Seven Days to the River Rhine: the Third World War - a TL

Chapter VII: Day Three/Day Four, November 12-13 1983.
Update time!



Chapter VII: Day Three/Day Four, November 12-13 1983.

At 06:30 PM that Saturday, the Soviet Army’s response came and it was horrific. Tu-95 strategic heavy bombers departed from bases deep inside the USSR and hit multiple targets with Kh-22 missiles with the variable yield set at the maximum of 1 megaton once again. This strike constituted the largest nuclear escalation thus far and was the second occasion that Soviet nuclear weapons were deployed against targets outside West Germany (the first time had been the strike against Aviano Air Base).

Five countries would be hit, starting with the Netherlands and Belgium. Moscow had decided to castigate those two small countries first for being upstart enough to not only host American nuclear weapons but also use them against Soviet forces. Leeuwarden Air Base and the nearby city of the same name, Volkel Air Base and the nearby village of Volkel, Gilze-Rijen Air Base located between Breda and Tilburg, and Eindhoven Airbase located near the city of the same name were each destroyed by a 1 megaton blast too (Breda and Tilburg survived relatively unscathed as they were far enough away from the blast).

Moreover, the former coal mining town of Brunssum, which had a population of roughly 30.000 people, was annihilated with a 300 kiloton blast because it was the headquarters of Allied Forces Central Europe (AFCENT).[1] The Hendrik State Mine had been at the heart of the local economy, being the main employer until it closed in 1963, and AFCENT had taken on that role ever since. AFCENT was an operational level NATO headquarters one level below military-strategic level SHAPE in the integrated military command structure. In Belgium Kleine Brogel Air Base was hit.

Afterwards, the Soviets used diplomatic backchannels to seduce both the Netherlands and Belgium into signing separate peace agreements and renouncing their respective NATO memberships. They’d be spared from further nuclear attacks in return. The Dutch and Belgian governments both declined the offer and stuck to their NATO commitments. In hindsight, they would’ve been better off taking this deal for the sake of their people. Dutch Prime Minister Lubbers and Belgian Prime Minister Martens would both wind up being reviled, detested and despised decades later by the Dutch and Belgian people for refusing this offer that could’ve saved millions of lives.

Beyond that, Soviet intelligence had made some educated guesses as to the locations of the other bases involved in the NATO nuclear sharing arrangement as well as some other extremely important enemy installations. These educated guesses would prove surprisingly correct. The Luftwaffe base of Büchel near the town of Cochem and 70 kilometres from the destroyed Spangdahlem Air Base was eliminated by a 1 megaton blast that Saturday evening. Ghedi Air Base in Italy suffered the exact same fate but the nearby city of Brescia fortunately only suffered moderate damage because it was removed from the base far enough. Incirlik Air Base and the surrounding city of Adana, in Turkey, were devastated.

Furthermore, a strike followed against the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) in the village of Casteau, Belgium. Surface installations were destroyed and the village was wiped off the face of the Earth, but the hilly terrain of the Ardennes protected nearby hamlets. Secondly, the hardened subterranean structures survived and Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) General Bernard W. Rogers was still able to command and coordinate NATO forces from there, not that there were many left: that evening a dozen further tactical strikes, utilizing OTR-21 Tochka launchers again, decimated what was left of NORTHAG and CENTAG.

Besides that, Ramstein Air Base was destroyed in a 1 megaton strike because it was the headquarters of the United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE). The same fate was reserved for Wiesbaden Army Airfield, where Lindsey Air Station was located which provided support activities (coincidentally it had hosted the HQ of USAFE from 1953 to 1973). The town of Ramstein-Miesenbach and the city of Wiesbaden located near these two respective bases were destroyed too, becoming collateral damage.

This required retaliation, and it would come before Saturday evening was over in Europe. NATO had warned Moscow to no longer hit major urban areas, describing such attacks as nuclear terrorism, but they had still pressed ahead with their attack on Wiesbaden Army Airfield even though they knew the nearby city of Wiesbaden would be destroyed in the process. Now NATO had to put its money where its mouth was and retaliate in kind or seem weak. Since these were US installations that had been destroyed, Reagan discussed with his Joint Chiefs of Staff and Defence Secretary Weinberg what would constitute an appropriate response in a teleconference.

