WW3 at Different Points in the Cold War

WW3 is an interesting scenario, both as a retroactively conceived war that could have occurred between the US and USSR, and as a future plausible war. However, this deals with WW3 scenarios at different points in history and under different US Presidents during the Cold War.

So the following is the list of dates and US leaders for each scenario:


  • Dwight Eisenhow-1950's
  • John F. Kennedy-Early 1960's
  • Lyndon Johnson-Late 1960's
  • Richard Nixon-1970's
  • Gerald Ford-Mid 1970's
  • Jimmy Carter-Late 1970's
  • Ronald Reagan-1980's
How would a Third World War go under each of these leaders and at each of these points in history (and, if you want to answer this as well, how could one start at each of these points)?
 
With Ronald Reagan it depends on the year, if its 1981 ie something sparked off by the polish problems, thanks to the fact that the defence buildup has not even started, and the post vietnam probs of the US armed forces probably a nuclear warning shot very soon, if later say 1986/1987 then a conflict like tom clancys book red storm rising.

With anything earlier, i have read a book by norman friedman (I think thats the name), which mentions the fact that robert mcnamara (kennedeys sec def) was suprised to find out that in 1961 even after eisenhowers new look policy of massive retaliation NATOs covential forces had a very good chance of defeating a warpac attack.

I have never brought into nuclear ammergaddon, i just dont think any one on any side would have pressed the button, maybe just maybe a mistake like able archer in 83 or a warning shot but never intentionalydestroying themselves. But then again i believe in the better side of humanity:)
 
Anything later than mid to late '60es ends in Armageddon. Both sides had use of tactical nuclear weapons as a centerpiece and crucial part of their doctrines. They talked a lot of different stuff but reality was there. At best you might have couple of days during which tactical exchanges ripple from the BRD and DDR border going ever further to west and to east, and once losses to either of armies become to great to remain a fighting force slow escalation to strategic strikes starts. And that ends with most of northern hemisphere burnt to cinder.

Now let me repeat. Both sides would have used tactical nukes since day one or at least very soon. Both sides would have used nukes against enemy ships and subs, attacks on SSBNs and CVNs of any kinds might themselves cause imediate nuclear escalation as those were important parts of strategic forces of either blocks.
 
I have never brought into nuclear ammergaddon, i just dont think any one on any side would have pressed the button, maybe just maybe a mistake like able archer in 83 or a warning shot but never intentionalydestroying themselves. But then again i believe in the better side of humanity:)

I would have to agree with you here. Although I am not in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmanent and I think that in a world where nations do have nuclear weapons, it is best to also have them, I do feel that the notion of nuclear deterrence is a little over-emphasised.

Below is an excerpt from a Wikipedia article (with appropriate citations, etc) on Enoch Powell regarding his view on nuclear deterrence. BTW, I don't agree with much of what Powell believed in, and I detest his hardline views on race and Northern Ireland, but on this issue he does make a lot of sense:

In the debate on the address shortly after the general election of 1983, Powell picked up on Thatcher's willingness, when asked, to use nuclear weapons in the "last resort". Powell gave a scenario of what he though the last resort would be, namely that the Soviet Union would be ready to invade Britain and had used a nuclear weapon on somewhere such as Rockall to demonstrate their willingness to use it:
"What would the United Kingdom do? Would it discharge Polaris, Trident or whatever against the main centres of population of the Continent of Europe or in European Russia? If so, what would be the consequence? The consequence would not be that we should survive, that we should repel our antagonist – nor would it be that we should escape defeat. The consequence would be that we would make certain, as far as is humanly possible, the virtual destruction and elimination of the hope of the future in these islands.... I would much sooner that the power to use it was not in the hands of any individual in this country at all".[91]
Powell went on to say that if the Soviet invasion had already begun and Britain deployed a retaliatory strike the results would be the same: "We should be condemning, not merely to death, but as near as may be the non-existence of our population". To Powell an invasion would take place with or without Britain's nuclear weapons and therefore there was no point in retaining it. He said that after years of consideration he had come to the conclusion that there was no "rational grounds on which the deformation of our defence preparations in the United Kingdom by our determination to maintain a current independent nuclear deterrent can be justified".[92]
 
I think Powell was dead wrong. Just turn the point of view around and consider if the USSR could risk losing perhaps 33% of its population and industry in exchange for the UK, leaving the USA untouched.

