Was it a Given That a Soviet/NATO Conflict in Europe Would go Nuclear?

[superjames1992]

I know most plans called for this, but when push came to shove, would cooler heads prevail and keep the conflict conventional for some time?

I am aware that when and if the Soviets cross the Rhine, the French will unleash their nukes as they have nothing left to lose at that point, but would the US and Britain really essentially "end civilization" (for all intents and purposes), just to save Western Europe (or Germany if the Soviets stop at the Rhine, not wishing to antagonize France)?

I am curious of your thoughts on this. I know a lot of people have criticized Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising because of this. Is a non-nuclear conflict ASB?

 

[Pangur]

I very much dont think so. Both sides may start with the idea of not using nukes however when one side is starting to loose then nukes would have used. Take this as a possible example, a US division is surrounded by the Warsaw pact and are about to be destroyed. The US would use battlefield nukes to help them break out. Detonate that nuke on a city and the diffence between `tactical' and strategic nukes means nothing

 

[Cook]

Given that when the Cold War ended and the Soviet archives were opened up we learnt that the only plans the Soviets had for a war in Europe involved going nuclear right from the start, I guess we would have to say yes it was a certainty that it would go nuclear.

 

[CalBear]

Mortal lock.

Even if the Soviets didn't open with WMD (which would violate all their strategic planning, which called for massive chemical attacks, as a minimum) which is why the U.S. had a policy of "a WMD is a WMD once you is used to respond with one of your choice", the side that was about to lose conventionally (which for most of the '70s would have been NATO) would escalate to special weapons. NATO doctrine more or less accepted this as an article of faith (which is why you actually had idiots wandering around Brussels and the Pentagon taking seriously about "limited nuclear war").

 

[Ben the banjo player]

It comes down to the trust issue--if neither side trusts the other not to use nukes, both sides are going to be inclined to use them before the other gets a chance to.

 

[asnys]

I agree with CalBear and Cook. I suppose there's some slight chance of a purely conventional WW3, or a WW3 that ends after a nuclear "warning shot," but I think it's 95%+ odds that it ends in a strategic nuclear exchange. Even if they don't open with the nukes, they'll use them as soon as one side starts losing.

Given that when the Cold War ended and the Soviet archives were opened up we learnt that the only plans the Soviets had for a war in Europe involved going nuclear right from the start, I guess we would have to say yes it was a certainty that it would go nuclear.

I do have one question about this. Do you know if that was just the plans the Soviets had at the end of the Cold War, or if this was consistent throughout the history of Soviet war planning? I remember reading somewhere that the Soviets had at least considered a conventional WW3 in the 70s and early 80s, enough to plan for it, but that by the mid 80s NATO's conventional forces were too strong to make this a practical option and they'd gone back to a strictly nuclear strategy. I don't remember where I read that or if the source was at all reliable, but it sounded like this was something they'd seriously considered.

 

[BlondieBC]

Mortal lock.

Even if the Soviets didn't open with WMD (which would violate all their strategic planning, which called for massive chemical attacks, as a minimum) which is why the U.S. had a policy of "a WMD is a WMD once you is used to respond with one of your choice", the side that was about to lose conventionally (which for most of the '70s would have been NATO) would escalate to special weapons. NATO doctrine more or less accepted this as an article of faith (which is why you actually had idiots wandering around Brussels and the Pentagon taking seriously about "limited nuclear war").

All nuclear war is limited, eventually both sides will run out of nukes.

 

[Gosing]

I have a sinking feeling that it would be inevitable in case of open war that a WMD would eventually be used, and that after that it would be inevitable that there would be a total or near-total exchange.

 

[Jukra]

I remember reading somewhere that the Soviets had at least considered a conventional WW3 in the 70s and early 80s, enough to plan for it, but that by the mid 80s NATO's conventional forces were too strong to make this a practical option and they'd gone back to a strictly nuclear strategy. I don't remember where I read that or if the source was at all reliable, but it sounded like this was something they'd seriously considered.

Fantasy of a conventional WW 3 was manufactured in late 1970's / early 1980's to justify more spending on conventional weapons primarily in the US. I don't suppose it had any more theoretical background than the need to get the military spending up.

Besides, despite repeating myself, at no point during the Cold War except maybe between ca. 1946-1951 were the Western Powers at any significant way outmatched even in ground forces, without considering the air forces or navies.

