Crisis in the Kremlin - Our 1982 USSR

If I were ever to make 2nd timeline, which one would you be most interested in?

  • 1. German Empire 1888

    Votes: 62 29.2%
  • 2. Russian Federation 1993

    Votes: 74 34.9%
  • 3. Red China 1949

    Votes: 37 17.5%
  • 4. Yugoslavia 1920

    Votes: 27 12.7%
  • 5. India 1947

    Votes: 28 13.2%
  • 6. alt-fascist Italy 1922

    Votes: 29 13.7%
  • 7. South Africa 1994

    Votes: 18 8.5%
  • 8. Germany 1990

    Votes: 20 9.4%
  • 9. Japan 2000

    Votes: 18 8.5%
  • 10. United Kingdom 1997

    Votes: 20 9.4%

  • Total voters
    212
  • Poll closed .
Chapter Four: Growing Tensions (April – June 1983)
The announcement of Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was met with a swift response from the Soviet Union and General Secretary Romanov. The USSR protested against the program on a diplomatic level, expressing concerns that space-based missile defenses would lead to inevitable militarization of outer space. Soviet government reacted also on the forum on United Nations proposing a resolution condemning U.S. government and President Reagan for violation of the Outer Space Treaty from 1966, however USA used its veto to block a United Nations resolution. The Soviet government perceived the program both as a threat and as an opportunity to weaken NATO. SDI was likely seen not only as a threat to the physical security of the Soviet Union, but also as part of an effort by the United States to seize the strategic initiative in arms controls by neutralizing the military component of Soviet strategy. Another major objective of Soviet dipmolatic strategy was the political separation of Western Europe from the United States, which the Soviets sought to facilitate by aggravating allied concern over the SDI's potential implications for European security and economic interests.

General Secretary Romanov and the Soviet leadership decided to respond directly to Reagan's call upon American scientists and engineers to develop a system that would render nuclear weapons obsolete. Romanov in a speech directed to the international community assessed that the Soviet Union reserves the right to respond to any U.S. program that may threaten the vital interests of the Soviet Union and the world communist and socialist movements. In reality, Romanov and Soviet leadership knew that USSR would not be able to start of actual anti-SDI program in the foreseeable future, as the program would be too simply expensive. Furthermore, Romanov and Kunaev believed that SDI is nothing more than a ploy and American propaganda tool, but SDI should be considered as a start of Reagan's economic war against USSR through a defensive arms race to further cripple the Soviet economy with extra military spending, while another interpretation by hardliner and militarist factions was that it served as a disguise for the US wish to initiate a first strike on the Soviet Union.

sputnik-428260-preview.jpg

(General Secretary Romanov denounces President Reagan)

In order to kill multiple birds with a one stone, Romanov decided to announce Soviet anti-SDI program to show the resolve of the Soviet Union, but in reality there was no such program as Soviet Union couldn't afford one in contrast to the United States. Nevertheless, Romanov made an "anti-SDI" speech in which Romanov stated that "Our (Soviet) Anti-SDI program was something we would normally not have pursued. But you (U.S. government) forced our hand." Furthermore, to appease elements of hardliner and militarist factions, Romanov decided to rebrand of some of the projects already under development under "anti-SDI" umbrella, as well as implementation of a number of changes to the Soviet nuclear strategy and doctrine, by taking into account potential existence of SDI with all of its abilities to counter the Soviet nuclear potential. A number of projects have been approved by Romanov, including development of Status-6 Oceanic Multipurpose System (or the Poseidon), Dead Hand (Perimeter) – an automatic nuclear weapons-control system. It was meant to be a backup communication system, in case the key components of the "Kazbek" command system and the link to the Strategic Missile Forces are destroyed by a decapitation first strike. Another projects were the Polyus spacecraft, also known as Polus, which was a prototype Soviet orbital weapons platform designed to destroy Strategic Defense Initiative satellites with a megawatt carbon-dioxide laser. It had a Functional Cargo Block derived from a TKS spacecraft to control its orbit, and it could launch test targets to demonstrate the fire control system. Also, Salyut-3 (Almaz OPS-2) space station project saw an increase in funding. To appease supporters of strengthening of potential of Soviet nuclear forces, the Soviet leadership decided to extract Neptunium from spent nuclear fuel and use it to make nuclear weapons with Neptunium 237 and other fissionable isotopes. This decision was proved to be useful, as Neptunium 237 could be turned into Plutonium 238, and later used in the Soviet Space Program. Ultimately, Romanov was able to achieve all of his political and diplomatic goals at the same time, which included responding on the international stage to the American threat, scoring propaganda points and keeping more hardliner and militarist elements within the Soviet leadership happy, while at the same time staying within reasonable budgets.