They could never be sure that the UK would leave its weapons unused, and indeed I cannot for one second concieve of such a decision by the UK. The weapons would have been used.

No way Jose. Better pick on Norway or Iran.
 
I think Powell was dead wrong. Just turn the point of view around and consider if the USSR could risk losing perhaps 33% of its population and industry in exchange for the UK, leaving the USA untouched.

Nah, they weren't that crazy. One third of population and infrastructure is lower end of MAD, as it really doesn't take much more than that to collapse a society.

But! After initial tactical exchanges across the battlefields nuking of airfields and weapon depots would start, and that would likely be first nukes to fall on British soil.
 
  • Dwight Eisenhower-1950's - Soviet Victory: Weight of Numbers, limited Nuclear Weapons, down to pure number crunching. NATO Doctrine at the time called for an immediate withdrawal to the Alps, with the main body of NATO troops going to the Pyrenees.
  • John F. Kennedy-Early 1960's - Soviet Victory: Weight of numbers still. First proper ICBM's are still to be developed Withdrawal plans remain the same at this point with emphasis on defending the UK along with the line to be established at the Pyrenees and the Alps.
  • Lyndon Johnson-Late 1960's - Soviet Victory: See above, but add in the first long-range nuclear missiles developed by the USA and the Soviets, no ICBM's yet, most nukes still on bombers until the mid-late 70's. US involvement in 'Nam is presently ramping up at this point diverting nearly 500,000 US troops from immediate deployment to the conflict that could erupt in Europe.
  • Richard Nixon-1970's - More costly Soviet Victory: At this point units are starting to be cycled in and out of 'Nam meaning US combat veterans are seeing European soil, makes a conventional fight that bit harder for the Reds.
  • Gerald Ford-Mid 1970's - Same as above.
  • Jimmy Carter-Late 1970's - Easier Soviet Victory: I think it's safe to say that once the Reds broke through the USA was likely to capitulate and surrender under Carter before the nukes started flying than under any other President in the History of the Cold War.
  • Ronald Reagan-1980's - More combat veterans now moving into Officer classes, making the USA's army a bit tougher and more competent with career soldiers. By 1982 there's a battle hardened Royal Navy and Royal Marines of some 25,000 making the British military contingent a bit tougher also.

    By 1984/85 NATO Victory is a certainty on a conventional level but West Germany is still very likely to fall until 1987. The Arms buildup wasn't just military, it was also an economic war that was easily won by the more flexible new capitalism that had evolved under Thatcher/Reagan.
 
  • Dwight Eisenhower-1950's - Soviet Victory: Weight of Numbers, limited Nuclear Weapons, down to pure number crunching. NATO Doctrine at the time called for an immediate withdrawal to the Alps, with the main body of NATO troops going to the Pyrenees.
For Truman years, maybe, but by the time Eisenhower was elected the NATO countries had rearmed and were spending serious money on defense. By this time US nuclear superiority was already established. So, by ca. 1953 and afterwards it's always a NATO victory if the war stays conventional, until ca. 1968 NATO victory even if the war turns nuclear and afterwards it's difficult to determine who won. Soviet overwhelming conventional superiority was a cold war myth exploded many times.
 
[/list]
For Truman years, maybe, but by the time Eisenhower was elected the NATO countries had rearmed and were spending serious money on defense. By this time US nuclear superiority was already established. So, by ca. 1953 and afterwards it's always a NATO victory if the war stays conventional, until ca. 1968 NATO victory even if the war turns nuclear and afterwards it's difficult to determine who won. Soviet overwhelming conventional superiority was a cold war myth exploded many times.

Wrong. Soviet technologies remained advanced beyond ours on the ground for quite a few years yet. The Patton was not on par with the Soviet equivalent of the T-55 which had a lower hull [thus harder to hit] and their missile technology was years ahead of ours until the 1970's, arguably we still lag behind them even today. Nuclear weapons had to be delivered by plane until the late 70's and the USA didn't have as many nuclear-capable bombers as the Soviets did, they had more men, more machinery, more weaponry. An army of 10 million or more would be sweeping down onto Europe where the numbers were a lot less.
 
