What if not IRBM treaty was signed in 1987

I think the Soviet Union was on its way out regardless of the INF Treaty.

If it wasn't signed my guess is that the Pershings will be redeployed to Sth Korea in 1991.
 
Its impact on the WP - NATO balance and the rest of the cold war 1987-1990 ?

Won't save the USSR, it was ready for the fork sticking already in 1987.

It would shamble on just as OTL, till the Wall comes down, followed soon by the collapse of the USSR itself

Even without a Treaty, you would see most of those tactical devices disassembled, the Russians don't have the money for the upkeep, and don't want the ex-SSRs keeping them, either
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Won't save the USSR, it was ready for the fork sticking already in 1987.

It would shamble on just as OTL, till the Wall comes down, followed soon by the collapse of the USSR itself

Even without a Treaty, you would see most of those tactical devices disassembled, the Russians don't have the money for the upkeep, and don't want the ex-SSRs keeping them, either
True but in short term 87 to 1990 does it make their conventional forces weaker given resources are diverted to IRBM ?
 
True but in short term 87 to 1990 does it make their conventional forces weaker given resources are diverted to IRBM ?

Their Conventional advantage was still there, in numbers, anyway
No IRBMs didn't make the export models of the T-72 work any better against M1s in Desert Storm

By 1987, their Cake was already baked.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Their Conventional advantage was still there, in numbers, anyway
No IRBMs didn't make the export models of the T-72 work any better against M1s in Desert Storm

By 1987, their Cake was already baked.
In numbers WP was not superior unless you are counting older tanks , tube towed artillery and warm bodies
Everything else NATO had superior numbers
 
Its impact on the WP - NATO balance and the rest of the cold war 1987-1990 ?
I don't see much changing during the Cold War.

There just might be some post Cold War ripple effects (ie. Maybe the Russian response to the 1995 Norwegian rocket incident plays out a bit differently (but I think that is a remote possibility, but I suppose this could be a very low probability but high impact change.)
 

Khanzeer

Banned
The SS-23 spider was the best weapon in the soviet arsenal in its class before 1987, it had
1-conventional warheads so low risk escalation
2-decent range 300-400km
3-low CEP
4-immune to interception
5-posed a huge threat to NATO local sir superority as it can target all the foward airbases

I think when soviets lose that in 87 along with SS-20, it is pretty much game over for them
 
conventional warheads so low risk escalation

Setting off Volleys of IRBMs with the assurance of 'oh, these are Conventional' won't be too convincing. NATO wouldn't wait for impact to find out as the swarms light up the Beyond the Horizon Early Warning Radars screens
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Setting off Volleys of IRBMs with the assurance of 'oh, these are Conventional' won't be too convincing. NATO wouldn't wait for impact to find out as the swarms light up the Beyond the Horizon Early Warning Radars screens
True but NATO was not the only enemy of USSR
Same could be said of ANY conventional attack on Warsaw pact too
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Unaware of any plans for NATO to invade the WP nations
not the way they saw it across the other side of the iron curtain
USSR armed forces were essentially defensive with minimal force projection capacity ( probably could not even match the French and British)
 
not the way they saw it across the other side of the iron curtain
USSR armed forces were essentially defensive with minimal force projection capacity ( probably could not even match the French and British)
In 1984, from 194 Tank, motorized Infantry and Airborne Divisions of the USSR Ground Forces,30 were in Eastern Europe and 65 in the western SSRs.
The actual WP nations had 55 divisions.

Now for NATO

CENTAG had 14 Divisions, 4 Brigades and two Regiments.
NORTHAG had 16 Divisions, 4 Brigades and one Regiment.

That hardly the force needed for Drang nost Osten.

Forces were obviously defensive, the whole idea for REFORGER
 

Khanzeer

Banned
In 1984, from 194 Tank, motorized Infantry and Airborne Divisions of the USSR Ground Forces,30 were in Eastern Europe and 65 in the western SSRs.
The actual WP nations had 55 divisions.

Now for NATO

CENTAG had 14 Divisions, 4 Brigades and two Regiments.
NORTHAG had 16 Divisions, 4 Brigades and one Regiment.

That hardly the force needed for Drang nost Osten.

Forces were obviously defensive, the whole idea for REFORGER
half of WP nations were not reliable allies
and half of the soviet forces in eastern europe would probably be there to ensure the loyalty of their "allies"

simply adding up the number of divs can be very misleading, as I'm sure you very well know
 
In numbers WP was not superior unless you are counting older tanks , tube towed artillery and warm bodies
Everything else NATO had superior numbers

In reality, the Soviets also had numerical superiority in aircraft, self-propelled guns, other armored fighting vehicles, air defense systems, and pretty much any category of ground weapon you care to name. And many of those “old tanks” were still perfectly capable of going toe-toe with anything in the NATO armored inventory and potentially win.

The real achilles heel of the Red Army by 1987 was their personnel quality, which was in a well-advanced stage of totally going to pieces by then. Earlier in the 80’s it was pretty bad, but theoretically manageable. By ‘87, it had become crippling.
 
Last edited:

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
Its impact on the WP - NATO balance and the rest of the cold war 1987-1990 ?

Would it lead to a full blown nuclear exchange in the next 4/5 years on the thinking of "use it or loose it"?

I thought the whole basis of the IRBM Treaty was that with Tomahawk GLCM's and Pershing II B's being fielded by the US & NATO it was that at a stroke it rendered the USSR (if enough could be produced and fielded by Army, Navy and AF) defenseless as they had limited AEW assets that could pick them up (Tomahawks that is)

Even though the USSR had a 5 to 1 advantage in IRBM systems at the time they put them all on the table just to get Tomahawk & Pershing out of Europe.

President Reagan's own Chiefs of Staff warned that if they didn't agree to the USSR's proposal it might tip them over the edge.

Regards filers
 
In 1984, from 194 Tank, motorized Infantry and Airborne Divisions of the USSR Ground Forces,30 were in Eastern Europe and 65 in the western SSRs.
The actual WP nations had 55 divisions.

Now for NATO

CENTAG had 14 Divisions, 4 Brigades and two Regiments.
NORTHAG had 16 Divisions, 4 Brigades and one Regiment.

That hardly the force needed for Drang nost Osten.

Forces were obviously defensive, the whole idea for REFORGER
Western divisions tended to be larger than Eastern bloc ones.
 
Re INF treaty. Which ironically has less than two months to live. Finishes August 1st.
I don’t foresee any effects on the Cold War as stated above.
The effects on the post Cold War are massive though.
The INF treaty basically ended work on new ballistic missiles for the US for nearly 3 decades. Especially since there were no new ICBM in development in that time. Without an INF, that work continues.

In OTL the three main sources of new missiles have been China, NKor and the Sub Continent. The latter two will continue regardless, they have no nexus with the INF.

On the other hand, a US with large land based missile arsenal will absolutely affect Chinese calculations. OTL one of the reasons the Chinese have built thousands of short and medium range missiles is that the US does not have them. If this is not the case they might’ve emphasized them less. After the Taiwan Straits crises, the carrier building lobby of the Central Military Commission might have won out over the missile lobby (which the path was chosen as it was cheaper)
Might we see Chinese flattops coming online in the new millennium?

I think it also butterflies away missile defence projects, lots of which were make-work in the post Cold War. OTL, they have some capabilities against 1950’s standard ballistic missiles. If the technology that are coming online recently, like Maneuvering RV, hypersonic glide vehicles and MIRV on non ICBM missiles; all of which were in development in the 80’s, and which were abandoned post Cold War, start emerging in the 1990’s, missile defense is seen as unfeasible.
 
Top