PC: Can a "gentlemen's agreement" avert or limit a nuclear WWIII?

During the Cold War, both the U.S. and USSR were deterred from starting a direct war against each other for mutual fear that it would quickly escalate to nukes and destroy their nations under the principles of MAD. Even if nukes weren't used from the get-go, it was perceived that the use em' or lose em' mentality would gradually take hold.

My question is, is it plausible for WWIII to occur without any nukes used if one leader or the other makes it clear from the start they won't fire first? As an example, tensions could rise between NATO and Warsaw Pact forces in Europe for whatever reason (e.g. trouble in Berlin) and hostilities commence. Perhaps the General Secretary or President could immediately utilize the "hotline" between Moscow and DC to signal their clear intent not to use nukes under any circumstances except as a direct retaliation.

If this isn't plausible, then could the war at least be kept as a limited nuclear war in the sense of only tactical nukes on the battlefield or no direct attacks against cities and towns? Let's assume both leaders would know the consequences of all-out attacks and nuclear winter and wouldn't want the risk. Maybe they use the hotline to assure each other they want to minimize civilian casualties. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
 

Ian_W

Banned
A major problem is this - it is brutally difficult to tell the difference between a low-level air strike aimed at bridges over the Vistula and a low-level cruise missile strike aimed at Moscow.

Add in two weeks of destruction of radars and so on in Eastern Europe, and it becomes impossible.

Because NATO can't avoid making attacks that look like the opening moves of a decapitation strike, accidental escalation is more or less a certainty.
 
I think it's possible but given their prominence in effecting world politics, I'd imagine that the "agreement" wouldn't last long considering how expensive fighting a post-1945 war would, especially in the 80's and any kind of wildcards regarding the mental behaviors of the warring powers (especially on the Soviet side). There is a precedent set in WWII with the lack of chemical weapons used at all (ironically on behalf of Hitler being unwilling to use them considering his suffering at the hands of them), so the idea of nukes being held off for at least a few months might be doable, if both sides are willing to hold to said "agreement".
 
The problem is unless you come to a situation of mutual exhaustion with more or less prewar lines, SOMEBODY is going to be faced with losing whether it is NATO backed to the Channel, or WP/USSR seeing NATO troops on the borers of Mother Russia. At that point...
 
Top