I am kinda stuck with my alternate history Cold War gone hot scenario, I don’t know whether to place it in the 60s or the 80s.

I want to start a timeline but I don’t know when to place it, I want it To either take place in the 60s or the 80s. Both have their pros and cons and both have their own vibe to them. Hopefully by listing the pros and cons of each that you can decide for me which decade for me to place my timeline in.
The 60s have JFK and LBJ alongside the two Soviet leaders Nikita Krushchev and Leonid Brezhnev. There is also multiple points in the 60s that could have sparked the Third World War in some shape or form, the Berlin Crisis, Cuban Missile Crisis, Six Day War, Prague Spring, Sino-Soviet Border War, and of course to some degree, the Vietnam War. The 60s also had many technological achievements alongside it, like the space race and the race to land a person on the moon between the United States and the Soviet Union. There was also many developments in arms technology, like the IFV and the attack helicopter coming into practice by the late 1960s. This is also the time where Communism was at its heyday as mulitiple wars would be fought for and against Communism. There is also lots of culture surrounding the 60s as well, the civil rights movement, anti-war sentiment, and tons of recognizable music tracks. There is some cons with the 60s though, some armies in the West and the East simply were not ready for a Conventional World War, the West German Army was just barley formed, the Japanese army barley existed, and Most African countries were under colonialism. There is also the dilemma of wether to have nukes involved or uninvolved in your timeline, which goes for the whole Cold War. Realistically, nukes would get involved right when the war would start because Warsaw Pact and NATO doctrines relied on them very heavily to stop the other. And if you don’t use nukes, your timeline becomes a little ridiculous as both sides have the means to totally annihilate the other side, but not using them.
Now the 1980s, where most people’s timelines are placed in. Pros of the 80s are that they have Reagan as the US leader for most of the decade, who was hellbent on taking down Communism. There is also British Prime Minister Margret Thatcher who had the same ideals and Reagan. This is also when the Technology gap between NATO and the Warsaw Pact became even wider with the introduction of the Abrams and Bradley tanks, The teen series of fighters like the F-15 and F-14, and overall better radar systems. This was also when the most armies where developed in the Cold War period, the West and East German armies, the Japanese self-defense force, China, and most Western and Eastern nations. As you very well know, the 80s also has tons of culture surrounding it as well. Music, TV, Movies, Video Games and tons of different genres of entertainment. As well as the 80s vibe we all know and love. There is also some cons for the 80s as well. This time is also when the Soviet Union was at its weakest, fighting in the Soviet Afghan War, and the policies introduced by Gorbachev. There also was no ideal Soviet leader at the time, with it going from Brezhnev from 1980-82, Andropov 82-84, Chernenko 84-85, and Gorbachev 85-91, and while Gorbachev is the longest serving Soviet Leader during this decade, he was more bent on peace than war with NATO. There is also less technological advancements you could tie in to the timeline as well.
Overall, it all comes down to personal preference for when you want to place your WW3 timeline. But I am having trouble finding which decade to place mine in. Hopefully you can help me settle this and finally come up with an answer of when to place my timeline.
 
The problem with a "Cold War gone hot" in the '80s is you won't have much to write about, because after the first week (or possibly day) it's likely to go nuclear, and then everyone everywhere dies. So it pretty much just goes straight to post-apocalyptic. You have to really mess with things in an implausible way to get a "War Day" like limited exchange, much less a basically ASB-like "Red Storm Rising" or "The Third World War" purely conventional/very limited nukes kind of war.
 

marathag

Banned
Before 1967, Mostly Warsaw Pact and Soviets die en mass, lots of excess US overkill
after 1976, everybody dies with USSR overkill ramping up to, and then far past what the US had in 1961, for peak Warhead count

Until the USSR falls apart, any War will become a Nuclear War within a hours of it starting
 
The problem with a "Cold War gone hot" in the '80s is you won't have much to write about, because after the first week (or possibly day) it's likely to go nuclear, and then everyone everywhere dies. So it pretty much just goes straight to post-apocalyptic. You have to really mess with things in an implausible way to get a "War Day" like limited exchange, much less a basically ASB-like "Red Storm Rising" or "The Third World War" purely conventional/very limited nukes kind of war.
Eh actually 80s are much more likely to stay non nuclear due to rough parity of conventional forces (relatively speaking). In the 60s the conventional advantage is with the soviet while the nuclear advantage is with the west.
 
That makes the Soviets starting off with tactical nukes on Day 1 more likely, not less. As well as using nuclear torpedoes against carriers.
No, the soviets would still have a slight advantage conventionally. The idea for them is to not win too hard basically so as to not invite the use of tactical weapons until it is too late and west germany and the smaller european nato nations are broken and stop there while nato aims to blunt the initial soviet blow thus forcing them to the negotiating table. Both sides leaned much more heavily into a purely conventional confrontation at this point than earlier as evidenced by the extensive ban on a lot of tactical/intermediary nuclear weapons by treaties.

