USSR invades Alaska

[clintonforever]

Found this also on wikipedia. It describes a timeline where the USSR, apparently suffering from a US grain embargo, decides to invade US though Alaska and then proceeds to destroy the Alaska pipeline cutting off critical energy supplies to mainland US. It also ends in nuclear war.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III_(TV_miniseries)

 

[Tuhachevskey]

its fuckin ASB

 

[RGB]

That kind of thing reliably sells in the domestic market. Every single one of those scenarios wasn't anywhere near reality.

 

[Blue Max]

Found this also on wikipedia. It describes a timeline where the USSR, apparently suffering from a US grain embargo, decides to invade US though Alaska and then proceeds to destroy the Alaska pipeline cutting off critical energy supplies to mainland US. It also ends in nuclear war.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III_(TV_miniseries)

ASB.

Soviets lose Europe for...Alaska?
Nukes fly or the Sovs are forced to peace out minus a few WarPact puppets.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Found this also on wikipedia. It describes a timeline where the USSR, apparently suffering from a US grain embargo, decides to invade US though Alaska and then proceeds to destroy the Alaska pipeline cutting off critical energy supplies to mainland US. It also ends in nuclear war.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III_(TV_miniseries)

I remember seeing this movie, at least the last half hour, on TV. Not particularly good, but not terrible either.

 

[MacCaulay]

ASB.

Soviets lose Europe for...Alaska?
Nukes fly or the Sovs are forced to peace out minus a few WarPact puppets.

Because of course, the nukes always fly. I forgot, when the US launched an invasion of Cuba from it's own soil with ex-nationals as catspaws, the nukes flew then, too. Not to be a jerk, but don't the the United States want Europe? Or Alaska? Or where ever those things are going to land?




I'm kind of interested in wondering if the Soviets would've attacked Alaska during a Third World War.

You've got the Naval Infantry Division (basically a Soviet Marine Corps, except obviously division-sized), and a fair (but not large) amount of sea and air lift capability, mostly based around the Ivan Rogov, a one-of-a-kind amphibious assault ship that can land an entire mechanized battalion.
It would be useless to invade Alaska with the point of taking it over. They can't do that.
However, taking the Aleutians, or at least putting AA sites and ASW helo refueling points on the islands, would make the US (and possibly the Canadians, depending on where the Soviets strike) have to spend vital resources going after them.
And with the Aleutians not under complete NATO control, the US and Canada will have trouble making sure they have a solid ASW line up into the Arctic through the Bering Straight.
That is a very concrete goal that the Far East Command can aim for, and without any drain on the European forces taking on the main NATO ground forces.

 

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

Because of course, the nukes always fly. I forgot, when the US launched an invasion of Cuba from it's own soil with ex-nationals as catspaws, the nukes flew then, too. Not to be a jerk, but don't the the United States want Europe? Or Alaska? Or where ever those things are going to land?




I'm kind of interested in wondering if the Soviets would've attacked Alaska during a Third World War.

You've got the Naval Infantry Division (basically a Soviet Marine Corps, except obviously division-sized), and a fair (but not large) amount of sea and air lift capability, mostly based around the Ivan Rogov, a one-of-a-kind amphibious assault ship that can land an entire mechanized battalion.
It would be useless to invade Alaska with the point of taking it over. They can't do that.
However, taking the Aleutians, or at least putting AA sites and ASW helo refueling points on the islands, would make the US (and possibly the Canadians, depending on where the Soviets strike) have to spend vital resources going after them.
And with the Aleutians not under complete NATO control, the US and Canada will have trouble making sure they have a solid ASW line up into the Arctic through the Bering Straight.
That is a very concrete goal that the Far East Command can aim for, and without any drain on the European forces taking on the main NATO ground forces.

This is actually a scenario I played with for some sort of future rctic war a while back. The evil Ruskies do what you described to cut off American access to the arctic, or somesuch. But in the cold war, I'm not sure how practical it'd be.

 

[Blue Max]

Because of course, the nukes always fly. I forgot, when the US launched an invasion of Cuba from it's own soil with ex-nationals as catspaws, the nukes flew then, too. Not to be a jerk, but don't the the United States want Europe? Or Alaska? Or where ever those things are going to land?




I'm kind of interested in wondering if the Soviets would've attacked Alaska during a Third World War.

