Picking up the pieces

[Epic History]

CBS News Headquarters
New York, United States of America
May 5th, 1984. 10 PM EST.

"Our top story tonight is truly incredible ladies and Gentlemen.A record crop loss in the Soviet Union reportedly hundreds of thousands of deaths in the USSR.

In a recent meeting between the USSR, and NATO, the USSR admitted deaths above 500,000.This unprecedented event was caused by the record cold temperatures that happened in Europe last year, which has left a sheet of Ice on the Ukranian Wheat fields, and has yet to melt.With food running low, the death toll is expected to rise.

However, the worst is the threats.The USSR has demanded that NATO send Grain Shipments to the USSR on the threat of force.NATO has refused to do so unless the USSR allow greater freedom in Eastern Europe, and back down in it's war mongering.
Yet, the Soviets have placed Tank divisions on the German Boarder, in a show of force.This has caused President Reagan to raise the DEFCON Alert to 2, one step away from total prepardness for Nuclear War.We can only pray that these events soon end." The Anchorman reported.

Oxford, United Kingdom
May 7th, 1984. 7 AM BST

It was Mad Day in the United Kingdom, with celebrations in full swing.Kids ran through the streets happily playing, and traditional dances were preformed.However, the happy times would soon end.

A Man in a dark jacket moved through the crowds to just outside of the University.He made it there, and set his suit case down as if he was taking a break.He soon moved on, leaving the case.

The same was occuring in Paris, Bonn,London, and Brussels.The Soviets were making their moves.

 

[Wendell]

I'd expect word to reach Chernenko rather late to launch everything.

 

[Epic History]

I'd expect word to reach Chernenko rather late to launch everything.

It was, NATO got the jump start on him by about an hour.So really, the USSR lost it's advantage in having a larger stockpile.Plus, Soviet Weapons are known to malfunction.

I will cover it in the next post.

 

[Wendell]

It was, NATO got the jump start on him by about an hour.So really, the USSR lost it's advantage in having a larger stockpile.Plus, Soviet Weapons are known to malfunction.

I will cover it in the next post.

But given that NATO assumed it was retaliating, I'd expect Chernenko to only learn of the size of the NATO response after it's too late to launch any more missiles from his side other than possibly those on nuclear submarines.

 

[Macragge1]

The Time is May of 1984. An extremely cold winter has left a Ice sheet on the Ukrainian Fields, and has ruined the chances for a typical Wheat harvest. Soviet leader Konstantin Chernenko has demanded NATO supply food to the Soviet Union on the threat of force.He is rebuffed.Left with no options, the USSR begins Operation Red Bear.The Invasion of Western Europe has begun.

Soviet Forces make it to the Rhine river in three months, but at the loss of nearly their entire Navy, and 1,900,000 troops.By this time however, winter has set in, and starvation is growing back home.Desperate for victory, the Soviet high command authorizes a limited Nuclear strike on the West.This backfires, and leads to the death of billions.

NATO thinks the Soviets are going all out, and orders a full fledged counter attack.The entire US ICBM arsenal is launched, along with their allies stockpile, and an attack from SAC Bombers.When word reaches Chernenko, he order the USSR's stockpile to be launched in full.World War III has gone Nuclear, with dire results.

to be continued...

A couple of things are confusing me:

1) It seems very unlikely that the Soviets will make it to the Rhine in three months, given NATO's policy of first-use of tactical and theatre-level nuclear weaponry to prevent just such a thing occuring. Given the huge numerical superiority enjoyed by the Soviets, it is likely that NATO will feel forced into nuclear attacks on WarPac military and logistics targets in order to prevent being completely overrun.

Bear in mind that France at this time has nuclear weapons independent of NATO's command structure, and a doctrine to use them before Red tanks crossed the Rhine.

Indeed, the Soviets may well fire the first rounds of tactical nuclear weaponry; doctrine at the time certainly called for heavy use of chemical and even biological weapons; a USSR as desperate as the one you describe may try to dislodge stubborn Western resistance, or attempt to wipe out NATO logistical capabilities with 'surgical' nuclear strikes.