They agreed that destroying the air bases the bombers had come from would be proportional, despite their proximity to civilians. After all, the Soviets had displayed a similar disregard for civilian lives from the beginning. They couldn’t concern themselves with these lives now, no matter how much Reagan would rather have spared them. At this point in the war, however, NATO leaders felt it would be wrong to stand down without something to show for it. At the very least the war ought to end in a stalemate, not a defeat.

Ohio-class submarines USS Ohio and USS Michigan, operating in the Sea of Japan and the Philippine Sea respectively, received orders for a missile strike against Babruysk Air Base and Dolon Air Base. The Captains and the Executive Officers on both subs executed the two-man rule, a control mechanism intended to ensure the validity of the order and to prevent the accidental or malicious release of nuclear weapons by an individual. On both ships the Captain and the XO compared the authorization code to the “sealed authenticator” in a special envelope in a safe that could only be opened if two operators turned their keys simultaneously. USS Michigan and USS Ohio each launched one Trident II missile, which held twelve W76 warheads with a yield of 100 kilotons each. In total 1.2 megatons of destructive force came down on each target, levelling them and inflicting untold devastation on the cities of Babruysk and Semipalatinsk located nearby.

Meanwhile, by the next morning, Sunday November 13th 1983, battlefield operations were limited to small manoeuvres and skirmishes between surviving isolated remnants of larger units that were now gone. This low-level intensity fighting didn’t change the rest of the day. The reason was that in a period of little over 24 hours NATO and the Warsaw Pact had managed to annihilate each other’s major battlefield formations, creating large radioactive blackened dead zones in the process. A total of fifty nuclear weapons had been detonated so far with yields ranging from 10 kilotons to 1 megaton. All but nine of those had gone off in West Germany, ruining the country. More than one million people had already been killed, both military and civilian, in a war that had been going on for just four days.

Serious fighting was still going on in Berlin as neither side was willing to use nuclear weapons there and run the risk of hitting their own people too. East German and Soviet forces would inevitably, however, take control of West Berlin in a matters of hours though. The only major NATO unit that was still more or less operational was CENTAG’s II West German Corps, but overwhelming enemy forces were arrayed against it. The Soviet Central Group of Forces and the Southern Group of Forces, reinforced by Czechoslovak and Hungarian forces respectively, faced them. Italy and France pledged more reinforcements, but they’d take time to arrive. If they weren’t stopped here, the Soviets could still reach the Rhine through southern Germany and threaten France, which in turn might well use nuclear weapons too. France had declared earlier, however, they’d only use nuclear weapons if they were targeted first or if their country was invaded. The Soviets could not know what kind of pressure, if any, the French were under to release their nukes first and instead clung to the possibility that through southern Germany they could reach the Rhine, stop there and declare a victory within another 48 hours.

Things looked bleak for NATO as the fall of Nuremberg seemed imminent. Meanwhile, the Bundeswehr II Corps also cooperated with what remained of the Austrian Army after the destruction of Vienna, forming defensive lines in the Alps to prevent a Soviet advance into southern Germany along that axis. The Austrian government withdrew into impenetrable complexes located deep beneath the towering peaks of the Alps.

In the safety of their underground hardened complex at Sharapovo, the Soviet leadership reviewed their own horrific losses. The field armies that they’d begun the war with on Thursday and been decimated for the most part, which meant the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany was practically gone. The Central Group of Forces and the Southern Group of Forces still existed, but if they advanced further and took Nuremberg and Munich then it would be a matter of time before NATO used tactical nuclear weapons. Even if they didn’t, France was bound to use nuclear weapons to defend itself if Warsaw Pact forces crossed the Rhine onto their soil. More nuclear weapons could land on Soviet soil, but Moscow was becoming increasingly distracted. And then there was the news of Babruysk and Semipalatinsk.

[1] Author's note: I actually live in Brunssum. My parents moved here in 1985 and I was born here in 1990, currently still living in the house I was raised in with my mum and my brother. Needless to say, that would all be butterflied away ITTL. In 1983, my parents lived in the city of Heerlen, which has nothing of military importance located in its city limits. So I think they'd survive the war, though what happens to my folks in the aftermath is anyone's best guess.


