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

Cook

Banned
The assumption up until the Reagan era was always that the Soviets and Warsaw Pact would pour into West Germany and at some point NATO would have to use 'tactical' nukes to stop them. Which would lead to retaliatory strikes by the Soviets. Which likely leads to full scale nuclear war.
That was the NATO assumption. The Warsaw Pact assumption was that NATO would hit them with nuclear weapons from the start to overcome the Warsaw Pact’s numerical superiority and therefore they would have to strike first of face annihilation. Since neither side was actually plotting to attack the other it meant that the only likely war was an accidental one based on erroneous information and that that accidental war would go immediately nuclear. Kind of sucks really.
 
In case of NATO, preparations for longer conventional conflict were a mean to show Soviets that in order to conquer Western Europe conventional weapons would not be enough, the conflict would escalate. NATO's leadership did not know what we know now, that Soviet plans were nuclear focused. As for occupation duties, one needs occupation forces even after nuclear war.

What's left to occupy, or what's left to do the occupying after West Germany has been turned to slag or desert?

Both sides in the late '70s began moving towards a conventional warfighting strategy-NATO's deep-strike and PGM capability began improving, and the Soviets realized that if they want to exploit Western Europe's resources, infrastructure, and population postwar, it's best not to have it radioactive or dead.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
That was the NATO assumption. The Warsaw Pact assumption was that NATO would hit them with nuclear weapons from the start to overcome the Warsaw Pact’s numerical superiority and therefore they would have to strike first of face annihilation. Since neither side was actually plotting to attack the other it meant that the only likely war was an accidental one based on erroneous information and that that accidental war would go immediately nuclear. Kind of sucks really.


And you just hit the nail on the head.

NATO spent the Cold War waiting for the USSR, driven by Communist zeal and desire to spread the revolution, to attack (which, except for one or two crisis points was never on the table). The Soviets spent the Cold War waiting for NATO, driven by Capitalist greed and the desire to overthrow the revolution, to attack (which except for couple crisis points was never even considered).

The majority of the Planet's economic output and scientific effort, for better than four decades, was spent getting ready to defend against an attack that neither side had the slightest intention of conducting.
 
Thing is though, neither side was game to launch a big attack, because they knew (or at least thought) the other side was ready for them.
 
Late-war Soviet doctrine had designated tactical nuclear strike targets on a battalion-level defense plans. Same goes for Nato countries. So yeah, it was given. And as many have already pointed out, neither side planned to attack since everyone understood how suicidal it would have been.
 
Conflict in Europe would go nuclear

People focus on the weapon systems available and their respective performance is the T72 better than an M60 or Chieftain? How many are there. An interesting war to consider thats relevant to any war in Europe in the 70's /80's is the Iran/Iraq war. Both sides had similar types of equipment to that likely to be used in a European conflict. the biggest problem in this war was ammunition expenditure. Both sides would stockpile enormous quantities of munitions prior to an assault. The battle would typically end when they for want of a better word they ran out of bullets. The logisitics required to support GSFG with a shock army, three tank armies and a guards army (only 20 divisions total) was formidible. The soviets used to send their logisitical transport back to the Ukraine to get the harvest in from Mid July onwards. It was estimated that NATO and the Soviets had enough ammunition to support offensive /defensive operations for between 25-30 days. A friend of mine worked in the train section of the RCT and reckoned it took 7 days using trains to empty the stockpiled combat supplies. (These would only last 25 days or so) It was a myth that the soviets could reach the Rhine in 5 days with viable forces. A racing start by the Soviets or Nato would mean such units would run out of combat supplies even quicker, become isolate and be subject to a counterstroke. The war games of the 70's 80's accepted this and played on an increasing tension over several weeks, leading to mobilisation. Both sides had official observers as well as a well developed intelligence and reporting system that would identify pre mobilsiation markers and both sides therefore knew surprise was very difficult to achieve. The risk of battlefield nuclear weapons were in their accidental release or being overrun during the first few days of any war. As such control and release was very carefully controlled and i would doubt very much if release would ever be delegated below Corps level.
 

elkarlo

Banned
i think so, yes. My dad was on the command and general staff in the early 80's. When they did war games, the Soviets pushed the Nato forces off the map, which was basically to the Rhine. When that happened, they started using 'strategic' nuclear strikes, which brought about retaliatory strikes, and up it went.
 