2) Assuming, as you have suggested, NATO do not use nuclear weapons, three months is a very long time, and 2 million casualties a huge amount to have suffered. Although NATO had man-for-man and tank-for-tank superiority, as well as effective airpower, there's no way they could hope to hold back the sheer numbers of troops levied against them - hence the first-use of nuclear weapons doctrine. Indeed, NATO would run out of ammunition (well, certainly most aerial weapons; note that the allies ran dry on several precision weapons during the relatively small-scale Gulf War a few years later) before they could cause that many casualties conventionally.

3) You say the war begins in May of 1984. By the time the Soviets reach the Rhine, three months later, you say they're getting desperate because 'winter has set in.' Three months on from May is August, the height of Summer in the Northern hemisphere. Am I misreading something?

 

[Epic History]

A couple of things are confusing me:

1) It seems very unlikely that the Soviets will make it to the Rhine in three months, given NATO's policy of first-use of tactical and theatre-level nuclear weaponry to prevent just such a thing occuring. Given the huge numerical superiority enjoyed by the Soviets, it is likely that NATO will feel forced into nuclear attacks on WarPac military and logistics targets in order to prevent being completely overrun.

Bear in mind that France at this time has nuclear weapons independent of NATO's command structure, and a doctrine to use them before Red tanks crossed the Rhine.

Indeed, the Soviets may well fire the first rounds of tactical nuclear weaponry; doctrine at the time certainly called for heavy use of chemical and even biological weapons; a USSR as desperate as the one you describe may try to dislodge stubborn Western resistance, or attempt to wipe out NATO logistical capabilities with 'surgical' nuclear strikes.

2) Assuming, as you have suggested, NATO do not use nuclear weapons, three months is a very long time, and 2 million casualties a huge amount to have suffered. Although NATO had man-for-man and tank-for-tank superiority, as well as effective airpower, there's no way they could hope to hold back the sheer numbers of troops levied against them - hence the first-use of nuclear weapons doctrine. Indeed, NATO would run out of ammunition (well, certainly most aerial weapons; note that the allies ran dry on several precision weapons during the relatively small-scale Gulf War a few years later) before they could cause that many casualties conventionally.

3) You say the war begins in May of 1984. By the time the Soviets reach the Rhine, three months later, you say they're getting desperate because 'winter has set in.' Three months on from May is August, the height of Summer in the Northern hemisphere. Am I misreading something?

1) Actually, the NATO policy was hold off unless the Reds dropped first, or made it to the Rhine river.

I have no clue about the French policy, however I will do some research.

2) Yes, the Red Army suffers heavy casualties.A lot of them starve to death due to increasingly lower rations, there fore malnutrition sets in and as good as kills the Soldier by forcing him off the front line.I also included wounded and captured into that total.Bear in mind the Soviets still favored mass attacks in order to overcome superior NATO Firepower.The thing you said about NATO Supplies is true, however the West rules the Sea, and America is relatively safe from attack (Minus Alaska and Nuclear Attack).This ensures a somewhat adequate flow of supplies, however they must use them sparingly.

3) My Bad I messed up on what I meant to say, it was 1 am when I posted.

 

[Macragge1]

1) Actually, the NATO policy was hold off unless the Reds dropped first, or made it to the Rhine river.

I have no clue about the French policy, however I will do some research.

By 1984, NATO was operating on a policy of 'Flexible Response', which entailed "a well-balanced mixture of conventional, theatre nuclear and strategic nuclear weapons". While this isn't as absolute as the 'Nuclear tripwire' which existed prior to 1967 (although the French nuclear doctrine at this time was still pretty much a variant of that), it still saw the use of tactical weapons as near-essential.

The British and American tactical nuclear weapons in the European theatre weren't designed as a deterrent in the same way that strategic weapons on submarines or in missile silos were; they were designed in order to level the playing field should war come. Even by the end of the Cold War, there was still a belief - a flawed one - in Vertically Extended Deterrence; namely, that there was a big difference between using nuclear weaponry on the battlefield and using it strategically. The belief was that using these 'smaller' bombs would not trigger MAD.