 
Last edited:
At this point, how good are international communications? Was satellite communication a common practise at this time or are the allies still working through undersea cables? It can't be long before international coordination becomes very difficult indeed.

What rescue efforts, if any, are being mounted for the targeted cities? I know the UK plan was to drive the ambulances and fire engines into the country to wait for the attacks to finish before attempting any rescues, but I cannot believe that any serious attack would leave any rescue efforts possible.
 
Dutch Prime Minister Lubbers and Belgian Prime Minister Martens would both wind up being reviled, detested and despised decades later by the Dutch and Belgian people for refusing this offer that could’ve saved millions of lives.
Let's be real though, there's no good option as far as being vindicated (or just not be hated) by history. The 'best' option for them would have been to surrender and immediately commit suicide due to the shame of having to do such a thing. But this is more a commentary on the contradictory nature of social expectations and notions of virtues.
 
Let's be real though, there's no good option as far as being vindicated (or just not be hated) by history. The 'best' option for them would have been to surrender and immediately commit suicide due to the shame of having to do such a thing. But this is more a commentary on the contradictory nature of social expectations and notions of virtues.
This does imply a post-war Belgium and Netherlands, which is more than I would have predicted. The choices realistically are nuclear annihilation or Soviet domination, and it's a hard choice which I'd go for if I was in the seat.
 
Will Latin America survive? Brazil was just transitioning to democracy at that time. The military dictatorship there would surely continue well into the 90s here, assuming the Soviets and the US don't level Brazil to the ground out of spite.
 
This does imply a post-war Belgium and Netherlands, which is more than I would have predicted. The choices realistically are nuclear annihilation or Soviet domination, and it's a hard choice which I'd go for if I was in the seat.
I'm surprised there's still a surviving post-war Belgium/Netherlands remnant as well. The mid-1980s was legitimately one of the few times humanity was close to a civilizational collapse IMO, due to the vast amount of nuclear warheads both NATO and WP used, which would probably devastate the northern hemisphere and render Europe and North America a literal dead zone. At least with the Cuban missile crisis, it's generally agreed that while an exchange would have been disastrous, the US would probably survive it with a bloody nose, while the USSR would be destroyed as a whole bc of the large disparity of forces between the two nations. Here? Not so much. Imo, a good realistic TL exploring the aftermath of an all-out nuclear war in the 2030s is EBR's Stars and Stripes Forever, which states that the US population is reduced by nearly 85% due to a nuclear war where 40,000 weapons are expended worldwide, while nations like Russia, China, and the UK lose nearly 90-99% bc of the inevitable famine, disease, and temperature drop.

Of course, the vast majority of their weapons will be expended on each other, but I can see classified plans from both sides to lob a nuke at major neutrals that could potentially be hostile such as China.
 
Last edited:
Let's be real though, there's no good option as far as being vindicated (or just not be hated) by history. The 'best' option for them would have been to surrender and immediately commit suicide due to the shame of having to do such a thing. But this is more a commentary on the contradictory nature of social expectations and notions of virtues.
So basically seppuku.
 
Will Latin America survive? Brazil was just transitioning to democracy at that time. The military dictatorship there would surely continue well into the 90s here, assuming the Soviets and the US don't level Brazil to the ground out of spite.
Better to have a military dictatorship than a total collapse of civilization (which would be entirely possible in a post nuclear war Brazil, even if they weren't directly hit by any nukes).
 
Better to have a military dictatorship than a total collapse of civilization (which would be entirely possible in a post nuclear war Brazil, even if they weren't directly hit by any nukes).
Absolutely, I do think the military would be objectively better than a civil administration in this situation.
 
Will Latin America survive? Brazil was just transitioning to democracy at that time. The military dictatorship there would surely continue well into the 90s here, assuming the Soviets and the US don't level Brazil to the ground out of spite.
On that note, this occurs just after the 1983 elections in Argentina but before Alfonsin is formally inaugurated as President, so there's that as well.
 