And you just hit the nail on the head.

NATO spent the Cold War waiting for the USSR, driven by Communist zeal and desire to spread the revolution, to attack (which, except for one or two crisis points was never on the table). The Soviets spent the Cold War waiting for NATO, driven by Capitalist greed and the desire to overthrow the revolution, to attack (which except for couple crisis points was never even considered).

The majority of the Planet's economic output and scientific effort, for better than four decades, was spent getting ready to defend against an attack that neither side had the slightest intention of conducting.

Coincidentially, I saw two non-related documentaries this year on arte , one dealing with Ronald Reagan, the other one with the Gorbachev years. In both documentaries, the realization that the other side was actually afraid of one's own side shook both mens' worldviews and contributed to their readiness to deal with the Cold War more diplomatically.

Stuff for Greek tragedy if it had all ended down in other ways...
 
Even if it did not go nuclear, what would they armies do when the stockpiles were about to be run over? Blow them to prevent capture, or haul them out?
docfl
 
.....

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.


Your portrayal of this puts a smile on my face!

You are among the elite who make apocalyptic speculation truly enjoyable.
 
At the risk of thread necromancy, there was one comment on here from CalBear that fascinated me:

"NATO spent the Cold War waiting for the USSR, driven by Communist zeal and desire to spread the revolution, to attack (which, except for one or two crisis points was never on the table). The Soviets spent the Cold War waiting for NATO, driven by Capitalist greed and the desire to overthrow the revolution, to attack (which except for couple crisis points was never even considered)."

I'd love to hear more about this. Particularly the idea of NATO attacking USSR. I grew up with the idea of the USSR as an immense unconquerable military colossus, and that attacking it would be suicidal insanity. CalBear, if you'd care to elaborate, I'm all ears!
 
At the risk of thread necromancy, there was one comment on here from CalBear that fascinated me:



I'd love to hear more about this. Particularly the idea of NATO attacking USSR. I grew up with the idea of the USSR as an immense unconquerable military colossus, and that attacking it would be suicidal insanity. CalBear, if you'd care to elaborate, I'm all ears!
Well, I'm not CalBear, but ja, that's true.

NATO looked at Warsaw Pact armies and said "OMG, look at the vaste commie hordes ready to pour over the border". This was aided and abetted, of course by Soviet propaganda and it trying to export the revolution.

Russia looked at NATO armies and said "OMG, look at their technological superiority." This was aided and abetted by (especially US) propaganda about the evils of Communism.


Don't forget, too, that Russian had been invaded horrifically by the West twice, and by the Mongols (once, maybe but it lasted for centuries). They expect, OF COURSE, that any serious enemy is going to try to roll across their borders.


Unfortunately, neither side really understood the other's position until the wall came down.



Also, it was in the best empire building traditions of each side's military to overplay the strength of their opponent. How can we possibly justify billions of dollars/rubles/marks/whatever in military expenditure if the other side isn't a serious danger.

Edit: one of the most egregious examples was the Missile Gap. The US knew they had more missiles, but claiming the Russians did allowed even greater funding. The Russians KNEW they didn't, so obviously the build up could only mean the US planned a first strike.
 
At the risk of thread necromancy, there was one comment on here from CalBear that fascinated me:



I'd love to hear more about this. Particularly the idea of NATO attacking USSR. I grew up with the idea of the USSR as an immense unconquerable military colossus, and that attacking it would be suicidal insanity. CalBear, if you'd care to elaborate, I'm all ears!

Barbarossa hangover.
 
Top