cold war question

Lets say that everyone agrees not to use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons unless the opposition crossed into their proper boarders (i.e. the Russian soviet state, France, the United States, etc) but territories are okay (the Ukraine, Peurto Rico, the Falklands, etc), who would win in this fight in 1979?

NATO with Austria, Spain, Cyprus, Thailand, ROC, ROK, Japan, Austrialia, New Zealand and the pro-west governments and gurrilla movements in Latin America, Africa, the Pacific and Asia

Vesus the Warsaw pact with India, Vietnam, Laos, Mongolia, DPRK, Cuba, and the pro-Soviet governments and gurrilla in Latin America, Africa, the Pacific and Asia

and those versus the PRC, Burma, Kampuchea, Tanzania, Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, Albania and pro-Islamist and pro-Chinese governments and gurrellia groups in Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Pacific

The Neutrals are as follows: Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Neapal, and Costa Rica

So Who would win?
 
So Who would win?

No one. Sooner or later, someone would cross a boundary and the general exchange would begin. By the time the missiles were done flying and the clouds of gas and disease were done spreading, there would be so many casualties worldwide, and so much destruction of infrastructure, that the question, "Who won?" would be meaningless. There's a reason that even the intensely jingoistic governments of both sides during the 50s, 60s and 70s never pushed the button.

Mutual Assured Destruction: Madness in its way, but too frightening to be chanced.

EDIT: Postscript: I'm curious. How many of us in these forums remember what it was like to grow up under those skies, knowing what could happen if politics got the better of wisdom?
 
If the nations can agree to not use nukes, why can't they agree to just not fight?

But really, I would say NATO et al. takes this one. The Warsaw Pact is going to find itself fighting a war on two fronts. With no one around to bail out the USSR with lend-lease, and internal dissension creating issues in the Eastern Bloc, I'd say the Soviets don't have a chance.

And the second some poor sap crosses the Soviet border after taking a wrong turn in his jeep, the whole world gets blown to hell.
 
No one. Sooner or later, someone would cross a boundary and the general exchange would begin. By the time the missiles were done flying and the clouds of gas and disease were done spreading, there would be so many casualties worldwide, and so much destruction of infrastructure, that the question, "Who won?" would be meaningless. There's a reason that even the intensely jingoistic governments of both sides during the 50s, 60s and 70s never pushed the button.

Mutual Assured Destruction: Madness in its way, but too frightening to be chanced.

EDIT: Postscript: I'm curious. How many of us in these forums remember what it was like to grow up under those skies, knowing what could happen if politics got the better of wisdom?

I remember very well, thank you. Duck and cover!

It always struck me, after watching the films of atomic bombs going off and seeing the destruction afterward, that nothing we did in our little schoolroom was going to make any difference; if we were nuked (and living in Tucson, AZ, surrounded by Titan missile silos, we were certainly a prime target) we were going to die.
 
If the nations can agree to not use nukes, why can't they agree to just not fight?

But really, I would say NATO et al. takes this one. The Warsaw Pact is going to find itself fighting a war on two fronts. With no one around to bail out the USSR with lend-lease, and internal dissension creating issues in the Eastern Bloc, I'd say the Soviets don't have a chance.

And the second some poor sap crosses the Soviet border after taking a wrong turn in his jeep, the whole world gets blown to hell.
I agree with you on this
 
Top