M79's scenario strikes me as EXTREMELY unlikely. And here's why:
You are free to write your own scenario if you do not like mine, but I'll be happy to address your concerns:
-Why does Pakistan randomly attack India?
It is not so random, there were serious border incidents through the 1984-1988 timeframe that eventually led to the taking of 900-1000 square kilometers by India from Pakistan. (Siachen)
-I doubt the Arabs would attack Israel on day 1. There'd be some negotiations between Arab leaders first.
Israel gets a lot of help from the US, and if they wanted to attack it would be when we were occupied elsewhere
-Why are these dictatorships all of a sudden exploding into revolt before the war has had any effect?
Because there were a lot of unpopular dictatorships back by the US which has its attention diverted elsewhere, so it is less likely to help its local cronies when there are bigger concerns to deal with
-I also don't think Belgium would fall so easily. I imagine after having made the mistake of WWII, that the French would stay in NATO, and move their armies forward, issuing general mobilisation and fortifying the Ardennes, the various rivers in the Netherlands and the Black forest region.
In a conventional war situation I would expect the Soviet armor to be combined with air cavalry and paratroopers, and thus be able to avoid much of the river-based defenses. Soviet planning seems to have been to aim for the French border, taking Denmark, West Germany, and Benelux. There is also a question of how well our intel assessed their initial capabilities:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930316&slug=1690795
-I'm not 100% sure about the comparative North and South Korean militaries in the early 80s, but I assume that the North Koreans would be able to occupy the whole of South Korea (except Jeju), unless the Japanese don't declare neutrality and mobilise their army.
JSDF would probably mobilize, and yes the NKs do occupy almost the whole of the peninsula early in my scenario.
-I highly doubt Cuba would declare neutrality. Sure, it seems like the smartest idea, but I don't think that it was possible politically, and even if they do declare neutrality, the Americans aren't going to respect Cuban neutrality. The Cubans put up some stiff resistance, possibly even using chemical weapons on invading marines, but they'll be defeated. Same with Sandinistas etc.
Cuba probably would not have the resources to be a direct threat to the US in and of itself at that point. Castro does not want to give the US a reason to attack, and I'm not saying he'll cow to Washington, just stay as far away from this mess as he can. We would have our attention elsewhere, why invade Cuba when Europe is under threat?
-I doubt that the Turks and Greeks, without other NATO help, could defend Istanbul. The Soviets would apply massive force at such a key area. Also, M79 says that Southern Bulgaria becomes a quagmire, but if anywhere in the Balkans would become a quagmire, it would be Greece.
Istabul is a choke point and probably the best site for the Russians to try to enter Anatolia outside of the mountains around Armenia, which will be a hellhole for terrain and local resistance. Southern Bulgaria seemed like a good pick for defensive warfare based on terrain and would be a priority to prevent a breakout by the Allies.
I also don't understand why all the Eastern Bloc countries are suddenly flaring up with violence. In my opinion, if Eastern Europe flared up, it'd be because of a long war, and the deprivations that accompany it. Not after less than a month.
Eastern Bloc countries would *love* to get out from the Russians. It's a pool of gasoline waiting for a match, and that is a major reason I have the Russians losing the scenario.
Guerrilla warfare in Europe isn't going to be any more pervasive than it was in WWII, IMO. Western Europeans tend to be quite respecting of any authority/government, whilst that's not the same in Eastern Europe. Therefore, there's not going to be too much resistance, other than the regular army, amongst the French, Belgians, Dutch, Danes etc.
Respectfully disagree, but again feel free to write your own scenario if you like.
What would the Russians be doing in Slovenia?
Moving through to other areas mostly, it's also adjacent to the Adriatic and could be useful in a few other ways
Why is American ASW so efficient?
We still had a few systems that could detect them with reasonable effectiveness in the pre-Akula days, so I figure there are other systems we (still) don't talk about that might be able to do even better. There was also a significant shift in ASW management in the 1980s with improved coordination of resources that the Soviets might not expect, and with the Walker ring broken I'm not sure what the Soviets would know about that until it was too late. Also the USSR was shifting tactics from sea lane interdiction to SSBN protection at that point.
-Also, I highly doubt the Ukrainians would want independence.
Why do you doubt that? They tried for it twice in the last century