WI: 1989 USSR attacks NATO

[Euroman26]

To prevent the breakup of the USSR Kremlin Chiefs decides to attack NATO on two fronts, Europe and a attempted landing in the continental United States. Like in the PC Game World in conflict.

NATO and USSR engage in a non-nuclear war and eventually Warsaw pact troops are expelled from their beachhead in the United States and pushed back to East Germany, and Warsaw Pact border.

What would happen next? Would NATO invade the USSR?

 

[Xen]

I have a book called WW III by Ian Slater about this happening. Unfortunatley the characters are very dry, and its hard to relate to them or feel any sense of dread about a looming war. The man knows his stuff, as far as technology and weapons go, but its a difficult read, I dont recommend it.

 

[kojak]

This probably belongs in ASB, Euroman26.

 

[Jozon]

ASB. In 1989 the USSR is already on the verge of collapse. The military is an inch away of complete desertion, the economy is in shambles, and even Russia doesn't want to be a part of the union anymore.

 

[Jasen777]

It's not ASB (although a significant landing in the U.S. probably is), it just requires some seriously poor judgment by soviet leaders. And yes, by 1989 the Soviet military is out-matched by quite a bit and will be defeated in Europe by NATO forces in a few months.

 

[TheMann]

The Soviet military by 1989 was in miserable shape. It was falling apart, and after the mess in Afghanistan, they had a huge insurgency problem to deal with. They would demolished in a matter of months.

Landing in the USA? Completely and totally ASB. That was bordering on ASB by the early 1970s.

 

[MUC]

An invasion of Western Europe is feasible up until the mid 80s.
Landings on US coast not.

 

[Archibald]

sounds very much "Red Storm Rising" to me! A cash-strapped, near-collapse USSR decide to fight NATO instead of crumbling...

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Actually, The War that Never Was is a fairly interesting depiction of a Warsaw Pact/NATO war in the late 1980s. The issue is never really in doubt, of course, but it's an interesting story. If you cobble it together with The Third World War, you get a pretty interesting progression of things from the mid '80s to the late '80s.

 

[Thunderfire]

You need many stupid decisions on both sides for this scenario. The soviets get stoped at the gates of Frankfurt & Hamburg. The American landing is a total disaster for the soviets and I doubt that you will find a soviet leader stupid enough to try it. The warsaw pact falls apart after NATO forces liberate east germany. The nukes will fly when the soviet union gets close to collapse.

 

[Shimbo]

Just a thought: a USSR landing in the USA, preumably paratroopers in Alaska, would be a suicide mission, but it would be a massive distraction/diversion/panic causer, throw a big spanner in US reinforcement plans for Europe and so help the European invasion to get further.

Trouble is, all these NATO vs Warsaw Pact scenarios end the same way, if either side does too well then nuclear war is triggered.

 

[MUC]

Trouble is, all these NATO vs Warsaw Pact scenarios end the same way, if either side does too well then nuclear war is triggered.

Not necessarily at least in case of the Soviets doing too well.
In contrast to the Warsaw Pact countries there were enough politicians in West Germany that would consider giving up the country to the Soviets rather than let it go up in smoke.

What I mean is if the Soviets did very well (for example achieve a breakthrough all the way to Frankfurt) then the US and Britain would consider using nukes to stop the Soviet advance. However there may have been political pressure from the West German side to just let it go if the situation was desperate.
The US, Britain and France thought it was all ok, as long as the nukes used were tactical ones and not strategic ones. The same cannot be said for the Germans. Tactical nukes would turn Western and Eastern Germany to a wasteland.
What is better for the Germans? A country turned into a nuclear wasteland or communism? Many would say the second.
The threat of total devastation may be enough for the Germans to strike a deal (possibly without the US or Britain knowing it) with the Soviets in the middle of the war.
Then comes a public declaration from the German side that all Allied forces should cross the Rhine and that the conflict is over. A ceasefire is arranged and West Germany turns Red.
Do you think any politician (other than Reagan probably) in the US would accept being the one who started firing nukes in the middle of an arranged ceasefire?

 

[CalBear]

Any attempt to put anything beyond some Spetsnaz teams from a sub into North America would be an utter disaster (even the sub insertion would be questionable, with SOSUS and SURTAS in operation by that time). The U.S. and Canada maintained significant air defenses that were designed to stop BOMBERS, any attempt to launch an airborne assult would be bloody & brief.

BTW: The best way to ensure that the U.S. would go all the way (including nukes) would be an attempt to assault the CONUS. That tells the Americans that this is a fight for survival. It has historically been a very bad thing to engage the U.S. in a fight for survival.

As far the fight in Europe - Without WMD's the Red Army gets crushed trying the Fulda Gap. The NATO force that destroyed Iraq in 1991 with a fraction of the forces present in Europe in '89, does the same, albeit with considerably higher losses, to the Red Army.

Almost certainly the Warsaw Pact forces, especially the Polish, Czech, and Hungarian units (which just happen to control the Soviet lines of communication) turn on the Soviets at first opprotunity, especially if the initial offensive bogged down.

By 1989 the Red Army couldn't handle the Chechens, much less NATO. The force, like the U.S. Army in '74-'75, but far worse, was hollow; with the additional problems of no money to maintain equipment or to train and extreme corruption at the senior NCO and officer levels. The Red Army would have been lucky to have two motor-rifle divisions worth of armor be able to meet the bell.

 

[Yuhi33]

what if like WiC, China, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, and Laos join the USSR by signing a pact, and agree to economic and trade values with eachother, thus NATO would have harder time fighting 2 fronts in Asia and Europe, and WWIII might seem more likely??

 

[Bill Cameron]

We also need to remember the documents the fall of the Warsaw Pact revealed to the world; the USSR and Pact planned on going nuclear, biological, and chemical from the very beginning of any NATO/Pact conflict.

It won't be the case of either side "resorting" tactical nukes for whatever reason or the West German government having time to surrender to avoid being slagged, the USSR and Pact were going to be using nukes from the beginning, along with chemicals and biologics.

It's going to be a horror show as soon as the balloon goes up.


Bill

 

[statichaos]

Yeah. It's a world goes "boom" scenario, I'm afraid.

 

[Mako_Leader]

As far the fight in Europe - Without WMD's the Red Army gets crushed trying the Fulda Gap. The NATO force that destroyed Iraq in 1991 with a fraction of the forces present in Europe in '89, does the same, albeit with considerably higher losses, to the Red Army.

Exactly right. The US Army parks a couple of M1's on top of the Fulda Gap and starts racking up huge kills on T-80's and BMP's at double their range.

When the US had to abandon an M1 in Iraq back in 91, they had to place demo charges inside it to destroy it becuase the other M1's in the platoon couldn't kill it.