PC: Largest Conventional 1980's WWIII Possible?

With a POD of 1960, how large can a conventional kind of WWIII be on a global scale in terms of geopolitics? One way I can think of is having some South American countries (Chile and Argentina) go communist or at least pro-Soviet to the dismay of the USA and its remaining Latin American allies.
 
Once you have the USA and the USSR shooting at each other with conventional weapons it becomes very difficult for it not to go nuclear.
 
With a POD of 1960, how large can a conventional kind of WWIII be on a global scale in terms of geopolitics? One way I can think of is having some South American countries (Chile and Argentina) go communist or at least pro-Soviet to the dismay of the USA and its remaining Latin American allies.

Europe, North America (Cuba), and Asia (Sino-Soviet border, Vietnam, Koreas, Japan) are guaranteed. South Africa joins with NATO by fighting the Cubans in Angola, maybe actions in the Horn. For South America, have Argentine decide to jump on the Falklands with Britain distracted. IIRC there was a planned Pro-Soviet coup in Iraq in the late 1970s, there was a Communist element in the Iranian Revolution, and we all know about Afghanistan, so you could also turn the Middle East into one big conflict zone. Of course, all of this is rather moot when the Nukes get launched within 24 hours to six weeks.
 
Any 1980s war involving Europe is 99.99% likely to turn nuclear. This is really in ASB territory, I'm afraid, unless you can concoct some scenario where the US and USSR wind up on the same side of the fighting. China is the most likely opponent in that very unlikely scenario and even that is likely to turn nuclear at some point.
 
Considering in the 60s, China is leaning more on the Soviet's side this would accelerate nuclear war. Not only would they most likely start something with India, but they would support North Korea and once it seems the South is going to be overrun and the Soviets going across Europe, the balloons will go up.
 
Always with the whole "nuclear escalation" argument that always pop up every time WWIII is mentioned; let's not bring that up for the sake of argument since it's technically not what I'm looking for (and debatable IMO).

But anyway, is it possible to involve other parts of the world to the conflict like Southeast Asia (besides Vietnam) and Africa (besides Ethiopia, Somalia, South Africa, and Angola)?
 
IMHO what you are more likely to see in "peripheral" areas is the attempt to settle local disputes between opposing countries who are not deeply tied to either alliance system. If the USA is busy in a conflict of this magnitude, as well as NATO, you might see South American countries go at each other to rectify border issues (Argentina-Chile, etc). I doubt any of these countries will attempt to go after NATO owned remnants (Falklands, French Guiana, Dutch holdings etc) unless and until it looks like NATO is seriously losing as poking NATO/USA in the eye could have negative consequences. The same sort of thing applies in Africa, Arabia/Iran, India/Pakistan where locals may decide to settle old scores. I can see South Africa letting NATO use air and naval facilities in prosecuting the war, and South Africa using its forces to deal with neighbors independently of what is going on elsewhere.

In the western hemisphere if Cuba and Nicaragua do anything except stay strictly neutral they will be curb stomped by the USA. The USSr may want them to do things like close the Panama Canal or attack oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Attacking US soil directly would elicit a massive response. If the Cubans or Nicaraguans allow the USSR to base air or naval forces, that won't end well - they will pay a heavy price.

IMHO the vast majority of nations not in an alliance with the two blocs will not throw in one way or another unless they are forced to or if they see one side or the other as the inevitable victor and they want to get their share of the spoils. This refers to coming in on one side or the other with the big boys. As above, those not involved in alliances may very well start something locally that does not affect the major conflict. One South American country "readjusting" borders with another can be ignored for the moment, and dealt with when the big war is over. The key thing for those who are neutrals is doing whatever they can to avoid being involved in the big war unless and until they choose to do so.
 