Both sides know that they can kill each other in a flash and thus the bet is that there is a pain tolerance that can be broken before they both commit suicide. Its a very high risk game but the odds of limited victory and survival is actually higher than in a lopsided nuclear situation like in the 60s.
 
Last edited:
No, the soviets would still have a slight advantage conventionally. The idea for them is to not win too hard basically so as to not invite the use of tactical weapons until it is too late and west germany and the smaller european nato nations are broken and stop there while nato aims to blunt the initial soviet blow thus forcing them to the negotiating table. Both sides leaned much more heavily into a purely conventional confrontation at this point than earlier as evidenced by the extensive ban on a lot of tactical/intermediary nuclear weapons by treaties.

Both sides know that they can kill each other in a flash and thus the bet is that there is a pain tolerance that can be broken before they both commit suicide. Its a very high risk game but the odds of limited victory and survival is actually higher than in a lopsided nuclear situation like in the 60s.
Which part of 80s are you talking about ?
1980 to 1983
1984 to 1987
1988 to 1990
And when do you think soviet air forces were weakest as compared to NATO
 
Why not 70s?

From a western standpoint, the 70s are kind of a lull between two hot decades.

After the end of the Vietnam War, you had the US and China cuddling up, a war in Angola that nobody really followed too closely, Communists fighting EACH OTHER in Southeast Asia(huh?), and then, to really confuse the viewers at home, an old bearded guy in Iran that everyone was supposed to hate, even though he was killing commies all over the place.

But with the Nicaraguan Revolution, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the rise of Thatcher and Reagan, increased US military spending, the Olympic boycotts, KAL 007 etc, things switched back to a bipolar mode again, and stayed there pretty much until the fall of the Berlin Wall.
 
Which part of 80s are you talking about ?
1980 to 1983
1984 to 1987
1988 to 1990
And when do you think soviet air forces were weakest as compared to NATO
I say 85 is the year the scales sorta became more equal. Before that the soviet ground forces were just sorta plain superior in both equipment quality and quantity.
 
Well, it would be tough to improve on Lions Will Fight Bears, in my opinion, so maybe go 1960s...

Meh, depends on the angle. Lions was very readable and exciting, and somewhat nicely researched on the western side, but a lot of its takes on the Soviet side were utterly horrendous (though I admit I might think of the authors other TLs, as they have bled together after all those years). It was very much a technothriller in that respect. A TL on a 80s war focusing more on realism and believable charakter/diplomatic/political interaction would benefit the side.
 
It depends on the story you're writing:
A nuclear war in the 1960s is a story about a terrible shock to the international system and mass death on a scale unrecognized in human history. But it's still the same system afterwards, with much the same countries. A nuclear war in the 1980s is much more about the fall of that international system and what comes next.
 
I say 85 is the year the scales sorta became more equal. Before that the soviet ground forces were just sorta plain superior in both equipment quality and quantity.
And what about the airforces?
I think by 1984 the VVS and PVO start slipping behind NATO , before that they have some kind of parity.
This obviously is not counting the aircraft based in north America , just those in Europe and Far East
But I’m happy to be corrected
 
Last edited:
And what about the airforces?
I think by 1984 the VVS and PVO start slipping behind NATO , before that they have some kind of parity.
This obviously is not counting the aircraft based in north America , just those in Europe and Far East
But I’m happy to be corrected
Problem with the air situation is that its too close to have a major impact and there simply isn't enough ordance and aircraft compared to what they are up against.

To use desert storm as an example: that operation almost bled NATO dry of precision ordnance yet the air campaign accounted for just 5% of iraqi losses. The main value of the air campaign was that iraqi mobility was gone with an uncontested airsoace and that just isn't happening against a SAM heavy soviet army with stuff like the S-300V and BUK used at the operational level. Nato just isn't blunting the soviets with airpower. They need conventional ground forces that can credibly hold their own for that.
 
Last edited:
Problem with the air situation is that its too close to have a major impact and there simply isn't enough ordance and aircraft compared to what they are up against.

To use desert storm as an example: that operation almost bled NATO dry of precision ordnance yet the air campaign accounted for just 5% of iraqi losses. And that was with a virtually uncontested airspace. Nato just isn't blunting the soviets with airpower. They need conventional ground forces that can credibly hold their own for that.
Not to mention Iraq probably had far fewer targets and probably far less SAMs than all of Eastern Europe.
5% of Iraqi ground forces losses ?
 
Top