Limited Nuclear Exchange in '83 - some questions

So I'm working on an AH setting for an RPG thing. The whole thing would take a while to go into and involves some major behind-the-scenes ASBery (basically think Delta Green if you know what that is), but for the alt-history aspect I'm trying to keep to a realistic basis.

The initial PoD is this: in spring of 1983, a group of hardliners within the Soviet government led by Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov execute a coup, removing Andropov (who was basically dying at the time, IOTL he lasted until February '84) and installing either Ogarkov or Dmitriy Ustinov as Premier/General Secretary. Things go more or less as IOTL with intensifying tension and a slightly different version of the KAL 007 shootdown (one proposed as actually having happened by some conspiracy theorists). Then in November, Able Archer 83 goes hot with the Soviets invading Germany as is standard in these things, brutal conventional warfare follows for about a week until the tactical nukes start flying.

Now here's the kicker: the predicted full-on exchange never actually happens. After one good volley (mostly targeting each other's strategic arsenals), an uneasy ceasefire is reached, essentially out of the realization that neither side has anything to gain at this point. On a scale of OTL to Protect & Survive or Doomsday 1983, think somewhere above Red Storm Rising but below Warday (which is a greatly underappreciated book, even with the major hindsight errors).

So I've got a decent handle on targets and the geopolitical situation in Europe, and much of the rest of the necessary stuff, but there's one thing that's causing me a bit of a conundrum. The guys behind the coup are gone, but the Soviet Union remains mostly intact (the Warsaw Pact not so much, but the USSR proper, including the Ukrainian and Belorussian SSRs, plus the Central Asian Republics), and I can't work out who'd be most likely to end up as its postwar leader. Initial thought was Gorbachev, but a thread on a totally different subject on Reddit brought up that for a while, it looked like Gromyko was the more likely successor to Andropov (not counting Chernenko, who barely lasted a year).

Any particular thoughts? At the moment I'm leaning towards Gromyko the more I think about it, for plot reasons maintaining an adversarial relationship between NATO and the Soviets would help considerably.
 
So I'm working on an AH setting for an RPG thing. The whole thing would take a while to go into and involves some major behind-the-scenes ASBery (basically think Delta Green if you know what that is), but for the alt-history aspect I'm trying to keep to a realistic basis.

The initial PoD is this: in spring of 1983, a group of hardliners within the Soviet government led by Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov execute a coup, removing Andropov (who was basically dying at the time, IOTL he lasted until February '84) and installing either Ogarkov or Dmitriy Ustinov as Premier/General Secretary. Things go more or less as IOTL with intensifying tension and a slightly different version of the KAL 007 shootdown (one proposed as actually having happened by some conspiracy theorists). Then in November, Able Archer 83 goes hot with the Soviets invading Germany as is standard in these things, brutal conventional warfare follows for about a week until the tactical nukes start flying.

Now here's the kicker: the predicted full-on exchange never actually happens. After one good volley (mostly targeting each other's strategic arsenals), an uneasy ceasefire is reached, essentially out of the realization that neither side has anything to gain at this point. On a scale of OTL to Protect & Survive or Doomsday 1983, think somewhere above Red Storm Rising but below Warday (which is a greatly underappreciated book, even with the major hindsight errors).

So I've got a decent handle on targets and the geopolitical situation in Europe, and much of the rest of the necessary stuff, but there's one thing that's causing me a bit of a conundrum. The guys behind the coup are gone, but the Soviet Union remains mostly intact (the Warsaw Pact not so much, but the USSR proper, including the Ukrainian and Belorussian SSRs, plus the Central Asian Republics), and I can't work out who'd be most likely to end up as its postwar leader. Initial thought was Gorbachev, but a thread on a totally different subject on Reddit brought up that for a while, it looked like Gromyko was the more likely successor to Andropov (not counting Chernenko, who barely lasted a year).

Any particular thoughts? At the moment I'm leaning towards Gromyko the more I think about it, for plot reasons maintaining an adversarial relationship between NATO and the Soviets would help considerably.
One volley of tact-nukes fired by both sides on command control nuke, and conventional storage facilities. This, and I assume any "Bulges" on either side of the battle lines. Bad enough. Perhaps up to several hundred thousands dead, but less than a million. No major European cities hit. No homeland Russian or American targets hit. Everyone is still at home watching the new CNN or BBC coverage of the War. Unlike "Warday" no continent wide EMP damage. However yes local damage to digital infrastructure. I assume this is the world the story lives in. How to politically militarily emotionally clear up an actual Nuclear War,...though "minor". Imagine 20 nuke power plant melt-downs happening in a compressed region at the same time on the same day. Bad. Like "Warday" We may see here that even with relatively limited damage, and loss of life this "War" can have catastrophic consequences.
 
