Maybe hold some parts of ussr as a bargaining chip like crimea and or Leningrad
WW3 in the 70s?
- Thread starter Joseph Weaver
- Start date
No, its the easiest place to defend from naval excursion for the soviets (massive logistical advantage as well as an insane ASHM missile advantage). In general don't expect any results in the baltics except maybe soviets landings against sweden.
Baaaaad idea. As I understand it, Soviet doctrine was essentially if NATO forces invade the USSR proper, it's right to full strategic launch regardless of what's been used on the tactical/theater level. France supposedly had a similar policy as well, their redline being Warsaw Pact troops crossing the Rhine.
China might be pro-American or neutral, but I doubt they would be "in the Soviet corner". China sided against the USSR in Afghanistan, for example, and took their boycott of the 1980 Olympics even further than a lot of NATO countries did.
Deleted member 2186
Why do World Wars always start, due something stupid like killing the heir ore invading a country.
But this particular war has to have a cause...and a different cause might lead to different alliances...
This is one of the rare cases where it doesn't really matter. Unless otherwise specified, you can assume that when someone mentions WW3 during the Cold War era it's about a conflict between US/NATO and USSR/Warsawpact with actions in Europe and the Atlantic.
Basically this will almost always escalate into nukes being fired and consequent destruction of almost all of Europe and most parts of the US and USSR.
Deleted member 2186
Like a Soviet officer seeing a missile attack on his screen where there is none.
I once read an annotaion in a book, that Breznev , after he heard of the resignation of Willy Brandt, wanted an intervention in West Germany. No further explanation, why and how.. But some also say, the Soviets interpreted Watergate as a coup against Nixon, because he was to detente-friendly. Add some incident on the intergerman border and it may be trigger the traumatic fear of the Politburo of a Barbarossa 2.
After a preparation time of 8-10 days the tanks are rolling in autum 1974.
What could NATO do?a
The Bundeswehr seemed to be in rather good shape at this time, at least after the opinion of Hackett, Bildswell AND the Soviets. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/1980-08-25.pdf
Dutch, Belgians and Brits seems to look not so good at this time. And the US have all this post-Vietnam issues.
So I assume NORTHAG collapse after 2-3 days. There is at first rather symbolic nuclear reaction of NATO; answered by a massive soviet strrike in Central Europe.
After that ...........??
How bad the AshM threat ? In mid 70s hardly any corvettes are operational and only osa boats ( 60 or so in combined black and Baltic) plus about 10 juliett class boats
Or are my numbers totally inaccurate?
Maybe you can add the tu16 of AVMF but USN fighters can deal with them
Give yourself some credit. I'm sure if anyone could, you could've started a WW3 with a really a spectacular ending.
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
I once wrote about a WW3 that involved precisely one casualty, a general who sprained his wrist by lifting a glass with too much whisky in it.
The sad part is that everything that happened in the story was based on real life events.
Even the snowboarding snowmen.
Ok, the Yom Kippur War breaks out and the U.S. isn't able to resupply the Israelis quickly enough. They resort to nukes.
Debateable, considering the Badger fleet was equipped with Kingfish missiles by 1975 and those are almost as nasty as Kitchens. And has some Kitchen-armed Blinders as well.
I’m not betting on Phantoms being able to intercept the Badgers before they launch, nor their missiles.
I think the pertinent point is “when in the 70’s?” - if you’re talking late 70s, the F14 is in play (squadron service in ‘74-‘75.
The point is applicable to the wider thread. Early 70s is still a somewhat 60s mindset (though with the cynicism of post-Vietnam), but hit the late 70s and there’s a healthier reticence to going nuclear as the scale of proliferation and the theory of Nuclear Winter is taken more seriously.
Economics make an impact too - the 70s was a bit chaotic. You had the 73 and 79 oil panics, the UK enjoying the Three Day Week and endless strike action. The US isn’t much better. There’s not the money to burn on replacing kit at a whim as there once was.
Oh, and it also affects me - early 70s and I’d be an oblivious toddler in a city in the East Midlands, so I suspect I’d be reduced to free-floating particles shortly after the balloon goes up.
Because those Badgers are launching missiles from some pretty gnarly standoff ranges.
And in any case, you still haven't answered the question of what penetrating into the Baltic/Black seas is supposed to accomplish.
I'll just offer an alternative thought.
Everyone seems confident the outcome of any Warsaw Pact attack on NATO in central Europe would be escalation to a nuclear exchange.
To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, let's assume it doesn't - in 1977 you would have Jimmy Carter and James Callaghan in power in Washington and London. I just wonder if one or both might choose an option other than a nuclear escalation. If France stays out of any conflict and the Russians advance to the Rhine and stop there, what then?
Could we see the leaders of NATO seeking terms from Moscow which would doubtless mean the end of West Germany and a recognition of Soviet dominance in Europe while maintaining both France and Italy as independent states but both neutral and outside NATO which would in effect be dissolved?
Everyone seems confident the outcome of any Warsaw Pact attack on NATO in central Europe would be escalation to a nuclear exchange.
To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, let's assume it doesn't - in 1977 you would have Jimmy Carter and James Callaghan in power in Washington and London. I just wonder if one or both might choose an option other than a nuclear escalation. If France stays out of any conflict and the Russians advance to the Rhine and stop there, what then?
Could we see the leaders of NATO seeking terms from Moscow which would doubtless mean the end of West Germany and a recognition of Soviet dominance in Europe while maintaining both France and Italy as independent states but both neutral and outside NATO which would in effect be dissolved?
What if Tito's death provokes Serbia, fifteen years early? The Croats had had a half hearted gurrliea movement in the 70's, perhaps Cardinal Woltya, not getting the white hat, could serve as a Midginsty, apologies for the bad spelling figure here. If Muzorewa is in power in Zimbabwe he could lead the pro western part of Africa, since no one will listen to Botha.