In order to further solidify his popularity and change the perception of the Communist Party within the Soviet population, General Secretary Romanov decided to visit all capital cities of republics of the USSR, starting with Kiev. During his visits, Romanov visited factories, mines, steel mills, factories, construction sites, opened new road and talked to workers and ordinary citizens. All of this was done for the propaganda of success - to show the world and his compatriots that the country under his rule is developing again, and the authorities are close to the people. When Grigory Romanov took over as First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, propaganda was given the important task of convincing the public of the new authorities. It was to build a climate of mutual cooperation, understanding and assistance between those in power and the people. Romanov gave the impression that he was listening carefully to the people, although this was not always true. Unlike his predecessor, Romanov cared about popularity of his administration and used means from the arsenal of political marketing to do so.

412efd17f0bd3994f52322e1019d1140.jpg

(Inspection of Soviet troops deployed in Afghanistan)

Just when the General Secretary was busy visiting Soviet cities, Second General Secretary Dinmukhamed Kunaev made a visit to troops in Afghanistan to congratulate them on their recent victories and to show the world commitment of the Soviet Union to winning the Afghan War. Kunaev also met with Afghan leadership to discuss recent developments in Afghanistan and in the region, as well as ensure them of continuous economic, military and diplomatic support. In a private conversation with the Afghani leadership, Kunaev stated that the Soviet and Warsaw Pact troops will remain in Afghanistan for as long as its needed, but the victory in war must be won by the Afghan army. Kunaev also spoke to troops located in Kabul and visited injured soldiers in recent anti-rebel operations. Almost at the same time, American Vice President George H.W. Bush made a surprise visit to Pakistan. Bush visited some of the many hundreds of thousands of Afghans gathered in refugee camps there, had been taken by Pakistani leader General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq through the Khyber Pass to see the Afghan border. In wake of recent Soviet bombing-campaign of Northern Pakistan, Vice President Bush stated that "USA won't allow this to happen again" and "the Free World stands united against the Soviet Imperialism". The Kremlin responded to the whole incident by blasting Bush's "provocation aimed at stirring up anti-Soviet hysteria."

48065288971_55d515d20f_b.jpg

(President Reagan meeting with Mujahideen at the White House)

Recent developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan forced the American and Chinese leadership to act swiftly and decisively to counter the resurgent Soviet Union and its forces. As a consequence of recent Soviet actions, USA altogether with Great Britain, Saudi Arabia and China committed to fight against USSR in Afghanistan "until the last Soviet soldier leaves the Afghani territory", excluding any possibility of achieving diplomatic or political agreement with Moscow. President Reagan in agreement with American allies agreed to greatly expand the aid to Mujahideen and also to other anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan, including anti-Soviet Maoists, which additionally began to receive much greater support from China in order to counter increased Soviet presence in Afghanistan. Furthermore, China, United States and Iran were able to achieve a secret agreement, resulting in unofficial ceasefire between Shia, Sunni and Maoists forces in Afghanistan. From now one, all rebel forces would focus entirely on combating Soviet and Warsaw Pact troops, which brought a new period of prolonged and bloody battles between both sides. President Reagan and the U.S. administration announced an expanded financial and military assistance to Pakistan to support the county's role in the war against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan. U.S. committed to modernization of the Pakistani Air Force and deployment of modern U.S. made air-defense systems and anti-aircraft weapons to prevent any further Soviet bombing campaigns in Pakistan. These decisions were met with strong a condemnation from the Indian government, which felt threatened by Western backed and modernized Pakistani army. Additionally, to put more pressure to USSR, China decided to significantly ramp up their military presence near Afghanistan, Mongolia and the Soviet Far East, which lead to further increase of tensions between China and USSR.

