World War III Question
- Thread starter crnagora99
- Start date
MacCaulay
Banned
I corrected the title.
I agree with you. You beat me to pitching that one. If anyone can find that book, it's by Steven Zaloga, who's a Cold War armour expert and probably the best person I could think of to write a book on the subject. He was really just using the pitch as a reason to start the war and set up different scenarios that show how Soviet battlefield tactics work, and it's a pretty amazing book for that.
Cook
Banned
Since Warsaw Pact battle plans for Europe all employed nuclear weapons it’s hard to see how any operational plan would have held together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine
It’s extremely hard to see how any limit in nuclear weapons use would be maintained once the first warhead has been detonated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_to_the_River_Rhine
It’s extremely hard to see how any limit in nuclear weapons use would be maintained once the first warhead has been detonated.
MacCaulay
Banned
The simple answer is that in a chaotic situation like that in Red Thrust, there wouldn't have been nuclear weapons. They wouldn't have used them to block off West Germany, as that was a perceived strategic goal that they believed could be achieved with conventional forces.
Cook
Banned
All the Warsaw Pact Battle Plans that have been declassified since the end of the Cold War anticipate a First strike by NATO and are designed around destroying the NATO threat as quickly as possible. They didn’t see the endgame as a win, they say it as surviving.
It’s impossible to imagine a scenario where someone would soberly consider the result of attacking across the Fulda Gap as being better then holding back and negotiating.
Which leaves accidental war from misunderstand or erroneous information. Hence the shock in the West after it was discovered that “Able Archer” had nearly resulted in an accidental war.
It’s impossible to imagine a scenario where someone would soberly consider the result of attacking across the Fulda Gap as being better then holding back and negotiating.
Which leaves accidental war from misunderstand or erroneous information. Hence the shock in the West after it was discovered that “Able Archer” had nearly resulted in an accidental war.
WW3 would have been the greatest human disaster in history.
I presume people are talking about the most likely cause of it.
I think Cuba is the biggest danger. A President Nixon or Johnson takes military advice and invades. Russian, or possibly Cuban troops, use the tactical nukes-
I presume people are talking about the most likely cause of it.
I think Cuba is the biggest danger. A President Nixon or Johnson takes military advice and invades. Russian, or possibly Cuban troops, use the tactical nukes-
There were lots of potential 'flashpoints' during the Cold War that would have sparked conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. If Yugoslavia had descended into self-destruct sometime during the 1980s after the death of Tito, then there would have been a good chance of that being the reason for conflict. Also, the Iran - Iraq war could have caused direct conflict but luckily, it was a war where East and West fought a war by proxy; much like a lot of the African wars of the 60s, 70s and 80s.
On a documentary (I think a BBC one, the name escapes me) a short time after the USSR ceased to exist, an American General admitted at any war fought against the Soviets in Europe would have been initially defensive with no real objective to hold onto West Germany . In the event of a Soviet attack he fully expected West Germany to be overrun very quickly and NATO pushed back as far as France before they could regroup and counter-attack.For NATO, the objective was not to defend West Germany as such, but to gradually give ground to a numerically superior Soviet force until in a position to counter-attack. The sheer weight of numbers of Soviet conventional forces would have been overwhelming and NATO Generals were very concerned about this. In the same documentary it was estimated that the RAF would lose up to 41% of it's effective force within the first 7 days of a conventional war. So, losses, for the allies would be catastrophic.
Despite the losses, the Allies, had more than enough in their arsenal to counter-attack against the Soviets. The USA, UK and France all had modern state of the art weaponry as we all know, so, a counter-attack would've come. Thing is for the Soviets, a quick victory would have been paramount. If the war dragged on, or it went badly, regime change in the USSR may have occurred, perhaps through a coup. The Soviet Union was not as stable as the Politburo tried to make out and if the war went badly, I could see some sort of 'palace revolutions' happening with the corridors of power in Moscow.
I think the nuclear option would have been used but it would only have been a 'limited nuclear war' perhaps even just one exchange. I think the Soviets may have used a single strike against a European city as a warning, not capital city, somewhere like Manchester or Lyon. either to shake the NATO alliance or if any allied counter-attack had started to produce dividends on the ground. Again, there would be a NATO nuclear counter-attack, and this would shake the Warsaw Pact.
