Limited US/NATO war with Soviet Union?

[PipBoy2999]

Something I've been wondering, would a war between the US/NATO and the Soviet Union have ended up in a whole 'The Day After' and 'Threads' level nuclear exchange, or could it have been possible for a 'less than thermonuclear' war to take place?

Other than a brief occupation of Siberia in 1919, US troops and Soviet troop have never (officially) faced each other in battle. I wonder how much this lack of historical bloodshed affected the Cold War and prevented WWIII.

Some points I'm thinking of are the Suez, Hungary, and Berlin Blockade. I think a limited war might be possible because Europe was still war weary, the Soviets had little nuclear deterrent against the US mainland, and a general lack of ICBMs. Could a war occur, even with a small exchange or one-sided use of atomics, that would leave the main principles fundamentally intact (no loss of territorial integrity for major powers)?

 

[Blue Max]

One easy way to get around it is to dance around the edges of Thermonuclear weapons. A WWIII breaking out over Berlin or Korea may well be a mostly conventional war.

A limited war between the Superpowers needs to be for stakes such that neither side is willing to go nuclear or expand the conflict. Soviet Volunteers for Vietnam or US volunteers for Afghanistan might well qualify.

Otherwise, the only real choices are skirmishes or very short military struggles. Fighting in Europe--where the United States had committed to first use of nuclear weapons--is out of the question. It would not be the end of the world if the Soviets and USA fought in Somalia or in other low-value regions.

As for direct conflict: No. Threads and the Day After may be somewhat pessimistic in the USA and the Soviet's willingness to use nuclear weapons (which, let's face it, isn't the point of those stories), but the points are pretty straightforward: NATO can't win in West Germany, and France will pull the trigger at the Rhine. Based on conditions on the Ground, the USA will make the call to deploy tactical nuclear weapons.

The Soviets are going to at least respond with their own Tac-Nukes, leading to a series of spiraling nuclear salvoes that can only end in fullscale metrocide across planet Earth.

Recommended guidance on this topic:

• Soviet-Chinese Border Dispute: Apparently, the Soviets wanted to nuke the Chinese into the Stone Age, but President Nixon put the USA on the line to prevent it from happening.
• The Kargil War: Pakistan's infiltrators grab a small portion of Kashmir, leading to a direct crisis between two nuclear powers. Pakistan declares that if India goes past the small region in dispute, "it will use every weapon in its arsenal".

In short, the track record for this kind of question suggests that it is possible, but also that it's a very fine line between an accepted duel of arms and full scale city glassing.

 

[mdc_1957]

I guess a Wargames analogy is apt here: the only way to win is not to play.

 

[Panzerfaust 150]

Perhaps instead a superpower "shoving match" might occur ala the Harold Coyle novel Sword Point.

If you did it something like the leadup to the nuclear exchange in Threads, only where both sides didn't go nuclear from the outset, I could see some exchange of fire before "cooler heads prevail" and the diplomats divy up Iran (where I could see something like this happen).

 

[PipBoy2999]

I'm not familiar with Sword Point. Could you give us a synopsis? Otherwise, I'll have to go to *shudder* Amazon.

 

[Blue Max]

Perhaps instead a superpower "shoving match" might occur ala the Harold Coyle novel Sword Point.

If you did it something like the leadup to the nuclear exchange in Threads, only where both sides didn't go nuclear from the outset, I could see some exchange of fire before "cooler heads prevail" and the diplomats divy up Iran (where I could see something like this happen).

Threads is a little unworkable, though.

NATO sends an ultimatum to the Soviet Union over its placement of nuclear weapons in Iran, and then attempts to bomb those weapons. The nukes are getting screwed with literally in the first hour of fighting.

I suspect that the Soviets use a nuclear weapon over Mashard because it's the only real weapon available to them. It's very plausible, actually, except for the (then unknown) call that the Soviets wouldn't use nuclear weapons first.

 

[mrmandias]

A POD where Nixon doesn't guarantee China would be interesting.

On topic, in the early Cold War at least the US doctrine for the defense of Western Europe was nuclear. Later the US/NATO made a stab at conventional defense, though I think it still would have gone nuclear in the end.

I agree with the other posters that for this to happen you need the war to be limited to a theater where either side can afford to lose. Would there be some way for the Sovs to not use the PRC as surrogates in Korea and get directly involved themselves? Of course, that early on the US nuclear advantage is so great and the USSR delivery systems so chancy that if the war drags on too long and the Soviets look like winning you might be tempting the US leadership severely.