Every NATO exercise based on a Third World War scenario, including ABLE ARCHER in 1983 (which, ironically, nearly led to a real nuclear war) involved the release of tactical weaponry by the allies at some level. The US Army's Operational Doctrine at the time - the AirLand Battle doctrine (introduced August 1982) called for 'the battlefield to be extended by the co-ordinated action of all available military forces and by integrating "conventional, nuclear, chemical and electronic means". The belief in 'throwing the enemy off balance with powerful initial blows', as well as the obsession with 'deep strike' that ABD calls for, whilst not explicitly stating it, is calling for tactical weapons to be used. It is worth noting that other potential doctrines, such as the Follow-on Forces Attack (FOFA) or the ACE doctrine, which did not plan for use of WMDs, were not adopted by NATO forces.

The fear also existed that, should the use of tactical weapons be left too late, there wouldn't be enough allied forces remaining to exploit any advantage their use could bring; therefore, the belief in their use sooner, rather than later, was prevalent. If NATO is fighting as hard as it is in your scenario, it will be taking huge casualties and running out of its war stocks. Whether the Reds are on the Rhine or not, the decision will almost certainly be taken to use our special weapons before there's no-one left to counter-attack.

We've got to also take into account the practical, as well as the doctrinal. Once war had broken out, authorisation for tactical nuclear release did not come from the President/Prime Minsister or NATO High Command; rather, it was devolved to commanders on the ground. Picture the confusion during those first few days of World War Three. Allied forces suffering massive casualties, being forced further and further backwards. Air attacks threatening to destroy your stocks of tactical weapons. The Soviets might be using nerve gas or something. Communications will be scattered and broken. It seems hard to imagine that, somewhere in this maelstrom, a commander, cut off physically and comms-wise from the rest of the world, doesn't attempt to use one of the game-changers sitting on launchers or in the belly of a fighter-bomber, before, he feels, it is too late.

You're quite right to say that the Russians could drop tactical bombs first, and bang-on when you say that NATO would respond in kind. Indeed, given your scenario, with a desperate, starving army facing extremely stubborn resistance, this seems very plausible, assuming we don't drop ours first. Either way, it's the same result: 'Goodnight, sweetheart.'

2) Yes, the Red Army suffers heavy casualties.A lot of them starve to death due to increasingly lower rations, there fore malnutrition sets in and as good as kills the Soldier by forcing him off the front line.I also included wounded and captured into that total.Bear in mind the Soviets still favored mass attacks in order to overcome superior NATO Firepower.The thing you said about NATO Supplies is true, however the West rules the Sea, and America is relatively safe from attack (Minus Alaska and Nuclear Attack).This ensures a somewhat adequate flow of supplies, however they must use them sparingly.

A couple of things - if the Soviet Army is as malnourished as you suggest (i.e a good proportion of 2 million casualties are starvation) then I don't see how they could hope to reach the Rhine. An army, to paraphrase a French hero, marches on its stomach, and a force with such crippling logistical problems such as this wouldn't be physically capable of offensive action.

Disregarding that, the idea that the Warsaw Pact would take three months to take the Rhine is perhaps stretching things. As you correctly state, the East's vast numbers will overwhelm superior NATO forces, especially when we take the logistics of the struggle into account. NATO only has a finite amount of guided weapons, top of the range aircraft, and trained soldiers. Given the high level of attrition that is called for in a war like this, they will start to run out. They can be replaced, albeit with inferior stock; older tanks, new recruits etcetera; this negates the big advantage we had against the Russians; with this happening, the Rhine would be Red in far less than three months (unless tactical weapons were used, as has been discussed)

While America is more or less unassailable, remember that the REFORGER convoys that take the supplies to Europe aren't - Soviet submarines and naval avation won't make it easy for them. Given that this scenario seems to be a surprise attack, it's worth taking into account that it would take a good two weeks to airlift one infantry division into the theatre. To get a tank division there would take nine round trips for 70 C5 Galaxies, onto runways that would be very far from secure. This leaves us with the problem that a lot of NATO territory would be overrun before we even got ourselves together.

3) My Bad I messed up on what I meant to say, it was 1 am when I posted.

No worries, it happens to us all