Overall, I couldn't see the USSR surviving as a state unless they achieved a quick victory or if NATO decided to sue for peace. The longer the war went on, the less chance there would be of a Soviet victory, the more unstable the USSR would have become, and for that matter the Warsaw Pact alliance. As the end of the Cold War showed, the USSR was highly unstable, and was racked with internal divisions created by the war in Afganistan, failed political reforms a stagnant economy, not only amongst Warsaw Pact members but also with USSR itself. I feel these divisions would've played their part.
On a documentary (I think a BBC one, the name escapes me) a short time after the USSR ceased to exist, an American General admitted at any war fought against the Soviets in Europe would have been initially defensive with no real objective to hold onto West Germany . In the event of a Soviet attack he fully expected West Germany to be overrun very quickly and NATO pushed back as far as France before they could regroup and counter-attack.For NATO, the objective was not to defend West Germany as such, but to gradually give ground to a numerically superior Soviet force until in a position to counter-attack. The sheer weight of numbers of Soviet conventional forces would have been overwhelming and NATO Generals were very concerned about this. In the same documentary it was estimated that the RAF would lose up to 41% of it's effective force within the first 7 days of a conventional war. So, losses, for the allies would be catastrophic.
Despite the losses, the Allies, had more than enough in their arsenal to counter-attack against the Soviets. The USA, UK and France all had modern state of the art weaponry as we all know, so, a counter-attack would've come. Thing is for the Soviets, a quick victory would have been paramount. If the war dragged on, or it went badly, regime change in the USSR may have occurred, perhaps through a coup. The Soviet Union was not as stable as the Politburo tried to make out and if the war went badly, I could see some sort of 'palace revolutions' happening with the corridors of power in Moscow.
I think the nuclear option would have been used but it would only have been a 'limited nuclear war' perhaps even just one exchange. I think the Soviets may have used a single strike against a European city as a warning, not capital city, somewhere like Manchester or Lyon. either to shake the NATO alliance or if any allied counter-attack had started to produce dividends on the ground. Again, there would be a NATO nuclear counter-attack, and this would shake the Warsaw Pact.
Overall, I couldn't see the USSR surviving as a state unless they achieved a quick victory or if NATO decided to sue for peace. The longer the war went on, the less chance there would be of a Soviet victory, the more unstable the USSR would have become, and for that matter the Warsaw Pact alliance. As the end of the Cold War showed, the USSR was highly unstable, and was racked with internal divisions created by the war in Afganistan, failed political reforms a stagnant economy, not only amongst Warsaw Pact members but also with USSR itself. I feel these divisions would've played their part.
Last edited:
Like Hackett's "The Third World War"?
Thing is, in that one, they were lucky the Warsaw Pact revolted within a day or two of Minsk being nuked in return for Birmingham, or else things could have spiraled out of control.
The problem with limited exchanges is that whoever's on the losing end is going to escalate, plus the line between counterforce and countervalue is rather dicey--nuking NATO HQ means nuking Brussels, which would likely provoke a retaliatory attack on, say, Minsk, and things go from there.
I agree, someone would be crazy enough to use them, even in a limited way.
Yes it was Hackett that developed a storyline for limited nuclear war in his 'history' of the Third World War. I agree with the theory that any use of nuclear weapons would risk a mass retaliation. Limited nuclear war could never be certain, it could escalate at any time into to a full scale nuclear exchange. I think targets would have to be chosen carefully, not a capital city like London (because for one, it'd hit my flat),Paris or Moscow, somewhere with less political fall-out. In the event of an Allied strike against a Soviet city, the interesting thing would be to watch the political reaction of the Soviet allies. While I fel perhaps Bulgaria and Hungary may hold together with the USSR; Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic States and especially Romania were not the most reliable of Soviet allies and their reaction would be interesting. Romania's Ceausescu although a tyrant, challenged the authority of the USSR and forged links with Western Europe and the USA. So, he for example wasn't exactly one of the USSR's most stoical of allies. With this in mind a Warsaw Pact collapse could happen in the event of a nuclear strike......but it would be risky to rely upon it.
Last edited:
Not necessarily even crazy, but calculating.