All the diplomatic and political changes on the international scene forced Indian Prime minister Indira Gandhi to visit Moscow. The relationship between India and the Soviet Union deepened during Gandhi's rule. The main reason was the perceived bias of the United States and China, rivals of the USSR, towards Pakistan. The support of the Soviets with arms supplies and the casting of a veto at the United Nations helped in winning and consolidating the victory over Pakistan in the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war. Before the war, Gandhi signed a treaty of friendship with the Soviets. USSR was unhappy with the 1974 nuclear test conducted by India, but did not support further action because of the ensuing Cold War with the United States. Gandhi was unhappy with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but once again calculations involving relations with Pakistan and China kept her from criticizing the Soviet Union harshly. Under Gandhi, by the early 1980s, the Soviets had become India's largest trading partner.


indian-prime-minister-indira-gandhi-on-an-official-visit-to-the-soviet-B96G3J.jpg

(Indira Gandhi during visit to USSR)

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi aimed at solidifying India's relationship with its principal ally among the world's major powers. Nevertheless, the main goal of Gandhi's visit to Moscow was to secure further military and economic support from USSR in wake of Reagan's decision to bolster economy and military potential of Pakistan, which could lead to change in geopolitical balance in the region, not mentioning continuous alliance between Pakistan and China. The Soviets became the main arms supplier during the Gandhi years by offering cheap credit and transactions in rupees rather than in dollars. The easy trade deals also applied to non-military goods. During a meeting with General Secretary Romanov, Gandhi expressed her concern with recent American military and economic support for Pakistan, as well as growing tensions between China on the one side, and India and USSR on the other. Nevertheless, Gandhi wanted to convince Romanov to support of modernization of the Indian Air Forces, as well as deployment of most modern Soviet Air and Missile Defense systems in order to counter growing Pakistani and Chinese potential. Gandhi understood that such move will only worsen already tense geopolitical situation in the region, nevertheless India had no choice but to react to threat posed by both Pakistan and China. Gandhi, to secure Soviet help and commitment, offered a deal to Romanov: in exchange for Soviet military support to India, Gandhi's government will significantly increase humanitarian and economic assistance to the Afghan government and Afghani people, as well as continuous diplomatic support for USSR on the international stage.

RS_phillyThumb2_1200x800_041617_beirut1_1200.jpg

(Bombing of U.S. embassy in Beirut)

On the April 18, 1983 United States embassy became a target of a suicide bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, that killed 32 Lebanese, 17 Americans, and 14 visitors and passers-by. The victims were mostly embassy and CIA staff members, but also included several US soldiers and one US Marine Security Guard. It was the deadliest attack on a US diplomatic mission up to that time, and was considered the beginning of Islamist attacks on US targets. The attack came in the wake of an intervention in the Lebanese Civil War by the United States and other Western countries, which sought to restore order and central government authority. The car bomb was detonated by a suicide bomber driving a van packed with nearly 2,000 pounds (900 kg) of explosives at approximately 1:00 p.m. (GMT+2) April 18, 1983. The van, originally sold in Texas, bought used and shipped to the Gulf, gained access to the embassy compound and parked under the portico at the very front of the building, where it exploded.

