AHC: A 1980s Limited NATO-WARPAC Nuclear Exchange

[Nightingale]

Maybe if directed energy weapons or rail guns are developed a lot early and be deployed in space. That will imply the existence of advanced energy sources. So basically we would have to be maybe 50 years more advanced in the 80's then we are today. I don't think that's possible without severely altering the time line.

What kind exactly of advanced energy sources?

Yeah. I only see humanity advancing the Internet and all tech by 15 years starting with an earlier invention of the transistor in 1937 instead of 1947, Konrad Zuse's Z2 being electric instead of mechanic, all relevant early Internet equipment and tech get invented by the 1950s instead of the early 1970s... Even then such things can only be invented roughly around the present day, not the 1980s.

If someone can make a scenario which can have rail guns and stuff in the 1980s with a POD in the 1930s, I'm happy

 

[BowOfOrion]

I haven't read through every post here, so this might have been suggested already. But what about oil drums?

Soviet sleepers armed with nukes about the size of oil drums deploy them near key military targets, set them off somewhat simultaneously, all without a missile launch or active movement of overt Soviet assets?

It'd be a tricky operation to be sure, but if the US is threatening to build a laser platform to shoot down missiles, it's a "reasonable" backup to MAD.

For the record, I stole the idea from Storming Intrepid, which may or may not have got it from something else.

 

[marathag]

Soviet sleepers armed with nukes about the size of oil drums deploy them near key military targets,

Said oil drums wouldn't be more than 'only' tactical' devices, and wouldn't be enough to avoid retaliation, but would ensure it.

And that's assuming that none of those agents would have been detected, which would also get yourself the chance for a US first strike.

Since the USSR had shit for early detection til quite late in the Cold War, that means a one sided nuclear curbstomp.

That why they didn't try a 3rd rate Tom Clancy plot

 

[Questerr]

With a POD no later than Reagan's inauguration on January 20, 1981, create a scenario in which NATO and the Warsaw Pact enter a limited nuclear war with the only ones getting destroyed:

1. Hard underground military targets such as NORAD and ICBM sites in Montana and North Dakota.

2. Surface military targets such as the Pentagon.

3. Only collateral damage on cities wrapped around military bases. So if the Pentagon gets vaporized, only part of Arlington, Virginia would be hit. Or if we hit the naval bases in the State of Washington, only part of Seattle would be destroyed.

4. No nuclear damage at all to major population centers such as New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Miami, Dallas, Chicago, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Hong Kong, Manila, London, Paris, Moscow, Leningrad, Berlin, Kiev, and others. They can be razed down by conventional means ONLY.

Now please don't tell me this is ASB: Such a scenario may not be likely, but not outside the realm of possibility IMO.

After all, 5% probability events happen 5% of the time. It's roughly the probability of Democrat Kendra Horn winning in Oklahoma's 5th Congressional District in the 2018 midterms in what was considered a safe GOP district*.



-----------

*To the moderators: I hope you don't put this in Chat. I'm not discussing modern-day politics here. I'm only comparing probability ratings (5% chance of happening, for example) but will no go further than that into modern-day politics.

So for point 3, a Russian strategic nuke on Arlington, in the 300 to 500kt range, will definitely heavily damage Washington. Same with Seattle. It’s not just Kitsap/Bremerton, you’ve got McChord AFB and Fort Lewis there. That’s multiple nuclear strikes.

San Antonio has multiple Air Force and Army Bases, it gets annihilated.

Miami has an Army base in downtown and Homestead right near by. Miami is gone.

Edwards AFB means the eastern portion of LA is gone. San Diego - Gone. The Presidio of San Francisco is still an active base, as is Mare Island - San Francisco is gone. Sacramento - Gone. Las Vegas - Gone. Omaha - Gone. Colorado Springs - Gone.

Moscow, London, Kiev, Leningrad, Seoul, Tokyo - all have multiple nearby nuclear targets. All are going to be gone.

 

[Questerr]

Well that's an inevitable loss. But without any significant military base near NYC or SF or LA (even the naval bases in WA are sufficiently far from Seattle). Omaha, NE and Cheyenne, WY, however...

Why did the US government stupidly put many bases within some cities' limits?

You should look up how many military bases are inside the Moscow Metro area.

 

[marathag]

You should look up how many military bases are inside the Moscow Metro area.

There was nearly 1000 megatons of SAC targeting for the Moscow before SIOP62

 

[Questerr]

There was nearly 1000 megatons of SAC targeting for the Moscow before SIOP62

I mean, if “surface targets like the Pentagon” are getting hit, there’s no way the Kremlin isn’t being targeted. And to ensure that the Russian ABM network in the Moscow area doesn’t take down that missile, that means multiple warheads targeted on the Pentagon, and probably multiple missiles targeted on the ABM sites.

 

[sloreck]

@Questerr put forward a very short list even just for the cities involved, don't forget NAS Alameda still active then. The point is that you can't hit important US bases - those that had nuclear strike capability, nuclear weapons, or supported nuclear forces without taking out a lot of cities. While there is a difference between a counterforce and a countervalue strike, the reality is one of degree not that one just takes out military targets and one that hits civilians. If somehow the escalation stops before it goes beyond a few tactical strikes on the battlefield or close to it, then you have a limited nuclear war. Once mushrooms pop in the USA or the USSR, game over.

 

[fockewulf]

What kind exactly of advanced energy sources?

Something that could power up a LASER strong enough to disable multiple ICBMs, and be small enough to fit on a satellite or space station. I have no idea what that could be, because we don't have it today.
The reverse is that this will lead to the militarisation of space. Development of killer satelites to hunt the ABM platforms, nukes being deployed in space, leaving a very short time of reaction with no margin of error etc. That is a recipe for disaster.