You've got the Naval Infantry Division (basically a Soviet Marine Corps, except obviously division-sized), and a fair (but not large) amount of sea and air lift capability, mostly based around the Ivan Rogov, a one-of-a-kind amphibious assault ship that can land an entire mechanized battalion.
It would be useless to invade Alaska with the point of taking it over. They can't do that.
However, taking the Aleutians, or at least putting AA sites and ASW helo refueling points on the islands, would make the US (and possibly the Canadians, depending on where the Soviets strike) have to spend vital resources going after them.
And with the Aleutians not under complete NATO control, the US and Canada will have trouble making sure they have a solid ASW line up into the Arctic through the Bering Straight.
That is a very concrete goal that the Far East Command can aim for, and without any drain on the European forces taking on the main NATO ground forces.

Mac, its a shooting war between the Soviet Union and the United States. And it is not a limited one like the Kargil War or the Sino-Soviet Border incidents. Various problems:

The UK has its nukes on Bike Locks.
France will nuke on the West Bank of the Rhine.
The Soviet Union has gone totally and utterly insane.
Nuclear Submarines are subject to attack, and are armed with...nuclear torpedoes.
Israel.

You've made a great assumption here, Mac--that fighting a full scale conventional war really winds up without a nuclear exchange breaking out. And I don't buy it--and fortunately for the United States and the Soviet Union, we never tried it.

OF COURSE the United States wants Europe, or Alaska. But its not really their decision, because they didn't start the war in the first place. The United States is going to have to seriously consider launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack because the Soviet Union is totally insane--and if the Soviets are going to launch, then the only way to minimize your losses is to launch first.

The decision to launch this attack is on the same page as "starting a nuclear war." Indeed, France has COMMITTED itself to Force de Frappe--which means that the Soviet attack is in its own right suicidal. So, assuming that the heightened alerts don't cause a nuclear war in their own right (and they very well might--try telling a conventional bomber wing from a strategic one), and that the war in Europe magically sits in the middle of Germany so that neither side simply decides to press the buttons--this would be a second front of little real importance. Clearly the Fulda Gap and six weeks to the Rhine takes priority; the Middle East and Black Gold Rush takes second; naval fighting in the Atlantic, with the goal of stopping the United States from throwing eleventy billion divisions into Europe would be third.

Attacking across the Bering Strait? Peripheral at best.

Fighting any kind of conventional war at all is essentially gambling that the other side will accept a disadvantageous peace deal before nuclear weapons appear by accident or on purpose. This is why this entire situation is more than insane--and given that the Soviets, while heavy handed and essentially committed to a loser ideology, know what they're doing--this is also ASB.

Really, what is worth risking even an accidental nuclear war? How do you value a 10% chance of losing everything?

A full scale war between the Soviets and the Americans, without some kind of answer to MAD almost certainly ends with a all-out nuclear exchange. (OK, it might Feature one instead of ending with one) If the Soviets are insane enough to attack Alaska, I'd think that the USA would threaten nuclear attacks and the Soviets pull out. Otherwise, the USA presses the buttons.

 

[Dave]

This reminds me of "WARGAMES", when the hacker convinces the computer to play out every scenario for USSR-USA war, and every one ends with nuclear holocaust.

The Soviets launch an unprovoked attack on US soil. Even China would be on Reagans side.

 

[MacCaulay]

Mac, its a shooting war between the Soviet Union and the United States. And it is not a limited one like the Kargil War or the Sino-Soviet Border incidents. Various problems:

The UK has its nukes on Bike Locks.
France will nuke on the West Bank of the Rhine.
The Soviet Union has gone totally and utterly insane.
Nuclear Submarines are subject to attack, and are armed with...nuclear torpedoes.
Israel.

You've made a great assumption here, Mac--that fighting a full scale conventional war really winds up without a nuclear exchange breaking out. And I don't buy it--and fortunately for the United States and the Soviet Union, we never tried it.

OF COURSE the United States wants Europe, or Alaska. But its not really their decision, because they didn't start the war in the first place. The United States is going to have to seriously consider launching a pre-emptive nuclear attack because the Soviet Union is totally insane--and if the Soviets are going to launch, then the only way to minimize your losses is to launch first.

The decision to launch this attack is on the same page as "starting a nuclear war." Indeed, France has COMMITTED itself to Force de Frappe--which means that the Soviet attack is in its own right suicidal. So, assuming that the heightened alerts don't cause a nuclear war in their own right (and they very well might--try telling a conventional bomber wing from a strategic one), and that the war in Europe magically sits in the middle of Germany so that neither side simply decides to press the buttons--this would be a second front of little real importance. Clearly the Fulda Gap and six weeks to the Rhine takes priority; the Middle East and Black Gold Rush takes second; naval fighting in the Atlantic, with the goal of stopping the United States from throwing eleventy billion divisions into Europe would be third.