Operation Staunch was launched in the spring of 1983 by the United States State Department to stop the flow of U.S. arms to Iran. The Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979 and the hostage crisis in Tehran frustrated American policymakers whose response came as an embargo on the new government of Iran. On January 20, 1981, the day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, the hostages in Tehran were released. In turn, the embargo was relaxed, but relations with Iran did not improve diplomatically. In fact, the newly elected Reagan refused to sell arms directly to Iran. Even so, arms manufactured in the US that were sold to foreign nations continued to find their way to the Iranian military arsenal. The Iran–Iraq War raised the demand for arms and "created opportunities that arms merchants around the world simply could not afford to miss. Indeed, the lure of windfall profits was so great that few countries had any scruples about selling weapons to Iran or Iraq—or both at the same time." In response, The State Department dispatched special envoy Richard Fairbanks, who "spoke with diplomats, intelligence officers and arms industry officials" in targeted Arab countries as well as South Korea, Italy, Spain and Portugal. The State Department successfully dissuaded American allies from selling American arms to Iran on the tenet, created by Iran's association with Hezbollah, that Iran sponsors terrorism.

On June 5, 1983 the Second Sudanese Civil War began between the central government in Khartoum and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). The war started in southern Sudan but spread to other places including the Nuba mountains and the Blue Nile region. The terms of the Addis Ababa Agreement in 1972, which ended the first Sudan Civil War, were violated several times. In 1978, president Gaafar Nimeiry wanted to take control of the newly-discovered oil fields located on the border region between north and south Sudan. In 1983, President Nimeiry violated the agreement by imposing Sharia Law across the nation and abolishing the mostly Christian Southern Sudan Autonomous Region. Most South Sudanese people and other people who were non-Muslim living in the north were now punished by Sharia Law. In response, rebels from South Sudan formed the Southern Peoples Liberation Army (SPLA), led by John Garang, to fight the central government in Khartoum. As in the first war, child soldiers were recruited by both sides but were more frequently used by the SPLA.

a-starboard-bow-view-of-the-aircraft-carriers-uss-midway-cv-41-left-and-the-4ace00-640.jpg

(American Pacific Fleet during Fleet Ex '83)

Quickly rising tensions between the USA and USSR didn't deter President Reagan from putting more diplomatic and military pressure on the USSR, as Reagan started to perceive the Cold War not only as a struggle between capitalism/communism and USA/USSR, but also as a personal competition between himself and the new General Secretary Grigory Romanov. At first, Romanov was perceived by the American establishment as an unknown but conservative politician who most likely would follow into the footsteps of Brezhnev. Nevertheless, it soon became clear how different Romanov was from Brezhnev as a leader. Within 7 moths of his tenure, Romanov quickly proved to a capable and flexible politician on the Soviet and on international stage. Recent Soviet resurgence in Afghanistan was also a clear proof that Romanov is not scared to get his hands dirty, and will do anything to achieve his goals of strengthening Soviet position on the international stage. A new form of American pressure on the USSR came in the form of the U.S. Pacific Fleet exercise known as Fleet Ex '83.

The naval exercise that took place between March 29 and April 17 of 1983 in the northern Pacific Ocean near the Aleutian Islands. Three carrier battle groups participated in the exercise, consisting of the carriers Enterprise, Midway, and Coral Sea and their respective escort ships. According to Admiral Robert L. J. Long, Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Forces in the Pacific, FleetEx 83 comprised “the largest fleet exercise conducted by the Pacific Fleet since World War II.” The combined task force consisted of approximately forty ships, 23,000 crew members, and 300 aircraft. The exercise lasted approximately two weeks and was conducted in the Northern Pacific, within flight range of the Soviet Union coast. The purpose of the mission was to intentionally provoke the Soviet Union into responding so that the US forces could study their response, tactics, and capabilities as well as demonstrate the effective operations of a three-carrier battle force in joint and combined operations across multiple service branches in both the United States and Canada, in a high-threat environment. The exercises were extremely successful and effective in integrating the combined forces of the United States Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, Canadian Maritime Command and Australian naval forces into an effective battleworthy whole. Despite poor weather, the fleet excelled throughout the exercise.