Wrong. Soviet technologies remained advanced beyond ours on the ground for quite a few years yet. The Patton was not on par with the Soviet equivalent of the T-55 which had a lower hull [thus harder to hit] and their missile technology was years ahead of ours until the 1970's, arguably we still lag behind them even today. Nuclear weapons had to be delivered by plane until the late 70's and the USA didn't have as many nuclear-capable bombers as the Soviets did, they had more men, more machinery, more weaponry. An army of 10 million or more would be sweeping down onto Europe where the numbers were a lot less.

That's why it was NATO, not USA, defending the Western Europe. Centurions, for example, proved to be perfectly capable of dealing with T-55's. As for missiles, the only field Soviet Union was really ahead of the West was that of supersonic ASM's.

By ca. 1953 the Korean War had been going on for two and a half years. This had spurred a massive rearmament effort in Western Europe, many fruits of which were, surely, yet to arrive.
 
Nuclear weapons had to be delivered by plane until the late 70's and the USA didn't have as many nuclear-capable bombers as the Soviets did,

Wow, that is ... not even wrong. USA had MRBMs and IRBMs deployed in numbers by 1960. and had a huge numeric advantage in ICBM numbers since the very start. Also, USA had nearly 1,500 nuclear strategic bombers compared to Soviet hundred or two.
 
I believe the USA had nuclear superiority in the 50's and very early 60's(not during the Cuban missile crisis). I think the USA could win* a nuclear war, but the later it gets, the worse it turns out for the USA.

*Insofar as anyone can win a nuclear war....
 
  • Jimmy Carter-Late 1970's - Easier Soviet Victory: I think it's safe to say that once the Reds broke through the USA was likely to capitulate and surrender under Carter before the nukes started flying than under any other President in the History of the Cold War.

I think that's a biased idea. Carter may want to avoid nuclear war, but only as much as anyone else and I doubt he'll capitulate like a sissy.
 
I think that's a biased idea. Carter may want to avoid nuclear war, but only as much as anyone else and I doubt he'll capitulate like a sissy.

I agree. Too often we look at Carter & see a bleeding heart Liberal. However, it's important to remember that he was a Navy Veteran with experience in Nuclear (missile??) subs & probably understood - as much as anyone could - the effects of nuclear war.

Bobindelaware
 
Oh you are talking about spineless coward Carter that managed the plot to draw Soviets into Afganistan (Kissinger and Brzezinski pretty managed openly admitted in '90es it was a triumph of USA covert diplomacy). And the one that went for the crazy Rambo raid to liberate hostages from Tehran.

I will never understand why is he hated that much. He told you gas isnt free and you should save and be economic? The horror!:eek:
 
I think Powell was dead wrong. Just turn the point of view around and consider if the USSR could risk losing perhaps 33% of its population and industry in exchange for the UK, leaving the USA untouched.

They could never be sure that the UK would leave its weapons unused, and indeed I cannot for one second concieve of such a decision by the UK. The weapons would have been used.

No way Jose. Better pick on Norway or Iran.

I agree with you that when faced with an enemy with nuclear weapons it is better to have your own that not, as an extra form of protection. However, as we all know, the effectiveness of nuclear weapons is more based on a shared view/illusion that both sides are 100% willing to destroy the entire world, including their own people rather than back down.

Whilst I am cyncial of politicians, as we all should be, I don't believe that either the American or Soviet leaderships were so evil as to want to destroy the whole world, just because of stubborness, in a confrontation situation.

Take the example Powell gave: If the UK was about to be invaded by the Soviet Union and it launched its nuclear weapons against the Soviets, what would happen? The UK would be obliterated; there would 0% chance of recovery. But, if as I assume the argument went, the UK refrained from non-conventional warfare and instead faught Soviet invasion by conventional means there would be at least some chance of success.

Now which one of the above scenarios offers more hope for the British people? I think the latter.

Of course as I said it is better to have nuclear weapons than not to have them, but they are not a 100% full-proof ways to stop invasion.
 
I believe the USA had nuclear superiority in the 50's and very early 60's(not during the Cuban missile crisis). I think the USA could win* a nuclear war, but the later it gets, the worse it turns out for the USA.

*Insofar as anyone can win a nuclear war....

Actually, the U.S. had a rather large margin of superiority during the Cuban crisis even in actual weapon counts. In terms of ability to deliver weapons to the other's homeland, the Soviet Union was massively outmatched. Due to small numbers of low quality bombers and missile submarines that were effectively worthless, and relatively few ICBMs the Soviets can expect no more than a few dozen hits on the U.S. at most in exchange for 1000+ hits on the Soviet Union. That was the whole point behind putting the IRBMs in Cuba; to partially make up the deficit in long range weapons by putting short range weapons close to the U.S. You don't get real MAD until the 70s.