IMHO the vast majority of nations not in an alliance with the two blocs will not throw in one way or another unless they are forced to or if they see one side or the other as the inevitable victor and they want to get their share of the spoils. This refers to coming in on one side or the other with the big boys. As above, those not involved in alliances may very well start something locally that does not affect the major conflict. One South American country "readjusting" borders with another can be ignored for the moment, and dealt with when the big war is over. The key thing for those who are neutrals is doing whatever they can to avoid being involved in the big war unless and until they choose to do so.

While that sounds sensible, if (say) Chile fears it'll lost to Argentina, declaring war on the Warsaw Pact in support of NATO seems like a pretty good insurance policy; if no nukes go up, the USA is always going to remain able to smack Argentina around (even if they might lose in Europe). I expect the same kind of policy will cause quite a lot of neutrals to come in one side, especially once it seems like one or the other is winning.
 
I respectfully disagree. In most cases the loser in the local wars is not facing national destruction. Losses can be made up in the future. Throwing in with one side or another will be unlikely to help in your local conflict, the big boys have better places to use resources. On the other hand, by coming in against the USSR/WP or USA/NATO can make you a target in a big way and might, if nukes fly, mean you might get one or more you might not have as a neutral. Big stakes.
 
IMHO what you are more likely to see in "peripheral" areas is the attempt to settle local disputes between opposing countries who are not deeply tied to either alliance system. If the USA is busy in a conflict of this magnitude, as well as NATO, you might see South American countries go at each other to rectify border issues (Argentina-Chile, etc). I doubt any of these countries will attempt to go after NATO owned remnants (Falklands, French Guiana, Dutch holdings etc) unless and until it looks like NATO is seriously losing as poking NATO/USA in the eye could have negative consequences. The same sort of thing applies in Africa, Arabia/Iran, India/Pakistan where locals may decide to settle old scores. I can see South Africa letting NATO use air and naval facilities in prosecuting the war, and South Africa using its forces to deal with neighbors independently of what is going on elsewhere.

In the western hemisphere if Cuba and Nicaragua do anything except stay strictly neutral they will be curb stomped by the USA. The USSr may want them to do things like close the Panama Canal or attack oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Attacking US soil directly would elicit a massive response. If the Cubans or Nicaraguans allow the USSR to base air or naval forces, that won't end well - they will pay a heavy price.

IMHO the vast majority of nations not in an alliance with the two blocs will not throw in one way or another unless they are forced to or if they see one side or the other as the inevitable victor and they want to get their share of the spoils. This refers to coming in on one side or the other with the big boys. As above, those not involved in alliances may very well start something locally that does not affect the major conflict. One South American country "readjusting" borders with another can be ignored for the moment, and dealt with when the big war is over. The key thing for those who are neutrals is doing whatever they can to avoid being involved in the big war unless and until they choose to do so.

You know, I did come up with the idea that Chile turns to the USSR after a civil war erupts from a failed coup by Pinochet of which the nationalist forces lose and of course the civil war spills into Argentina of which also results in a communistic pro-USSR client state and the both of which end up destabilizing Latin America a lot more than OTL; though I have a feeling it would have ended up creating more butterflies in the Americas and elsewhere than I thought it would have and might have brought détente to an end sooner than OTL's as well.
 

James G

Gone Fishin'
@KuboCaskett
Haven't you done this thread before? Posed the same question, argued the same points when raised by other posters.
It's entirely up to you what threads you post and none of my business, but I have noticed you've done this thread twice beforehand and wondered why.
Curiosity is me.
 
@KuboCaskett
Haven't you done this thread before? Posed the same question, argued the same points when raised by other posters.
It's entirely up to you what threads you post and none of my business, but I have noticed you've done this thread twice beforehand and wondered why.
Curiosity is me.
Okay I'll admit I have a fascination with this subject from time to time even though it's often a different question within a topic (and some people have their own contrary thoughts on it as well), but recently I have begun to think about making a TL similar to Giobastia's since early this month and that my other TL I'm working on won't cut it since it relies on the fourth world war as the main event and trying to set up the third one is already a hassle.
 
Top