 

[lucaswillen05]

I think it would have depended on which NATo ans Soviet leader that was least stable. Once the decision was made to go nuclear it would have been very hard to stop a full scale nuclear exchange. However, I once read that it was very hard in wargames to get people to actually go nuclear, Knowing the consequences and knowing that starting WW3in Europe could well lead to the above situation was probably what stropped this conflict from happening although there were close calls on several occasions,

 

[Dunois]

In an environmnt where tactical nuclear weapons would not have been very widespread for some reason or another, then there would have been some scope for a conventional WW3.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Nothing's a given but it's hard to see how either NATO or the Warsaw Pact would have avoided this in any full-scale war. The biggest danger would be that some dim-bulb tries to use a tactical nuclear weapon and this produces the start of a chain reaction (heh) that creates a total nuclear war.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Mortal lock.

Even if the Soviets didn't open with WMD (which would violate all their strategic planning, which called for massive chemical attacks, as a minimum) which is why the U.S. had a policy of "a WMD is a WMD once you is used to respond with one of your choice", the side that was about to lose conventionally (which for most of the '70s would have been NATO) would escalate to special weapons. NATO doctrine more or less accepted this as an article of faith (which is why you actually had idiots wandering around Brussels and the Pentagon taking seriously about "limited nuclear war").

Would tactical nuclear weapons have ever actually been used?

 

[WeisSaul]

I'd imagine a Hitler/Mustard gas scenario. Nobody used it because nobody wanted to take it in retaliation.

 

[CalBear]

Would tactical nuclear weapons have ever actually been used?

Initially? That is almost certainly how it would have started. Probably Soviet Frogfoot rockets if it was the Soviets (the NATO plan seems to have favored F-4, F-111 and Buccaneer air delivery, followed by theater missiles).

If you mean would anyone be insane enough to go nuclear, I have to say yes. France was not going to allow itself to be overrun. Same goes for the UK. The U.S. had 7,000 warheads in Europe, half of those just in West Germany. NATO wasn't going to go gentle into that good night.

If anything the likelihood of the USSR going nuke the second they are faced with defeat is far higher than is the case with NATO. Unlike the U.S. or the BAOR, the Red Army had to be concerned, from Day 1, about the possibility that their erstwhile allies would turn on them. Expecting the repressed Warsaw Pact states to support the Red Army in a fighting retreat, one that would take place on Czech or Polish or Hungarian soil, isn't even conceivable. Faced with the end of the Communist system (something that the Kremlin saw as the True Faith) and with the specter of invasion, again... Good Night Irene.

 

[CalBear]

All nuclear war is limited, eventually both sides will run out of nukes.

Well, have to admit you got me there.

 

[Cook]

I do have one question about this. Do you know if that was just the plans the Soviets had at the end of the Cold War, or if this was consistent throughout the history of Soviet war planning?

I believe it was consistent throughout. The Soviets in their wargaming concluded that NATO would use nuclear weapons to counter the numerical superiority of the Soviet forces. Their great fear throughout the Cold War was that NATO would launch another Barbarossa.

 

[Macragge1]

What one has to remember as well is that a general European war would be a pretty confusing situation; no-one would know exactly what was going on, but, unfortunately, there's all sorts of people who can release tactical weapons pretty much independently. Once the threat of communications being cut becomes a real one (i.e pretty much immediately) we start to see release authority devolved down to like, brigade level.

Another worrying sign is the fact that the different constituents of NATO would not have waited for unilateral release authority; note that the British had soldiers posted around American officers with a duty to force them to release tactical weapons should the Americans refuse, as doubtless the Americans had with British and French weapons.

There were around 15,000 tactical weapons in Europe by the mid-80s. We'd have to get lucky 15,000 times, because all it takes is one mistake.

 

[BlondieBC]

I believe it was consistent throughout. The Soviets in their wargaming concluded that NATO would use nuclear weapons to counter the numerical superiority of the Soviet forces. Their great fear throughout the Cold War was that NATO would launch another Barbarossa.

Was that even possible? I never thought NATO had enough troops to invade Russia. Maybe we would be able to take East Germany or a part of Poland, but to really drive deep into Russia?

Even if NATO achieve complete surprise, and Russia used no WMD, I can't see Nato making it to Minsk.

 

[Cook]

Was that even possible? I never thought NATO had enough troops to invade Russia. Maybe we would be able to take East Germany or a part of Poland, but to really drive deep into Russia?

Even if NATO achieve complete surprise, and Russia used no WMD, I can't see Nato making it to Minsk.

That hardly matters, that was what they feared.