The naval exercise conducted by the U.S. Pacific Fleet was met in Moscow with considerable concern. Soviet leadership with Romanov and Kunaev at helm was alarmed because of multiple events such as: quickly rising tensions between both superpowers, American economic war against USSR, American economic and military aid to Pakistan and China, as well as Chinese aggressive stance and military build-up near Afghanistan, Mongolia and Far East. In their minds, all of those events were smaller parts of a grand scheme created in Washington aimed at complete eradication of the Soviet Union and socialism. More hardliner and militarist members of CPSU suggested that NATO and China are preparing for a full-scale war against USSR and the Warsaw Pact, because the West was not able to destroy USSR by non-military means. According to them, NATO wants to start World War III as quickly as possible, while they still maintain dominance over USSR, because the country under the leadership of General Secretary Romanov is quickly regaining its might and strength. Number of proposals have been made about which strategy should be implemented in wake of potential conflict between USSR and NATO/China. The Soviet leadership quickly came to the conclusion that the Soviet Army, even with all its might, won't be able to go on offensive against NATO and China at the same time, so one front must be given priority: Europe or Asia. Some of the party members wanted to focus on Europe first, as NATO was a much bigger military threat than China, while others wanted to eliminate the weaker state – China. There was also a discussion if USSR should use the nuclear weapons first, or only as an answer to the Western nuclear strike. Personally, Romanov and Kunaev believed that the potential war could be won conventionally, relying on sheer numbers of the Soviet Armed Forces.

Probable_Axes_of_Attack.svg.png



(Soviet plans of attack against West Germany and NATO forces there located)

Because of this, the focus of development of the Soviet Armed Forces would be shifted from a nuclear war towards conventional war against NATO and China, much to the dismay of Marshal Ustinov, who was an advocate of preemptive nuclear strike against NATO and China. Nevertheless, Romanov altogether with Kunaev and Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov created a secret united front against Marshal Ustinov, with aim to curtail his power and independence for a number of various reasons. Romanov and Kunaev wanted to subjugate the all-powerful Marshal, which would allow them to move the economy away from the military-industrial complex and demilitarize the country. Marshal Ogarkov on the other hand, was completely opposed to Ustinov's conservative approach towards the development of the Soviet Armed Forces. To his support, Ogarkov was able to successfully implement his ideas in Afghanistan, which brought him political support from Romanov and Kunaev. Their first victory against Ustinov was a decision made and later enforced by Romanov to stop expanding Soviet nuclear warheads stockpile and to cap their numbers to 27,500 down from around 35,000. This allowed them to redirect saved money and resources towards Afghanistan and the Soviet Space Program.

Moreover, the recent anti-corruption and de-bureaucratisation policies initiated and implemented by Romanov and Kunaev were able to secure and recover money and resources that can now be put to other uses.
 

Attachments

  • RS_phillyThumb2_1200x800_041617_beirut1_1200.jpg
    RS_phillyThumb2_1200x800_041617_beirut1_1200.jpg
    736.1 KB · Views: 115
Last edited:
1. Vote on deal proposed by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
A) Yes, this will be beneficial to USSR
B) No, it will lead only to increased tensions with the West and China

2. Redistribution of recovered/saved money and resources:
A) Soviet Space Program
B) Agriculture
C) Infrastructure
D) Healthcare
E) Education
F) Light industry and production of consumer goods
G) Other

3. Soviet strategy for potential conflict with NATO and China:
a) Conventional offensive stance against NATO in Europe and conventional defensive stance against China
b) Nuclear offensive stance against NATO in Europe and conventional defensive stance against China
c) Nuclear offensive stance against NATO in Europe and nuclear defensive stance against China
d) Conventional defensive stance against NATO in Europe and conventional offensive stance against China
e) Nuclear defensive stance against NATO in Europe and conventional offensive stance against China
f) Nuclear defensive stance against NATO in Europe and nuclear offensive stance against China
g) Conventional offensive stance against NATO in Europe and nuclear defensive stance against China
 
Last edited:
USSR alt. History with voter participation? Followed.

1. Vote on deal proposed by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
A) Yes, this will be beneficial to USSR

Honestly the way i see it in the long run this US Chinese alliance won't last and as peer otl will grow cold as China develops.

On second hand tensions between USSR/India and China will remain and i find it necessary to secure Indian alliance in the long run in order to contain China down the line and secure Soviet position in Asia.

