NATO Nuclear Red Line

I know that NATO was pretty straightforward about using nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the outbreak of conventional war in Europe, but did they have any geographical point where the use of nuclear weapons was considered worth the escalation? Was it the Rhine, or did everyone pretty much assume France would just use them to protect their own borders if West Germany fell?

As an aside, is it generally agreed upon on here at the late 1970s would be the point where the USSR would have the best chance to overrun NATO? In reading years of threads on this, I get the sense it's near consensus, but want to see if anyone disagrees.
 
I know that NATO was pretty straightforward about using nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the outbreak of conventional war in Europe, but did they have any geographical point where the use of nuclear weapons was considered worth the escalation? Was it the Rhine, or did everyone pretty much assume France would just use them to protect their own borders if West Germany fell?

As an aside, is it generally agreed upon on here at the late 1970s would be the point where the USSR would have the best chance to overrun NATO? In reading years of threads on this, I get the sense it's near consensus, but want to see if anyone disagrees.


My sense is that a nuclear response by NATO (in the flexible response era) would likely have been situationally driven (ie. The Warsaw Pact has used WMD's or the Warsaw Pact has broken thru the on the central front and we don't have any meaningful reserves left to stop them with, and we doubt we can counter attack in the forseable future.)

If the Warsaw Pact made it to the Rhine, but NATO felt they had a reasonable chance of stopping a further advance and quickly launching a successful counter attack I suspect there would have been a reluctance to use nuclear weapons.

Sorry I'm not sure if the late 70's was when the Warsaw Pact had the best chance of beating NATO.

Sorry I don't have sources for this. This just based on my own perception of some materials I have read over the decades.
 
Last edited:
Any Soviet Chemical use, that's a WMD, and Nukes fly

Any Soviet Biologicals, that's a WMD and Nukes fly

Any Soviet Tac-Nukes, that's a WMD and Nukes fly

Problem was, all the Soviet warplans seemed to have plentiful use for all three for an attack against NATO, as reported by Pact Nation members after the Pact fell apart

in the '70s, you still had a lot of Tac-Nukes and Nervegas deployed on the US side, even after they pulled the hard to control stuff like the Davy Crockett from the front.
You still had Lance missile and the 8" tube arty with nerve gas and tac nukes, plus all the other battlefield rockets like Pershing
The Nike Hercules SAMs had dual use for their nuclear warheads, surface to surface
 
Not NATO as awhole but it's often claimed that the French would fire their nukes if the Soviets got past the Rhine... And if one flies...
 
I can think of four Warsaw Pact breakthroughs that would probably result in the use of tactical weapons:

(1) a breakthrough along the A2 Autobahn past Helmstedt/Marienborn in the direction of Hannover
(2) a breakthrough in the north toward Hamburg (which was dangerously close to the East German border)
(3) a breakthrough in the Fulda Gap in the direction of Frankfurt
(4) a breakthrough in the direction of Nuremberg and Munich along the A9 Autobahn.

Nukes would fly long before the Soviets reached the Rhine.
 
I think NATO would have a real go at trying not to nuke if it could and it would depend on the ebb and flow of the conventional battle. For example if one of the notional lines was broken but REFORGER had been successful and a counter attack from a different axis was in the offing I doubt they'd let the nukes go until after the counter-offensive had been tried and failed. However if REFORGER had failed but the war on land was holding on the last reserves the nukes might be unleashed before a notional line if a breakthrough occurred.
 
Top