Let's say NATO got even more decayed during its nadir in the 1970s and the Soviets decided they needed to take out West Germany for whatever reason (a "short victorious war" to distract the people, perhaps, using the old hatred of Germany). They might think a quick victory could be won and then the USSR could force NATO to accept this.
(Bonus points if states with a lot of "Eurocommunists" can be made to stay out. In "The Third World War," Italy does so for this reason.)
Or perhaps they go for the Middle East while not attacking in Europe. This could be used to split the Alliance--the ME states are not in Europe and the USSR is not attacking Europe. The threat is in the long term (USSR basically Finlandizing everyone else through control of even more of the world's oil), not immediate.
Or even South Africa, on the grounds of helping end colonialism for good. They could gamble on left-wingers in general and American blacks protesting any attempt to "save apartheid," the geopolitical implications be damned.
The Soviets don't need to nuke Manchester, Lyon or any other European city.
They could just launch an IRBM fly into the North Sea a couple of dozen of kms offshore to get their message through.
That should be a good warning to Benelux and W. Germany.
The whole point however is simple:
If the Soviets start an all out conventional attack against NATO with an invasion of W. Germany and succeed in pushing through the NATO defenses, forcing the NATO armies to give ground, then NATO will use tactical nukes to stop the Soviets.
This was standard NATO doctrine and very probable, especially if the Soviets used chemical weapons during the initial assault (something which is also quite probable and well documented in their operational plans).
Once NATO and the Soviets start exchanging tactical nukes, the road to strategic nukes is paved.
This is the problem with the Soviets, NATO and nukes.
NATO did have substantial conventional forces stationed in W. Germany to prevent a Soviet advance through W. Germany. If NATO conventional forces failed in that task, tactical nukes would be used. This is why short range ballistic missiles like Honest John (USA) or Hades (France) were developed, considerable amounts of free fall nuclear bombs for tactical aircraft were available and nuclear tipped artillery shells were produced.
They could just launch an IRBM fly into the North Sea a couple of dozen of kms offshore to get their message through.
That should be a good warning to Benelux and W. Germany.
The whole point however is simple:
If the Soviets start an all out conventional attack against NATO with an invasion of W. Germany and succeed in pushing through the NATO defenses, forcing the NATO armies to give ground, then NATO will use tactical nukes to stop the Soviets.
This was standard NATO doctrine and very probable, especially if the Soviets used chemical weapons during the initial assault (something which is also quite probable and well documented in their operational plans).
Once NATO and the Soviets start exchanging tactical nukes, the road to strategic nukes is paved.
This is the problem with the Soviets, NATO and nukes.
NATO did have substantial conventional forces stationed in W. Germany to prevent a Soviet advance through W. Germany. If NATO conventional forces failed in that task, tactical nukes would be used. This is why short range ballistic missiles like Honest John (USA) or Hades (France) were developed, considerable amounts of free fall nuclear bombs for tactical aircraft were available and nuclear tipped artillery shells were produced.
That was the plan however in war things don't go as planned. Remember NATO is a democratic alliance. How might the West Germans feel about turning their country into a nuclear battlefield, or the U.S. about risking its own cities and forces for nuclear retaliation? It's possible that the Germans might even seek a sepreate peace in that situation, after all better red THEN DEAD.
Plus think from the Soviet perspective. Do they want to rule a nuclear wasteland?
I don't think an incident can spark WWIII. After all, the cold war saw plenty of incidents and none sparked more then heated retoric. Take KAL007. 269 people killed, including 62 Americans, for no good reason. In the height of the cold war.
That's a lot more then all the potential border guard going postal senarios combined and it still didn't turn into something more.
Both sides had to much political control over their armed forces so it have to be something happening on an direct order.
That's a lot more then all the potential border guard going postal senarios combined and it still didn't turn into something more.
Both sides had to much political control over their armed forces so it have to be something happening on an direct order.
J.D.Ward
Donor
Czechoslovakia 1968.
What happens if Dubcek's government call for US/NATO support as the Russian tanks move in? It's a high-stakes game for the Czechs, but they may think they have nothing to lose - the "Liberty or Death" approach.
The USA can either do nothing and look very weak, (in which case Brezhnev may start thinking about West Germany as the next target) or provide military support for the Czech government.
What happens?
What happens if Dubcek's government call for US/NATO support as the Russian tanks move in? It's a high-stakes game for the Czechs, but they may think they have nothing to lose - the "Liberty or Death" approach.