So short term increase in tensions with the west/China is acceptable. Also besides long term concerns India offers us beneficial deal regarding in terms of humanitarian aid and we need influential voice in non aligned movement, plus this draws Chinese and Pakistani focus south which eases the pressure from USSR.

2. Redistribution of recovered/saved money and resources:

F) Light industry and production of consumer goods
B) Agriculture
Honestly we are quite pressed for consumer goods and we need our own food.

G) Conventional offensive stance against NATO in Europe and nuclear defensive stance against China

We can't occupy China conventionally due to the sheer size of the country, nor do we have conventional ability to figh two front war, but i don't really want to off them with nukes so Nuclear defense it is.

Goal is to deter China while we (hopefully) overun Europe and make invasion from there impossibility.

Edit:also added Agriculture.
 
Last edited:
1. C - Instead of directly sending Soviet equipment to India and possibly increase US/Chinese support to Pakistan even more, offer the Indian government a license to build the newly introduced MiG 29A and the S-300 system (with the condition of sharing the cost of any future modernization of the platform for both the Soviet Union and India - basically dragging India into a Joint-Future-Development contract for the next decade) And as a quick action the modernization of their homebuilt HF-24 Marut with more powerful engines and electronics for the humanitarian aid.

2. A, C and F.

3. B - With Reagan as President it is likely that he won't hesitate to utilize nuclear weapons against any conventional forces used for offensive actions. It is imperative that the Soviet Union prepares for possible tactical nuclear warfare and its frontline disruption.
 
1. Vote on deal proposed by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
A) Yes, this will be beneficial to USSR
B) No, it will lead only to increased tensions with the West and China
A) With China currently a rival we are in need of a powerful Asian ally and India is the perfect candidate.
2. Redistribution of recovered/saved money and resources:
A) Soviet Space Program
B) Agriculture
C) Infrastructure
D) Healthcare
E) Education
F) Light industry and production of consumer goods
G) Other
C&F) Infrastructure & consumer goods are both sectors worthy of investment.
3. Soviet strategy for potential conflict with NATO and China:
a) Conventional offensive stance against NATO in Europe and conventional defensive stance against China
b) Nuclear offensive stance against NATO in Europe and conventional defensive stance against China
c) Nuclear offensive stance against NATO in Europe and nuclear defensive stance against China
d) Conventional defensive stance against NATO in Europe and conventional offensive stance against China
e) Nuclear defensive stance against NATO in Europe and conventional offensive stance against China
f) Nuclear defensive stance against NATO in Europe and nuclear offensive stance against China
G) Nuclear weapons should ideally be a last resort. However I do agree with the logic of Comrade @Kriss that they could be used to deter China while we knock out NATO.
 
Last edited:

TheSpectacledCloth

Gone Fishin'
1). A - Easy decision.

2). B, C and F - We must vastly improve the living conditions for Soviet citizens in order to survive. Getting more from agriculture, infrastructure and civilian industry with consumer goods would do wonders for the Soviet economy and the well-being of the populace.

3). G - I also completely agree with Comrade @Kriss that we attack NATO conventionally while deterring China with our nuclear arsenal. A nuclear war with NATO would be disastrous for both sides, so we should make a commitment not to use them unless we absolutely have to. We can reduce China into a wasteland if they get any funny ideas.
 
Last edited:
Okay my bad but i edited a options a little and frogot to mention it as A stands for conventional offense against NATO and conventional defense against China.

So if @panpiotr has nothing against it ill just go with my write in G) option conventional offensive stance against NATO in Europe and nuclear defensive stance against China as it wasn't listed in the choices and i find it generally the best option.
 
Last edited:
Why not attempt Siberian settlement and development? Plenty of arable land, minerals and resources there just need higher population to exploit it
 
A) Nuclear weapons should ideally be a last resort. However I do agree with the logic of Comrade @Kriss that they could be used to deter China while we knock out NATO.
3). A - I also completely agree with Comrade @Kriss that we attack NATO conventionally while deterring China with our nuclear arsenal. A nuclear war with NATO would be disastrous for both sides, so we should make a commitment not to use them unless we absolutely have to. We can reduce China into a wasteland if they get any funny ideas.