Attacking across the Bering Strait? Peripheral at best.

Fighting any kind of conventional war at all is essentially gambling that the other side will accept a disadvantageous peace deal before nuclear weapons appear by accident or on purpose. This is why this entire situation is more than insane--and given that the Soviets, while heavy handed and essentially committed to a loser ideology, know what they're doing--this is also ASB.

Really, what is worth risking even an accidental nuclear war? How do you value a 10% chance of losing everything?

A full scale war between the Soviets and the Americans, without some kind of answer to MAD almost certainly ends with a all-out nuclear exchange. (OK, it might Feature one instead of ending with one) If the Soviets are insane enough to attack Alaska, I'd think that the USA would threaten nuclear attacks and the Soviets pull out. Otherwise, the USA presses the buttons.

I think you've explained MAD in much better terms than most people I've heard.

But I think that while you and me completely agree on why MAD worked, we both disagree on whether or not it would continue to work in a war.

I came to my conclusions after considering that Hitler had direct control over thousands of gas munitions ready to fire in the final days of the Reich, but didn't order their launch. And he was crazy as a loon.
Also, the Soviet Union (after Stalin) was led by sane individuals who knew that for the most part, they probably weren't going to get out of a war with the West with their skins intact.
On a more concrete level, if war came, their vacation dachas were probably going to be kindling. And their chauffered limousines would be of little use without the gasoline to drive them.

Tom Clancy said once in an interview about Red Storm Rising that people always walked up to him and remarked that the least believable part of the book was the beginning. He replied that that was because he could never come up with a logical reason for NATO and the Warsaw Pact to go to war.
I happen to agree with that thought.

But that's alright, you're entitled to your opinions. It's not the kind of thing I'm probably going to change. And to be honest, you defended yours pretty well.


And I totally agree with you: the Aleutians are peripheral. But that's part of why the thought of a front there in a hypothetical "Third World War" is so interesting.

To boil it down, I can go to my used bookstore, close my eyes in front of the military fiction rack, and grab a book that is probably about US forces in Europe or the Middle East at some point in time for some reason or other. This has a distinct air of originality to it. Especially because I spent a few summers in Hyder, Alaska.

 

[Lord Grattan]

Found this also on wikipedia. It describes a timeline where the USSR, apparently suffering from a US grain embargo, decides to invade US though Alaska and then proceeds to destroy the Alaska pipeline cutting off critical energy supplies to mainland US. It also ends in nuclear war.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III_(TV_miniseries)

I remember this miniseries. Not a very plausable WWIII scenario, nor a steller production, but Rock Hudson & Brian Keith did their roles well.

 

[Blue Max]

I think you've explained MAD in much better terms than most people I've heard.

But I think that while you and me completely agree on why MAD worked, we both disagree on whether or not it would continue to work in a war.

I came to my conclusions after considering that Hitler had direct control over thousands of gas munitions ready to fire in the final days of the Reich, but didn't order their launch. And he was crazy as a loon.
Also, the Soviet Union (after Stalin) was led by sane individuals who knew that for the most part, they probably weren't going to get out of a war with the West with their skins intact.
On a more concrete level, if war came, their vacation dachas were probably going to be kindling. And their chauffered limousines would be of little use without the gasoline to drive them.

Tom Clancy said once in an interview about Red Storm Rising that people always walked up to him and remarked that the least believable part of the book was the beginning. He replied that that was because he could never come up with a logical reason for NATO and the Warsaw Pact to go to war.
I happen to agree with that thought.

But that's alright, you're entitled to your opinions. It's not the kind of thing I'm probably going to change. And to be honest, you defended yours pretty well.


And I totally agree with you: the Aleutians are peripheral. But that's part of why the thought of a front there in a hypothetical "Third World War" is so interesting.

To boil it down, I can go to my used bookstore, close my eyes in front of the military fiction rack, and grab a book that is probably about US forces in Europe or the Middle East at some point in time for some reason or other. This has a distinct air of originality to it. Especially because I spent a few summers in Hyder, Alaska.

Ultimately, war is one of those topics that is interesting to discuss and terrible to live. I am glad that both the Soviet Union and the United States essentially followed my point of view that a shooting war would risk MAD on the spot and never tried it.