The USA can either do nothing and look very weak, (in which case Brezhnev may start thinking about West Germany as the next target) or provide military support for the Czech government.
What happens?
The West did not intervene in Hungary in 1956, when the Soviets were much weaker, so I doubt it would intervene in CZ in 1968.
Cook
Banned
How exactly does one “limit” a war between nuclear armed nations?
Especially when both nations have been anticipating a nuclear war for years?
For a Soviet Officer World War Two began with a surprise attack from a friendly power that had signed a treaty with the Soviet Union. That war killed 20 million of his countrymen and all but destroyed his nation. That was a limited and conventional war.
The records of events during the Cuban Missile Crisis and interviews of surviving military personnel reveal that the Soviet commanders in Cuba had been given authority to use battlefield nuclear weapons in the event of an American Invasion. And that was to defend an island half way around the world that had only been Socialist for a few years and that had no value at all for the Soviet Union except as a base for launching missiles from in the event of a war with America. So you can be very sure that Soviet front line commanders would receive authority to use battlefield nuclear weapons the moment war broke out in Europe at any time.
All Warsaw battle plans released by official sources so far shows that they expected to be hit by surprise NATO nuclear attack. Western commanders likewise expected a surprise attack.
Neither side were plotting to attack the other or looking for an opportunity to do so simply because there would be nothing to gain and everything to lose. Can anyone seriously contemplate an attack on the Soviet Union when they had upwards of 8000 warheads available?
And as to the “Tactical” use of a nuclear weapon in a NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict. Europe is very crowded. And the damage done by even a single Battlefield weapon would be enormous.
Killing a hundred thousand people instantly may be entertaining to armchair generals but it isn’t something that appeals to the real kind.
That is why both sides were so cautious about direct confrontation with the other.
Especially when both nations have been anticipating a nuclear war for years?
For a Soviet Officer World War Two began with a surprise attack from a friendly power that had signed a treaty with the Soviet Union. That war killed 20 million of his countrymen and all but destroyed his nation. That was a limited and conventional war.
The records of events during the Cuban Missile Crisis and interviews of surviving military personnel reveal that the Soviet commanders in Cuba had been given authority to use battlefield nuclear weapons in the event of an American Invasion. And that was to defend an island half way around the world that had only been Socialist for a few years and that had no value at all for the Soviet Union except as a base for launching missiles from in the event of a war with America. So you can be very sure that Soviet front line commanders would receive authority to use battlefield nuclear weapons the moment war broke out in Europe at any time.
All Warsaw battle plans released by official sources so far shows that they expected to be hit by surprise NATO nuclear attack. Western commanders likewise expected a surprise attack.
Neither side were plotting to attack the other or looking for an opportunity to do so simply because there would be nothing to gain and everything to lose. Can anyone seriously contemplate an attack on the Soviet Union when they had upwards of 8000 warheads available?
And as to the “Tactical” use of a nuclear weapon in a NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict. Europe is very crowded. And the damage done by even a single Battlefield weapon would be enormous.
Killing a hundred thousand people instantly may be entertaining to armchair generals but it isn’t something that appeals to the real kind.
That is why both sides were so cautious about direct confrontation with the other.
I'am just read this book. It very poorly written and this scenarios of "soviet battle tactics" are awful. Even Clancy's works are better and Clancy don't pretend to be analyst.
I studied far more complex and realistic tactical situations at military chair in civilian university. And I'am just a simple reservist, junior leutenant for some "throw away" thrid wave motor rifles.
There was even a small number of nuclear "LANDMINES" laid out in Western Germany.
Just in case.
---
Each side had diplomatic/strategic plans to avoid nuclear war, but also to wage it. Reading about such plans, even in a short wikipedia form is quite chilling and gives me the idea that there were a few "Dr Strangelove"-like guys running around at the time.
---
My personal feeling, having grown up in the 80s, is that things were a bit closer to war than we tend to comfortably think now. Tank colummns regularly rattled past my elementary school (where we discussed nuclear war in second grade!) and sunshine meant low-level-training flights. Only afterwards I realized that these things have been part of our everyday lifes and are gone now.
On several occasions, my mother told me to come home directly if I hear anything about war being imminent. I haven't had any such conversations with my daughter yet.