SAMs in Ussr and WP allies) in order to protect themselves from a possible escalation. Negotiations continue but fail.

Third and fourth weeks: the Soviet ground offensive fails, because of logistical collapse caused by NATO nukes. Soviet strikes against UK, France (despite its neutrality), Iceland and Greenland. UK, France and US counterstrikes limited by old and new Soviet ABM defenses. Soviets try again to break NATO lines on the Rhine, but fail (always because of their logistical collapse). War breaks in all the other theaters of operations: Iraq and Soviets invade Saudi Arabia, but are stopped by Rapid Deployment Forces; Syria invades Lebanon and Israel, but loses; North Korea invades South Korea, but loses; China invades Ussr, but is stopped and counter-attacked. All negotiations continue but fail again

Fifth week: Ussr is losing in Europe and Middle East, but it's the winner in the East (a scenario somewhat similar to Germany's WWI in september 1914). Moscow, now wants to "freeze" the situation, launching against US central system and forcing a peace. But the Soviet limited launch fails (in its scope and effects) because of a renewed US ABM system. The US counter-strike, also, is limited by the Soviet ABM system. No one can win with a sudden strike and the global exchange lasts one week. Ussr collapses first, because of internal turmoils and secessions.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm

It sounds an interesting timeline ( sadly i don't speak Italian :( ), would you have any good reference links in English to source material? You've given some interesting ones already.

Though id differ in regards the length of time, this wont be over weeks or even days, my idea would be the war lasting at the very most 48 hours, probably far less, and ending in largely the destruction of most of the USSR and the US along with China & Western Europe. I find that the logical conclusion of any engagement that starts to spiral out of control.
Did either side target neutrals in your TL? Its one area im very indecisive on as the "USSR nukes the world" because there vindictive jerks never seem logical. Both sides targeting specific targets in associated neutral did seem logical though, mainly as interdiction strikes.
 
Neutrals? Yes, Ussr will target immediately Austria and pass through Finland (in order to invade Norway). Usa will immediately invade Cuba and Nicaragua (in order to grant its Southern naval supply lines and avoid possible escalations in Central America). But I assume the rational behaviour named "shoot and duck" (to inflict huge damages to the enemy and than open negotiations and prepare for a possible retaliation) imagined for protracted nuclear war models. The ABMs are the weakest point of my TL, someone calls it impossible or ASB, but I think that the existing ABM systems were already very powerful, even impressive. Then I think that they could have worked surprisingly well and they could have contributed to protract the nuclear confrontation.

Basically, if you want an all out confrontation in 24-48 hours, here is the easiest answer: after the Soviet limited first strike in Central Europe, UK, USA and France order immediate massive retaliation. And the World would blow up. I don't think that Ireland would have targeted, it was out of any significant strategic interest. But Austria, Swiss, China, both Koreas, Japan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iraq, Egypt, Iran, South Africa and all the other nations caught between the two sides, would have been destroyed by a massive nuclear exchange.
 
ABMS

Were the ABM's much good really? Id always have assumed they were too limited to have a significant impact. What made you believe otherwise?
 
About ABMs: they could work if you let them work. Of course in peacetime they were absolutely limited, because you don't want to provoke an enemy's first strike. But in wartime, things could change quickly and you have to deploy as many defenses as possible in the shortest time. In a previous thread "How to deploy an ABM shield" I tried to discuss this possibility. The largest majority thinks that an ABM system could not be deployed in just few weeks and only crisis relocation plans for populations could be implemented.
Although, some aspects remain open: USA have hundreds of Nike Hercules and they have a limited (but effective) ABM capability. They could intercept a tactical missile with a conventional warhead. Could they intercept a much faster ICBM using 30 kt nuclear warheads? Maybe yes. The same for Soviet SAMs. They had thousands of SA-2 and SA-5: they are anti-aircraft missiles. Could they have an ABM capability? Maybe yes. Happily we never tested them. Other opened questions: how many Sprints and Spartans Us had? Official numbers speak about 70 Sprints and 30 Spartans. Are we sure? Reagan signed a PD-9 directive in 1981 ordering the secret stockpiling of still classified weapons. Federation of American Scientists speculates that they were enhanced radiation warheads. W-66 and W-71 warheads for Sprint and Spartan fell in this cathegory. The same for Soviet Galoshes: are we sure that they were only 100 or so? Cia, at the time, speculated, that they were ready to deploy 500 of them in case of war or crises.
I can suppose that ABM systems were very limited in peacetime. But they could be expanded quickly in wartime. I guess so and... I hope so!
 
Top