Mac, I'll give you a prediction. India and Pakistan will never go to a full scale war again. I know it sounds optimistic, but I really think that's where the line is. Because a full scale war is going to, at best, risk MAD.

If you are right, then Pakistan and India will go for a full scale war and neither side will press the buttons. I hope you aren't. I'm pretty sure that half the point of deterrence is stopping a conventional war because Risking MAD is not worth the gains of a conventional war.

Does MAD break down in a shooting war? I think MAD is even stronger in a shooting war than without one, and that if a "incident" occurred the offending party would quickly pull out because the game is up--the nukes are on the table.

Somehow, you are missing this part on the list of Events:

Soviet Union Attacks Alaska
USA Threatens Nuclear Destruction.
Soviets either pull out or the nukes fly.

The United States has no real intention of fighting this war, they didn't start it and they certainly don't trust the Soviet Union to be sane. So they make the nuclear threat on day three, and press the buttons on day seven. Are the Soviets going to launch first? If they are insane enough to attack the United States without provocation, I think the USA has to launch.

Yes, this is terrible. This is a world in ruins, a world that totally trashed itself--and I don't deny that this is the worst case scenario. But consider that MAD is an explicit threat--fight a war, lose just about everything. The United States doesn't want to press the buttons, but given the Soviet Union's madness, they are pretty sure that the Soviets will press them.

And so, while the Soviet Union has decided to reduce the world from its former state to a pile of molten slag, the United States has decided to act so that its postwar population is around fifteen million instead of five million.

One would probably want to know what the last thoughts of the Politburo will be in its bunker deep beneath Moscow. Shock, confusion, perhaps guilt and remorse for essentially starting a nuclear war. What had they hoped to gain-West Germany? The Aleutian Islands? Well, they had damned their people to either death or misery for a century. As the sirens wail, they will at least understand why their predecessors, including Stalin himself, did not attack the West.

MAD means that the war is either an incident that is quickly solved or it is a glassing. A long war will not happen without a casus belli and a very VERY narrow focus. WW3, started by a Soviet Attack, ends one week later in a nuclear exchange. That sounds like a terrible story but also the real reason why no one actually had a third world war.

 

[Haranobu]

Found this also on wikipedia. It describes a timeline where the USSR, apparently suffering from a US grain embargo, decides to invade US though Alaska and then proceeds to destroy the Alaska pipeline cutting off critical energy supplies to mainland US. It also ends in nuclear war.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_III_(TV_miniseries)

Wasn't this part of the scenario for the Soviet invasion/attack in 'Red Dawn' [troops coming through Alaska and going south]?
GAH! To think I actually went to SEE that movie back in the 80S! GAH!

 

[Atreus]

Wasn't this part of the scenario for the Soviet invasion/attack in 'Red Dawn' [troops coming through Alaska and going south]?

I think so, although combined with an invasion from Mexico and a few nuclear decapitation strikes and Spetsnaz infiltration. Though honestly, the movie makes it kind of hard to tell.

 

[gtrof]

In a WWIII scenario their is no reason for the Soviets to try and invade Alaska. Maybe conduct air or submarine (conventional) missile attack but even going for the Aleutians would be useless.

The Russian Pacific Fleet is already in a bad position. They only have one base that opens into the Pacific. Vladivostok is covered by Japan. Any concentration of Soviet ships prior to the outbreak of war is going to draw attention, and if they try to launch it afterward they will receive the attention of air and naval strikes from Japan and USN carriers. So basically the Russian Pacific Fleet is going to have enough troubles trying survive.

Even by act of God or ASB the Russians managed to escort and land on the islands they would be cut off from their supplies in short order. Russian convoys would be destroyed by US naval and air power. We can then either leave them to rot on the islands or more likely invade with Marines and Army units.

Basically its a no win situation. Now what about a Soviet operation against Hokkaido? Probably still a bad idea but they could concentrate their forces in Sea of Japan and Kamchatka. Plus cover the invasion with land based air, and SNA Backfires and Badgers could attack Allied ships.

 

[Urban fox]

Soviet Union Attacks Alaska
USA Threatens Nuclear Destruction.
Soviets either pull out or the nukes fly.

The United States has no real intention of fighting this war, they didn't start it and they certainly don't trust the Soviet Union to be sane. So they make the nuclear threat on day three, and press the buttons on day seven. Are the Soviets going to launch first? If they are insane enough to attack the United States without provocation, I think the USA has to launch.