This does imply a post-war Belgium and Netherlands, which is more than I would have predicted. The choices realistically are nuclear annihilation or Soviet domination, and it's a hard choice which I'd go for if I was in the seat.
A diaspora scattered to the winds and slowly being assimilated into local populations would still counts for various national identities at the time of whichever publishing.
So basically seppuku.
Yes, the OG version is also intended to square the holes of conflicting demands of honor/duty/whatnot...
 

bguy

Donor
Let's be real though, there's no good option as far as being vindicated (or just not be hated) by history. The 'best' option for them would have been to surrender and immediately commit suicide due to the shame of having to do such a thing. But this is more a commentary on the contradictory nature of social expectations and notions of virtues.

Yeah, it seems implausible to me that Lubbers and Martens would end up reviled in their countries. The Soviets are blatantly the aggressors in this scenario, so there's no reason for the Dutch and Belgian people to be ashamed of their leader's decisions to keep fighting, and it seems that most of the time people tend to be proud of their ancestors who fought valiantly even when their cause was doomed and it probably would have been smarter for them to have just surrendered. (Does any nation have a nation myth that venerates its ancestors for surrendering rather than fighting?)
 
Yeah, it seems implausible to me that Lubbers and Martens would end up reviled in their countries. The Soviets are blatantly the aggressors in this scenario, so there's no reason for the Dutch and Belgian people to be ashamed of their leader's decisions to keep fighting, and it seems that most of the time people tend to be proud of their ancestors who fought valiantly even when their cause was doomed and it probably would have been smarter for them to have just surrendered. (Does any nation have a nation myth that venerates its ancestors for surrendering rather than fighting?)
I suspect it's more of a generational divide: those who lived through those times would have prefer foreign occupation over nuclear apocalypse, while those who didn't prefer death before dishonor.

Same logic as redditors who wanted MacArthur to get the chance to use 50 nukes to win the Korean War, or for the US to fight and win a WWIII in 1963, or the western democracies launching Operation Unthinkable in 1945. Easy to make the 'morally correct' and brave/noble decision with hindsight when they're so removed from the actual consequences of it.
 
Last edited:
How has this not escalated into a full-scale nuclear exchange yet? Able Archer was based on the premise that a conventional conflict would last roughly three days before both sides resorted to using nuclear weapons. I imagine that was based on then-current U.S. strategic thinking. Nuclear conflict seems inescapable in this scenario.
 
I suspect it's more of a generational divide: those who lived through those times would have prefer foreign occupation over nuclear apocalypse, while those who didn't prefer death before dishonor.

Same logic as redditors who wanted MacArthur to get the chance to use 50 nukes to win the Korean War, or for the US to fight and win a WWIII in 1963, or the western democracies launching Operation Unthinkable in 1945. Easy to make the 'morally correct' and brave/noble decision with hindsight when they're so removed from the actual consequences of it.
Yeah I agree. There are those edgy teens out there wishing that:
  • The Western Allies in World War II should have allied with the Reich instead of the USSR (quoting Patton's "We fought the wrong enemy.")
  • The U.S. should have dropped the atomic bomb on Moscow as early as 1945-1948
  • Truman should not have abandoned the KMT and should have expanded Operation Beleaguer to eradicate Mao Zedong once and for all
  • MacArthur should have gotten his way in Korea (They don't realize that MacArthur did not want to bomb the mainland just create a radioactive border on the Yalu)
  • Ike should not have abandoned Batista to Fidel Castro
  • The U.S. should have invaded in Cuba during the Bay of Pigs
Stuff like that, without realizing the consequences in hindsight.
Yeah, it seems implausible to me that Lubbers and Martens would end up reviled in their countries. The Soviets are blatantly the aggressors in this scenario, so there's no reason for the Dutch and Belgian people to be ashamed of their leader's decisions to keep fighting, and it seems that most of the time people tend to be proud of their ancestors who fought valiantly even when their cause was doomed and it probably would have been smarter for them to have just surrendered. (Does any nation have a nation myth that venerates its ancestors for surrendering rather than fighting?)
I agree.

Just look at how in today's times, President Zelensky has been praised by Ukrainians and world leaders for standing up against Russian aggression. Even from those who did not like him or his opposition in politics.

