Soviets surrender due to Nuclear Disparity?

I've been wondering, after reading AV's Cuban Missile War Timeline...

The Soviets were badly outmatched in terms of nuclear weapons up into the 1960s. And there certainly were a large number of incidents that could have triggered some kind of war between the USA and the Soviet Union.

How plausible would it be for the Soviets to recognize after nuclear weapons are being used tactically that an all-out exchange will result in some damage to the rest of the world but it will result in their own country getting wiped off the map, so...

They instead opt to unconditionally surrender to NATO? How possible is that, and what would NATO do if the Soviets threw in the towel like that?
 
I can't see an unconditional surrender. The Soviets were too diplomatically savvy for that. If we get a purely tactical exchange (and IIRC US doctrine was dead set against tactical nuking in favour of all-out strategic strikes), Soviet diplomats could offer immediate armistice and negotiations. WAshington would likely be eager to accept. After all, the Russians always were sure the Yankees love their children, too.
 
I can't see an unconditional surrender. The Soviets were too diplomatically savvy for that. If we get a purely tactical exchange (and IIRC US doctrine was dead set against tactical nuking in favour of all-out strategic strikes), Soviet diplomats could offer immediate armistice and negotiations. WAshington would likely be eager to accept. After all, the Russians always were sure the Yankees love their children, too.

That's what I was thinking...what kind of concessions would we be likely to see--a Soviet Pullout from Eastern Europe? It might not be a surrender, but I recall that if a war in Europe broke out the USA would attempt to use tactical nuclear weapons against the advancing Red Army in Europe--and I would forsee that either the Soviets would seek terms or you'd get the all-out exchange.

I'm wondering about those terms...
 
That's what I was thinking...what kind of concessions would we be likely to see--a Soviet Pullout from Eastern Europe? It might not be a surrender, but I recall that if a war in Europe broke out the USA would attempt to use tactical nuclear weapons against the advancing Red Army in Europe--and I would forsee that either the Soviets would seek terms or you'd get the all-out exchange.

I'm wondering about those terms...

The problem is that this will depend crucially on a very few key players in diplomatic and policy positions, so it could be almost anything. The Soviets are likely to want status quo ante or better (maybe Finlandise Germany) while the realistic US definition of success will probably amount to dissolving the Warsaw Pact and turning the East European nations into a bunch of happy Yugoslavias. Now, it is almost impossible to underestimate the capabilities of the USA during the Cold War when it came to diplomacy, intelligence gathering and negotiating. The Kremlin's chess team could run rings around most everybody at the State Department (it really is how the Cold War worked most days - massive, overwhelming full-spectrum US superiority countered by Soviet guile and headology). So the most likely outcome is a Soviet victory, which in real terms means status quo ante, a Panmunjon peace.

Once NATO forces are actually in Eastern Europe things are likely to change, but if things come to that, we'll have seen the flash long ago.
 
How plausible would it be for the Soviets to recognize after nuclear weapons are being used tactically that an all-out exchange will result in some damage to the rest of the world but it will result in their own country getting wiped off the map, so...

They instead opt to unconditionally surrender to NATO? How possible is that, and what would NATO do if the Soviets threw in the towel like that?
Snowfall in hell has more chances.
 
I can't see it happening, because MAD was really worked a little differently. The ONLY purpose of MAD make sure each side would lose so clearly and bigtime if they went to war with each other that they'd better both stay home. So, an actual war would make no difference unless the Soviets fired all their warheads and we knew it.

carlton_bach grumbled:
The Kremlin's chess team could run rings around most everybody at the State Department
Remember, a government needs both diplomats AND warriors. A warrior does his job by being obviously and publically menacing, but diplomats do their jobs by being friendly even to scum and putting themselves in each others' heads. And, both being human, both will tend to see the rest of world as being like them - diplomats tend to see the whole world as looking for peace, and warriors as looking for war. No surprise there's some tension there....
 