Comrades, just to inform you that i forgot to edit my vote since you support my stance. It's write in G option as A stands for conventional offense against NATO and conventional defense against China.
 
1. A. Realism dictates that we must. If Nixon can do it, so can we.

2. B, C, D, F. We can also use D to thumb our nose at American healthcare if we make ours free.

3. D. We have our weapons but we don't want to send the wrong message against NATO. The nonuse of nuclear weapons does not compromise our defensive strategy.
 
3. D. We have our weapons but we don't want to send the wrong message against NATO. The nonuse of nuclear weapons does not compromise our defensive strategy.

Honestly D is the worst option as it is have us march millions of soldiers in China over questionable supply lines and expects us to be able to occupy and and hold China, or even a part of it which is a challenge.

On second hand it lets Americans time to build up troops in Europe and launch offensive against us further stretching our forces condemning the union to slow, but gradual defeat and collapse.

Also honestly we don't have capability to fight two front war.
 
1) is A, but on the second question I'm voting in the order of priority the resource redestribution should follow, 2) F; B; C and A, healtcare and education are already quite good, the other options are the ones needing a boost, 3) G.
 

TheSpectacledCloth

Gone Fishin'
1). A - Easy decision.

2). B, C and F - We must vastly improve the living conditions for Soviet citizens in order to survive. Getting more from agriculture, infrastructure and civilian industry with consumer goods would do wonders for the Soviet economy and the well-being of the populace.

3). G - I also completely agree with Comrade @Kriss that we attack NATO conventionally while deterring China with our nuclear arsenal. A nuclear war with NATO would be disastrous for both sides, so we should make a commitment not to use them unless we absolutely have to. We can reduce China into a wasteland if they get any funny ideas.
Edited my vote.
 
1) A
Deepening ties with India can only be profitable, maybe we revisit this deal when the Chinese-American relations cool.

2) B, F,
Reinvestments go brrrrr, ideally we can get the USSR to produce more grain than it consumes so we dont burn precious capital importing grain. Light industry also is an eazy choice, the Soviet light industry sector is pretty small and barely supplies the internal market, there is a lot of room there for growth.

3) A, with a hint of G if China looks to be pushing too much
NATO is the proven threat the USSR has been expecting to fight since the begginings of the Cold War, they are the most dangerous powers and need to be prioritised, China's army also is untested and less technologically advanced, eventually they will surpass even us, but thats atleast an decade down the line
 
Last edited:
1. Vote on deal proposed by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
A) Yes, this will be beneficial to USSR

2. Redistribution of recovered/saved money and resources:
B) Agriculture
D) Healthcare
F) Light industry and production of consumer goods

We need to reduce our food imports and food spoilage, reduce waiting lines, and improve the rural economy. Modernization and mechanization of our Agriculture system can do that. Healthcare can reduce work absences and improve work quality. Light industry and consumer goods can be used for foreign exports and civilian incentives.

3. Soviet strategy for potential conflict with NATO and China:
G) Conventional offensive stance against NATO in Europe and nuclear defensive stance against China

The only way to counter Chinese numbers is with our nuclear arsenal, we have enough problems than provoking the Maoists. As for Europe, if we reserve our nuclear weaponry for defensive use only we may convince some European states that we are not the aggressors.
 
1. Vote on deal proposed by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
A) Supporting India's military reforms will help keeps Pakistan distracted and divide China's military between North and South.
2. Redistribution of recovered/saved money and resources:
C,E&F) We need to improve our infrastructure & education as it'll help make transportation easier and increase our science base so we're able to catch up with the West while we start leaning towards light industry as to increase our consumer goods between everyone that's in the Warsaw Pact and those that's pro-Soviet.
3. Soviet strategy for potential conflict with NATO and China:
*G) Same answer as everyone else.

*Forgot to answer the 3rd question...
 
Last edited:
Top