A head-of-state/head-of-government would get praise from its citizens for fighting for their right to self-determination and defending an aggressor. The minority are those who wished the leaders would sue for peace by a stronger enemy but it would be drowned out by those who want to fight, even though they are on the losing end.

Another historical example would be how the Polish fought the Germans in 1939 even if they were gonna lose. Or how the Free French continued to resist. Or how the Tibetans rose up against the PLA in 1959 despite being crushed.
How has this not escalated into a full-scale nuclear exchange yet? Able Archer was based on the premise that a conventional conflict would last roughly three days before both sides resorted to using nuclear weapons. I imagine that was based on then-current U.S. strategic thinking. Nuclear conflict seems inescapable in this scenario.
I guess there are still sane rational actors in both sides of the globe.

Speaking of which, if nearby towns and cities in Europe hosting NATO bases with U.S. nuclear weapons got obliterated, the same would be said for USAF bases in the Midwest as well as bases in South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, and Australia. Even if some of these do not carry nuclear weapons.

My parents would have been in medical school at this time in November 1983 here in Cebu. Cebu would have been primary or secondary targeted by virtue of being the second largest city in the Philippines, having an airport and air base large enough to support B-52s (it's original purpose in late 1950s was to land B-52s when Mactan AB was still in USAF hands), and seaport, on how the Soviets see it. A declassified 1970s Soviet war plan was unearthed in Yale in 2011 and it showed the Soviets planned to target Manila, Cebu, Baguio (Camp John Hay), Davao, Clark Air Base, Sangley Point, and Subic.

Here's a map of U.S. military bases in the Philippines during the Cold War:
1673587722161-png.802500


Luzon would have been glassed. If the Soviets still had SSBNs in the South Pacific, it would probably use the remaining ones to target Cebu, Davao, Zamboanga, and other places that could host aircraft or warships.
 
  • The Western Allies in World War II should have allied with the Reich instead of the USSR (quoting Patton's "We fought the wrong enemy.")
  • The U.S. should have dropped the atomic bomb on Moscow as early as 1945-1948
  • Truman should not have abandoned the KMT and should have expanded Operation Beleaguer to eradicate Mao Zedong once and for all
  • MacArthur should have gotten his way in Korea (They don't realize that MacArthur did not want to bomb the mainland just create a radioactive border on the Yalu)
  • Ike should not have abandoned Batista to Fidel Castro
  • The U.S. should have invaded in Cuba during the Bay of Pigs
I could see a timeline where all of those happen
Like edgy fulfillment the TL
 
I could see a timeline where all of those happen
Like edgy fulfillment the TL
There are already timelines where Operation Unthinkable, WWIII as a result of the Berlin Blockade, nukes over Korea/China, and the like to name.

They date back to the late 2000s when more people got into the AH genre.
 
Indeed! I just never saw a weird combination of those like I suggested there
Though I wouldnt put past it existing and I not knowing about it
 
I question why the Soviets did not launch more tactical nuclear weapons against NATO airbases. Since the Soviets had superiority in total mass of nuclear capable tactical weapons and delivery systems, while NATO had to use aircraft for delivery. A strike against all major NATO airbases outside of mainland France & UK, would hampers NATO retaliatory strike capabilities.
 
This does imply a post-war Belgium and Netherlands, which is more than I would have predicted. The choices realistically are nuclear annihilation or Soviet domination, and it's a hard choice which I'd go for if I was in the seat.
Honestly why spend too many warheads on countries that small and insignificant.
In the Netherlands they already hit Brunssum, Leeuwarden and Eindhoven. You next take out Amsterdam, Rotterdam and the Hague, and the country is pretty much done already. Enough people and cities left to form a remnant nation, not enough to even pretend to be a threat.

Let's be real though, there's no good option as far as being vindicated (or just not be hated) by history. The 'best' option for them would have been to surrender and immediately commit suicide due to the shame of having to do such a thing. But this is more a commentary on the contradictory nature of social expectations and notions of virtues.
Would they even be allowed to surrender? You don't stab your allies in the back in the middle of a war without consequences. Not without having a damn good excuse like having your country be completely occupied.
 
Top