During the 50s, if there was a nuclear war, the U.S. had a pretty good shot of not taking a single hit on U.S. soil. And while the few hundred weapons the U.S. could deliver could not actually destroy the Soviet Union, they could come close enough to destroy its ability to wage war.
 
Heres the end result assuming the realistic (IE: war goes nuclear) scenario:

50's: Clear NATO victory. Germany, and probably France, will suffer some nuclear hits. The US will recieve one hit at the most. Warsaw Pact will be annihilated.

Early 60's: Semi-Phyrric NATO victory. Europe will take it hard, Germany probably won't exist anymore, and the US will recieve a minimum of 30 hits. Enough to wreck their economy and kill tens of millions but not enough to cause severe mid and long-term damage to these nations (other then Germany). The Warsaw Pact is annihilated.

Late 60's: Very phyrric NATO victory. By this point the USSR's deliverable nuclear warhead production was beginning to pick-up off the ground and they were managing to perfect the miniaturization and production processes to produce long-range missiles in large numbers. Most of Europe will cease to be nations and the US will probably emerge initially intact (albeit under martial law), but is going to suffer serious medium and long-term problems. Warsaw Pact still gets eviscerated.

1970's: Mutual destruction of northern hemisphere civilization.

1980's: Mutual destruction of northern hemisphere civilization. Southern hemisphere nations will be struck regardless of alignment, but will survive intact.

A bit of explanation for that last statement. The USSR by the early and mid 80's had so many nuclear warheads (35,000 deliverable at the peak) that the level of overkill targetting NATO and the Pacific countries was getting rediculous even in the eye's of the Soviet Union... and that's even when you include the warheads targetted on China. So the USSR decided that, in the event of nuclear war, they were going to pump warheads into any NATO-aligned or even neutral southern hemisphere powers that had the possibility for major nation status after the war. Brazil, South Africa, multiple Middle Eastern nations, and so-on will suffer nasty knock back.

In any bizzaro scenario where the ASBs make people forget completely about nuclear weapons when the war starts, here is what happens.

50's Soviet victory in Germany and possibly France. The US was rearming, indeed, but the Eisenhower was focusing more on nuclear armaments then conventional weapons (one of the reasons we had to keep upgrading the Patton until the Abrams came along). The Red Army was also at the top of its game in Operational Art and could count on at least some degree of support from China. What happens next depends on Britain and the US reaction. If they sue for peace... well, Soviet victory. If they keep fighting, the Soviets will ultimately lose, but the casualties and property destruction will not look pretty even compared to World War 2.

Early 60's: Pretty much the same as above, albeit it will be rougher for the USSR initially.

Late 60's: USSR blasts its way across Europe easily enough, with the USSR embroiled in the Vietnam quagmire. Otherwise, same as above.

70's: USSR has an even easier time. This is mainly a result of the blowback of the Vietnam War really kicking in, but once NATO gets over the shock (and, assuming, keeps fighting), its going to be a really grinding stalemate (see below).

80's(pre-1986): Grinding attritional stalemate, basically WW1 in tanks. NATO has recovered from the Vietnam blowback but firepower has accelerated to such a degree that it will really come down too who will run out of some important piece of equipment first. The key by this point is the Atlantic. If the USSR can use the subs and land-based aircraft to shut-off the pipeline of reinforcements from the US, they'll take Germany and parts of France before NATO sues for peace. If not, the NATO will probably get all the way across Poland before exhaustion sets-in. In either case, the war will probably have slightly less casualties then the whole of the Eastern Front of WW2 (IE: a minimumm of 30 million) and last roughly a two or three months.

80's(post-1986): NATO victory. The amount of firepower, even in conventional terms on either side, has not changed, but the Red Army is suffering serious issues. Partly because of blowback from Afghanistan, partly because of the economic situation, and majorly from the growing internal dissent. The Soviet training regime is beginning to fail and troop morale (particularly in ethnic minorities) is going to fall, with the desertion and tactical incompetence that entails. In other words, it's still going to be violent and bloody, but won't last nearly as long or be bloody as pre-1989.
 
Top