Did both sides have tons of strategic and tactical nukes by 1960? As I understand Russia only had a few hundred warheads, and few of them could reach the USA (hence the Cuban thing). If WW3 does break out in Europe, I could see the Soviet armies being wiped out and Russia would be effectively defeated.
Depending on how many nukes existed (and how they were used), the results of the war would vary. There is little doubt that NATO would use many tactical nukes on the battlefield (since Soviet armies were bigger), but whether or not they would use them in heavily populated areas or if the Soviet would (or could) raise the war to a strategic level is in question (wikipedia's not being friendly to me today). I would guess that Germany, East Europe, and maybe major bases around Europe would be nuked heavily, but did the USSR have the ability to strike American cities? And if they did, how many nukes would make it? Would the USA take the initiative to nuke Russia proper, would would they want leaders left alive to sign a treaty?

Here's how I think a war w/ Soviet defeat could go:

- Cuban missile crisis gets ugly, and Soviet and American vesseles start attacking each other.

- USA bombs Cuba-based missiles to make sure they aren't used. But some are, and now we have two options:
a) they are used tactically, against ships or bases
b) New York and other major East Coast cities go bye-bye.

- I'll go with a. The USA responds by nuking the rest of the Soviet naval presence.

- Soviets decide to make a grab for Europe, and start by rolling into Western Germany. (yeah I know the war could've been stopped in the Western Hemisphere but it's cooler this way and nukes make people mad and do wierd things)

- NATO knows they can not win a conventional war in Europe and the tactical bombing begins.

- Soviets make some gains but as their forces are depleted by nukes the smaller Western army begins to seem not so small. Plus everyone is affected by radiation and low morale and whatnot.

- Germany and some select areas in Europe are devastated. If option "b" was selected in the second stage, the list of destroyed places also includes major European and Soviet cities. this will be become important when NATO wins.

- Russia begins to run out of nukes. Despite their best efforts, they get pushed back by the Allies who keep nuking them. Western casualties are also high as troops are being forced to march and drive through radiated areas.

- At this point no one really wants to fight anymore. At Brest-Litovsk (or somewhere around there, maybe in Poland, who knows), NATO and what is left of WARPAC holds peace talks.

-Russia has no will to fight anymore, and their leaders have seen that if they keep fighting what is left is doomed. These guys aren't quite crazy like Hitler, so they won't fight to the death. All they want is for Russia not to get totally wiped out.

-NATO wants Russia to be pacified, as many civilian and army casualties have been suffered on the Western side. Depending on how many Western cities were nuked, the Allies will "whip" the Soviets accordingly.

What we have is a defeated, possiblly capitaless Russia, with all its allies gone and a very small army. It is just like Germany after WW1. As the Allies have suffered too, they will not be kind to the Russians in the least when there are peace talks. Then we can await WW4 and intense Russian hatred of the West.

Notes: Boy did I have fun writing this. I'm actually supposed to be writing an essay on universal love and a pantheistic view of God right now, but I don't think that listening to German military-themed heavy rock is a good idea to that end.

EDIT: After getting to the right place in wikipedia, i found that the USSR had 3000 nukes compared to the US having 27000. Oops. I thought that the arsenals were like 10 times smaller. My bad.
Okay, the world is screwed.
 
Last edited:
Could happen in the 1950s, I suppose.

In the 1950s, the whole affair would be pretty one-sided. I doubt there would be any appreciable impact on the US themselves before the mid-decade. The Soviets would be hard-pressed to get there. Of course, with the memory of Barbarossa so recent (closer than GWI for us), I doubt they'd surrender. Get slaughtered, give ground, fight back with everything they have, and lose, but not surrender. Late 50s/early 60s is when Soviet forces bnegin to have a hope of hitting the USA themselves rather than its allies and armies in Europe and Japan.
 
Did the Warsaw Pact have a stated response if they were hit by tactical nukes?

Would they reply in kind?

Would they reply with strategic nukes?

Target US cities (since most of the tac nukes would be American, right?)?

Target Western European cities?
 
Top