You should probably think of a reason why the Soviets respond to the Able Archer crisis, aka "thy are preparing a nuclear first strike on us!" with a conventional invasion. They actually (and sensibly) planned to pre-empt it with a first strike of their own, which is the only proper action when you are sure the other is about to strike.

Also,any "volley" would always compromize the majority of the entire arsenal. Every limited exchange scenario (as unrealistic as even most planners considered them) always had the escalation stop after a very low number of nukes used, never many at the same time, and certainly never targetted at the others strategic arsenal (thats instant "use it or loose it" !)
 
I have a real hard time believing the nukes stop once they start. Once you've got mushrooms sprouting, deterrence is over and we're in full MAD, use 'em or lose 'em territory.
 
You should probably think of a reason why the Soviets respond to the Able Archer crisis, aka "thy are preparing a nuclear first strike on us!" with a conventional invasion. They actually (and sensibly) planned to pre-empt it with a first strike of their own, which is the only proper action when you are sure the other is about to strike.

Also,any "volley" would always compromize the majority of the entire arsenal. Every limited exchange scenario (as unrealistic as even most planners considered them) always had the escalation stop after a very low number of nukes used, never many at the same time, and certainly never targetted at the others strategic arsenal (thats instant "use it or loose it" !)

Good point on the strategics, rewritten to be theatre/sub-strategic (Brussels catches one, right off the top of my head), aside from one 20-25Mt hit each on single targets in the US and Soviet Union - that's related to the ASB side of things, and basically swept under the rug for the public. As for why the invasion of Germany, the idea would be to kick NATO off-balance. Redirect attention and planning from a strategic first strike to stopping the Soviet Army from rolling up to the Channel. You stand to gain a lot less from a preemptive strike on the USSR when the Warsaw Pact is occupying most of Europe and REFORGER is struggling to get off the ground.
 
One volley of tact-nukes fired by both sides on command control nuke, and conventional storage facilities. This, and I assume any "Bulges" on either side of the battle lines. Bad enough. Perhaps up to several hundred thousands dead, but less than a million. No major European cities hit. No homeland Russian or American targets hit. Everyone is still at home watching the new CNN or BBC coverage of the War. Unlike "Warday" no continent wide EMP damage. However yes local damage to digital infrastructure. I assume this is the world the story lives in. How to politically militarily emotionally clear up an actual Nuclear War,...though "minor". Imagine 20 nuke power plant melt-downs happening in a compressed region at the same time on the same day. Bad. Like "Warday" We may see here that even with relatively limited damage, and loss of life this "War" can have catastrophic consequences.

You can’t target nuclear Command and control of either US or the USSR without targeting cities in America and Russia.
 
Any strike on UK/FR core territory and it needs ASB's to stop Moscow glowing in the dark. Both nations stated policy was/is they would launch everything if hit by nukes, not a graduated limited response. They saw flexible response as just an attempt by the US /USSR to fight a nuclear war without putting their homelands at risk ( but it would destroy Europe ). For the US/USSR any strike on targets involved in the Nuclear control chain will bring a strategic response ( so no blinding tracking radars etc ) as it would be misinterpreted as the precursor to a strategic strike. Any strike on the US itself would need a strategic weapon ( so the ASB's need to hand wave things ).
 
You can’t target nuclear Command and control of either US or the USSR without targeting cities in America and Russia.
In a strategic war yes. The premise as I got it was this is a very limited conventional then limited nuke exchange conflict. This leads one to imagine only the local headquarters of both sides being hit. As a reader above says,, "...Brussels come to mind."
 
I have a real hard time believing the nukes stop once they start. Once you've got mushrooms sprouting, deterrence is over and we're in full MAD, use 'em or lose 'em territory.
This.. Once the genie is out its out..

If they are using battlefield nukes or City busters.. It just escalates as a matter of principle; oh no you didn't just use a 15kt nuke on our troops.. Here are 4 on yours don't do it again... Eh.. Okay.. Here are 3 1 Megaton bombs on you.. Etc.. Etc..
 
In a strategic war yes. The premise as I got it was this is a very limited conventional then limited nuke exchange conflict. This leads one to imagine only the local headquarters of both sides being hit. As a reader above says,, "...Brussels come to mind."

Nuclear Command and control in the US means targetting Washington DC, Omaha, Colorado Springs, Seattle, Charleston, and probably some other cities I’m forgetting.

Doing the same for Russia requires targetting Moscow (the HQ’s of Long Range Aviation and Strategic Rocket Forces are both in the Moscow metro area).
 
Top