Yes, this is terrible. This is a world in ruins, a world that totally trashed itself--and I don't deny that this is the worst case scenario. But consider that MAD is an explicit threat--fight a war, lose just about everything. The United States doesn't want to press the buttons, but given the Soviet Union's madness, they are pretty sure that the Soviets will press them.

And so, while the Soviet Union has decided to reduce the world from its former state to a pile of molten slag, the United States has decided to act so that its postwar population is around fifteen million instead of five million.

One would probably want to know what the last thoughts of the Politburo will be in its bunker deep beneath Moscow. Shock, confusion, perhaps guilt and remorse for essentially starting a nuclear war. What had they hoped to gain-West Germany? The Aleutian Islands? Well, they had damned their people to either death or misery for a century. As the sirens wail, they will at least understand why their predecessors, including Stalin himself, did not attack the West.

MAD means that the war is either an incident that is quickly solved or it is a glassing. A long war will not happen without a casus belli and a very VERY narrow focus. WW3, started by a Soviet Attack, ends one week later in a nuclear exchange. That sounds like a terrible story but also the real reason why no one actually had a third world war.

Very dramatic.

I really don't see nukes being launched Soviet/US leaders are not robots. So just because launch plans have been drawn up dosnt mean they'll be followed. Even a Soviet hardliner like Brezhnev couldn't bring himself to push the button during war-games US leaders would likely have similar psychological inhibitions against using nukes. Starting a WW3 is one thing wiping out whole nations is another...

The longer a shooting war lasts on the less likely a US launch is. since the initial shock of the Soviet attack will have wore off.

The only way nukes will fly is if the other side fires first since at that point there's nothing to lose by using your own nukes.

Moscow would tell Washington right from the start ''we cant let this go beyond conventional warfare''

 

[Blue Max]

Very dramatic.

I really don't see nukes being launched Soviet/US leaders are not robots. So just because launch plans have been drawn up dosnt mean they'll be followed. Even a Soviet hardliner like Brezhnev couldn't bring himself to push the button during war-games US leaders would likely have similar psychological inhibitions against using nukes. Starting a WW3 is one thing wiping out whole nations is another...

The longer a shooting war lasts on the less likely a US launch is. since the initial shock of the Soviet attack will have wore off. The only way nukes will fly is if the other side fires first since at that point there's nothing to lose by using your own nukes.

Moscow would tell Washington right from the start ''we cant let this go beyond conventional warfare''

The point of a nuclear threat is to ensure the status quo. What will happen is the United States gets attacked, the Soviets say "We can't let this end in nuclear war", the United States says "F*** You. Get out or we'll nuke you out", and the Soviets say "Damn. We aren't going to win this one" and pull out.

The United States might not consider Alaska important, but the MASSIVE CONFLICT IN EUROPE that will result from alliances? Yeah, that's going to happen, and then you're right back Global WW3 scenario.

Brezhnev is probably not running the Soviet Union in this scenario. Some real wacko, like Suslov, probably is.

You don't see nukes getting launched because its rather uncool to be reduced to poverty and be forced to spend the entire 21st century rebuilding due to acts taken in the 20th century. Of course the United States isn't run by robots--that was never the point. The point is that a shooting war will become global in scope and one of the several factors I've mentioned will result in a nuclear war.

France gets Bombed? France launches the Nukes. UK Commander decides to save his Divisons by resorting to tactical nuclear devices, he doesn't even NEED to get that approved from London. This is to say nothing of the fact that the United States would view a surprise attack very, VERY badly.

The point is that this is not a wargame, this is not a military scenario. This is a real life situation, and events are going to go wildly out of control. The Soviet Attack on Alaska will result in a massive confronation in Europe, which probably leads to Soviet Forces drawing a nuclear response on either side of the Rhine River. This is followed with nuclear exchanges escalating until one side hits the other with everything.

The Soviets attacking Alaska? They're clearly insane, they already know all of this and have decided to do it anyway. You can pretend all you'd like that the Soviets can get Washington to play a losing game to their advantage, but uncoolness and optimism are not grounds for launching a war.

The Sovs won't do it. And if they did do it, they'd pull out because, yes, those nuclear missile siloes are indeed aiming at something, and the United States is almost certainly going to press those buttons instead of getting ejected from Europe, if France or the UK or Israel doesn't do it first.

Yes, that's no fun, but then again, war isn't supposed to be fun.