Cold War Question

At any point in the Cold War, could it have gone hot and could the resulting war have been over before nukes were resorted to? Just as a point of curiosity.
 
No, if by "going hot" the definition is "US-Soviet War". The USA and PRC did fight on the battlefield without nukes getting involved, but with the USSR and USA.....not a chance in church.
 
As for what I'm looking for, the standard WWIII setup: Soviets crash into West Berlin and launch a huge offensive through the Fulda Gap towards the Rhine. '60s-'70s era. If that's not possible, I'd also be interested in a PRC-USA war in about the same period.
 
As for what I'm looking for, the standard WWIII setup: Soviets crash into West Berlin and launch a huge offensive through the Fulda Gap towards the Rhine. '60s-'70s era. If that's not possible, I'd also be interested in a PRC-USA war in about the same period.

Nope. This would not and could not happen, as the concept of the pre-emptive strike including Da Nukes was considered valid by both sides, and at least the Soviets were very willing to consider nuclear wars winnable and treat nukes as bigger bombs.
 
Nope. This would not and could not happen, as the concept of the pre-emptive strike including Da Nukes was considered valid by both sides, and at least the Soviets were very willing to consider nuclear wars winnable and treat nukes as bigger bombs.

A nuclear outcome is certainly the most likely one for a WWIII scenario even if it doesn't start nuclear, but both sides had conventional-only plans and during the 1980s these were often the preferred ones.

To say that a direct conflict couldn't happen is overstating things - we came within spitting distance a time or two IOTL. It is certainly not ASB to have the Cold War go hot.
 
As for what I'm looking for, the standard WWIII setup: Soviets crash into West Berlin and launch a huge offensive through the Fulda Gap towards the Rhine. '60s-'70s era. If that's not possible, I'd also be interested in a PRC-USA war in about the same period.

I'm afraid all my detailed research is for the late 1980's; I doubt I have anything for the 60's and 70's you couldn't get from Wikipedia (unless I dig out my copy of Red Star/White Star) except for this link:

http://armouredacorn.com/orbatsmain.html

It has detailed TO&E data (vehicles only) for the USSR and Canadian forces at several points in the Cold War.
 
A nuclear outcome is certainly the most likely one for a WWIII scenario even if it doesn't start nuclear, but both sides had conventional-only plans and during the 1980s these were often the preferred ones.

To say that a direct conflict couldn't happen is overstating things - we came within spitting distance a time or two IOTL. It is certainly not ASB to have the Cold War go hot.


I agree. That said, Xnyrax, your best bet would probably to be a POD that minimizes that chance of a conflict going nuclear altogether. For example, a more extreme nuclear weapons treaty that effects tactical weapons as well, or a nuclear accident in the USA or Europe that leads to a drastic reduction of nuclear forces in Europe. At that point, since nuclear war isn't as likely, it's more likely that a conventional war would have been fought anyway.
 

Clipper747

Banned
I believe it was WP doctrine to use WMDs from the beginning of an invasion of the West.



The Soviets would've opened up several fronts worldwide to spread the US forces thin. So a Soviet operation invading the Middle East, Yugoslavia, Central America, would be likely.

Within Europe a thrust north through Norway, Yugo, Turkey in addition to Central Europe is most likely. This is what the Soviets would consider a three to four Front conflict.
 
Last edited:
I believe it was WP doctrine to use WMDs from the beginning of an invasion of the West.

I agree. The WP would have opened up hostilities by using tactical nuclear devices to neutralize NATO formations, defenses, and airfields even before their tanks would roll across the border. At least, according to this paper. Consensus is that the author knows what he's talking about since he was a Soviet officer, but he was a defector so he might've been playing into Western fears, telling them what they wanted to hear.
 
I believe it was WP doctrine to use WMDs from the beginning of an invasion of the West.

For most of the Cold War it was indeed. The WP figured NATO didn't have the conventional forces to hold Europe, therefore NATO would wind up using nukes, therefore it made sense to just go ahead and use them (edit: and chemical weapons) from the beginning for maximum effect.

That baseline began to shift late in the Cold War. Both NATO and the WP also had conventional-only plans since they knew crossing the nuclear threshold was a political decision.

Out of curiosity, how willing was the West to retaliate if the USSR/Warsaw Pact used nukes?

If the WP used nukeS the west WOULD retaliate. Who would do it and how far they would go are psychological questions that can only be answered based on the NATO nuclear leaders on any given date and the exact situation. It has been suggested by some fairly reputable people that the use of a single tactical nuke by either side MIGHT actually bring the war to a screeching halt as the politicians on both sides suddenly realize they're playing for keeps and need to talk to each other NOW before things get out of control. Neither side wanted global thermonuclear war (at least not when the other side had their fingers on the buttons too).

Please bear in mind that military staffs write up a massive variety of plans for every situation they can think of (well, and have time to study and write up). That doesn't mean any given plan will be followed even if the exact situation it was prepared for comes up - history is full of examples. Politicians, especially early on in wars, have a tendency to say "no, do it THIS way." The existence of ONE plan also doesn't mean it was the ONLY plan. That the US had a plan to invade Canada doesn't prove they didn't have one to invade Mexico, for example.
 
I'm not qualified to talk about what the various militaries might or might not have wanted or planned to do. But, even if WW3 started out conventionally, as soon as one side starts losing the pressure to use nuclear weapons will rapidly become irresistible. I very, very much doubt that any of the political leaders, of either side, could have allowed their country to lose a world war without using every weapon available to them.
 
I very, very much doubt that any of the political leaders, of either side, could have allowed their country to lose a world war without using every weapon available to them.

A valid point, but not every leader would have been willing to ride their country down in flames just to avoid political embarrassment. Granted, it only takes one leader on the losing side who is willing to burn the world...
 

Clipper747

Banned
Had the crap hit the fan I do wonder where the "mother of all tank battles" would've occurred. What the casualties may have been, how many tanks engaged on both sides etc.

Had the war been 1985/86 the Soviets/WP tanks would've been outmatched by the M1A1/Challenger I, Leo II.

Of course the Soviet strategy of saturating the field with numbers would make the battle quite interesting.
 
Had the crap hit the fan I do wonder where the "mother of all tank battles" would've occurred. What the casualties may have been, how many tanks engaged on both sides etc.

Its an interesting question, because reading The Last War over on TBOVerse, Jan suggests that many of the "biggies" like the North German Plain have become a lot more urbanised over the last 25/30 years, so a late 80s war might not have seen the epic Kursk-esque battles over vast open plains everyone likes to imagine. I know the "big 3" were the North German Plain, the Fulda Gap and the Danube Valley, which area developed the latest?

Edit: I would guess in a scenario like this NATO would have the advantage, as urban terrain usually favours the defenders, which would have ;largely corresponded to NATO's plans
 

Clipper747

Banned
How would a NATO General deal with hundreds of thousands of fleeing refugees going west vis a vis his forces trying to head east.
 
How would a NATO General deal with hundreds of thousands of fleeing refugees going west vis a vis his forces trying to head east.

It sounds harsh, but I doubt he'll consider them his problem, beyond their direct impact on roads etc. If the Big One does kick off, it'll be the least of NATO's worries, and depending what other countries get involved, will in no way be the worst humanitarian issue of the war
 
Top