AHC: Nato and Warsaw pact team up to curbstomp some country

Consumerist · Mar 20, 2012

Is it possible for a country during the cold war to piss off the international community so much that both the United States and the USSR temporarily co-operate in conducting some manner of regime change?

The limit on the POD is probably irrelevant but let's just go with after '41.

asnys · Mar 20, 2012

Consumerist said:
Is it possible for a country during the cold war to piss off the international community so much that both the United States and the USSR temporarily co-operate in conducting some manner of regime change?

The limit on the POD is probably irrelevant but let's just go with after '41.

At various points, both the US and the USSR proposed to each other that they conduct a joint strike on China's nuclear facilities. Fortunately, in both cases the other party declined. It's not clear to me how serious these proposals were - if they would actually have happened if the other side had been receptive. But the fact it happened at all...

By the way, this should probably be in Post-1900.

Consumerist · Mar 20, 2012

Oh my apologies. I had like twenty tabs from this site open and I guess I forgot what board I was hitting new topic in.

Though I don't see why in the case of china the USSR would need america's help.

Did the USSR lack missile submarines in the pacific during that time?

asnys · Mar 20, 2012

Consumerist said:
Though I don't see why in the case of china the USSR would need america's help.

Did the USSR lack missile submarines in the pacific during that time?

Actually, seems I was misremembering about the USSR's proposal. The USSR only wanted to know if we would remain neutral, they weren't expecting us to join them. Nixon told them we would, in fact, join on the Chinese side, and that was that. Also, it's not actually clear if this really happened; obviously, neither of the two main parties are talking. And now I'm no longer certain I'm not just misremembering the other incident, the one the US proposed; I'm going to Google it and see if I just hallucinated the whole thing.

Life In Black · Mar 20, 2012

Consumerist said:
Oh my apologies. I had like twenty tabs from this site open and I guess I forgot what board I was hitting new topic in.

Though I don't see why in the case of china the USSR would need america's help.

Did the USSR lack missile submarines in the pacific during that time?

The USSR had multiple border clashes with the Chinese during the duration of the Cold War. At one point, the Soviets were keeping IIRC, around a million soldiers guarding the Siberian border with China. In such a conflict, I imagine the NATO forces would be providing a constant CAP and naval support, while the Soviet Union would be comprising the bulk of the ground forces.

Life In Black · Mar 20, 2012

Asnys said:
Actually, seems I was misremembering about the USSR's proposal. The USSR only wanted to know if we would remain neutral, they weren't expecting us to join them. Nixon told them we would, in fact, join on the Chinese side, and that was that. Also, it's not actually clear if this really happened; obviously, neither of the two main parties are talking. And now I'm no longer certain I'm not just misremembering the other incident, the one the US proposed; I'm going to Google it and see if I just hallucinated the whole thing.

It would still make for a great story!

asnys · Mar 20, 2012

Okay, I googled the other incident, and apparently there's no actual proof, just a lot of hearsay and rumor. Here's the source; unfortunately, you can only see the first page on the preview, and the actual article is much less definitive. It quotes declassified documents showing the US government certainly considered proposing a joint US-USSR nuclear strike on the Chinese nuclear facilities, and circumstantial evidence that such a strike might even have been proposed to Russia under Kennedy. But there's nothing conclusive.

The Odyssey · Mar 20, 2012

imperialaquila · Mar 20, 2012

Iran, possibly? Say the Iranian students storm both the US and the Soviet embassies, maybe there could be some sort of joint US-Soviet rescue mission.

Life In Black · Mar 20, 2012

imperialaquila said:
Iran, possibly? Say the Iranian students storm both the US and the Soviet embassies, maybe there could be some sort of joint US-Soviet rescue mission.

Doubtful. Both sides would be trying to lead the operation, and in turn, well, if you thought Operation Eagle Claw was a monumental fuck up....

EternalCynic · Mar 20, 2012

There's instability in Yugoslavia almost immediately after Tito's death. NATO and Warsaw Pact jointly operate as peacekeepers to keep Serbs and Croats apart. Within two years it becomes clear both sides are using the civil war as a proxy conflict while officially cooperating as peacekeepers.

MickyD77 · Mar 21, 2012

EternalCynic said:
There's instability in Yugoslavia almost immediately after Tito's death. NATO and Warsaw Pact jointly operate as peacekeepers to keep Serbs and Croats apart. Within two years it becomes clear both sides are using the civil war as a proxy conflict while officially cooperating as peacekeepers.

That seems...familiar somehow

Snake Featherston · Mar 21, 2012

This was the Iran-Iraq War of OTL.

corditeman · Mar 21, 2012

North Korea...

...Accidentally on purpose fires a Korean copy of a Silkworm missile into Vladivostok Harbour, sinking a Soviet SSBN in port. Russia blames China, which swears blind that (despite border clashes) it would never do anything so stupid. Another Silkworm sinks a US spyship and a Scud lands in Seoul...

...And a Korean-built copy of another Russian missile hits the one Chinese SSBN as it leaves port.

North Korea accuses South Korea of trying to involve it in a war with its Communist brethren and marches south.

That enough to start something?

Dathi THorfinnsson · Mar 21, 2012

EternalCynic said:
There's instability in Yugoslavia almost immediately after Tito's death. NATO and Warsaw Pact jointly operate as peacekeepers to keep Serbs and Croats apart. Within two years it becomes clear both sides are using the civil war as a proxy conflict while officially cooperating as peacekeepers.

MickyD77 said:
That seems...familiar somehow

Snake Featherston said:
This was the Iran-Iraq War of OTL.

No, it was (almost) Yugoslavia of OTL.

There were Warsaw Pact and Nato troops enforcing the peace (with rather different sympathies). But both nominally against the aggression of the Serbian dominated rump-Yugoslavia.

AdA · Mar 21, 2012

taking turns

Does taking turns in Afeghanistam count? First the Reds invade it, than a break for commercials and the blues invade it...

rudranna · Mar 21, 2012

its called the USSURI RIVER WAR
and its a pretty good timeline....take a look at it..

LeX · Mar 21, 2012

China is probably your best bet.

Johnrankins · Mar 21, 2012

Life In Black said:
Doubtful. Both sides would be trying to lead the operation, and in turn, well, if you thought Operation Eagle Claw was a monumental fuck up....

I'm not so sure. Maybe the US and the USSR decide to split Iran down the middle with the USSR getting the north while the US the south.

Life In Black · Mar 21, 2012

Johnrankins said:
I'm not so sure. Maybe the US and the USSR decide to split Iran down the middle with the USSR getting the north while the US the south.

They might share common interests, but each would launch their own operations. They might have an unofficial truce between them, but there wouldn't be any real cooperation or joint effort.