WWIII: Living in a post-Europe World

I found this article about a plan for a USSR invasion of Western Europe, which reminded me of what brought me to AH.com originally: World War III. The classic USSR pushes West scenario, which often ends with the end of the world. But I have a question for all upon AH.com; what if it didn't? What if it was only Europe that was flattened before the conflict either stalemated or was negotiated to a close.

There are plenty of WWIII triggers to choose from, my personal favorite being the collapse of the Soviet Union. Either way, at any point in the Cold War, the USSR unleashes 'Red Storm' rising, and assaults Western Europe. This is another link about a Soviet Invasion of the West. As in the scenario, nukes hit major NATO command centers in Belgium, Denmark, and East Germany, but spare France and Britain, as they are nuclear powers. We can extrapolate from this that a full-blown assault will not be launched against the United States. Furthermore, let us assume that any successful Soviet assault stops on the Rhine, far short of France, in order to spare nuclear assault.

Now, I'm not going to say it's impossible that this ends with global thermonuclear war, because it is actually probable. However, let us assume that rather than launching an immediate full-blown counter strike, the Western nuclear allies assess the situation and see that it is a mainly European push. The West, in an act of self-preservation, decides not to start a full-scale nuclear war. Global nuclear war could still occur during wartime due to mis-communications and accidents, but let us assume the war ends before this can happen. Now, that doesn't mean that some nuclear weapons won't fly; the NATO strategy for this scenario was to saturate the war-zone with nukes, which they will surely do. The question here is can the USSR make it to the Rhine, or will they be stalemated by NATO divisions and tactical nukes?

Either way, lets say that shortly after the war begins, it ends. Neither side wants to escalate the war for fears of armageddon, so a cease-fire is negotiated after the war stalemates in Germany. We can assume that there were some other fronts in the war, like the battle for Korea and the battle for the Atlantic, but these are mainly sideshows. The USSR has accomplished its objective insofar as no attack will be launched into the Warsaw Pact from West Germany, which is now practically uninhabitable. Radioactive fallout and nerve gas will drift across other parts of Europe. East-West relations will never, ever recover. What will the post-war world look like in this scenario? The USSR will become a pariah state, but a powerful, nuclear armed pariah state that has just won a major war...but at huge costs. What will happen in the domestic scene of the USSR-declaring victory is good, but after the war, the economy of the USSR is going to tank after the West places an embargo on them. What about in the West? NATO has just essentially failed, so what will the reactions be in France, Britain, and the USA? There could be a swing right to again take on the USSR, or there could be a swing left to avoid war forever, after everybody feared nuclear fire coming down during the war.

So? Any thoughts on what will happen during or after this scenario.
 
This is probably ASB.

The Cardinal Rule of the Cold War was MAD. By Not responding to nuclear attack with nuclear attack, the West is allowing Soviet Nuclear Strikes to go unpunished.

At best, the Western Allies would simply dump nukes over advancing columns of the Soviet Armed Forces, this is assuming that they didn't respond with their own counterstroke against Warsaw Pact targets.

This isn't stalemate, it's five days to armageddon. If the Soviets open up with Nuclear Weapons, the Western Allies will respond within the hour. There would be only a minimal advance of Soviet Forces until nuclear weapons trash their forward and command elements.

What is also possible, and perhaps the better outcome than the "Everyone nukes everything after five days" is that the Western Allies recognize that the Soviet Union has gone insane and resolves to make the first strike. This is still going to leave the West as an impoverished pile of third world warlord states, but the Soviets will lose many of the weapons on the ground and there will be millions more survivors of these attacks in the west than there would have been without making that call.

Then humanity can spend the entire 21st Century repairing and trying to rebuild everything that was lost in the span of a single hour. It isn't without its particular downside to the Russian People--having suffered the worst of the nuclear attacks, the Russians are still going to be viewed as evil incarnate for deliberately starting a nuclear war. Perhaps around 2200, there is going to be a replay of Barbarossa, with the mostly reconstructed Western States taking a holy revenge on the descendants of the morons who tried to kill them. What Hitler tried, the West will try again.

If I were sitting in Moscow, this series of events would lead be undesirable. I'd have the idiot who suggested STARTING A NUCLEAR WAR sent off to the KGB for his attempt to destroy the Soviet State. He may not be a Capitalist Spy, but you can never be too careful.
 
The Cardinal Rule of the Cold War was MAD. By Not responding to nuclear attack with nuclear attack, the West is allowing Soviet Nuclear Strikes to go unpunished.

At best, the Western Allies would simply dump nukes over advancing columns of the Soviet Armed Forces, this is assuming that they didn't respond with their own counterstroke against Warsaw Pact targets.

This isn't stalemate, it's five days to armageddon. If the Soviets open up with Nuclear Weapons, the Western Allies will respond within the hour. There would be only a minimal advance of Soviet Forces until nuclear weapons trash their forward and command elements.
I agree with this. The war will end Germany and Central Europe in nuclear doomsday, since the West will respond against Warsaw Pact targets. However, since the USSR has clearly gone to great lengths to not strike at other nuclear powers, I don't see it instantly escalating into a global nuclear war. Instead, once Central Europe ceases to exist in nuclear fire, a cease-fire is declared.

What is also possible, and perhaps the better outcome than the "Everyone nukes everything after five days" is that the Western Allies recognize that the Soviet Union has gone insane and resolves to make the first strike. This is still going to leave the West as an impoverished pile of third world warlord states, but the Soviets will lose many of the weapons on the ground and there will be millions more survivors of these attacks in the west than there would have been without making that call.

See, this is where I disagree. By FAR the most influencing element in rational people is self-preservation. I don't forsee the West as deciding to, lets be honest, destroy the world. I don't care about all the MAD bellicose boasting they claimed; they will want to survive. If this conflict can be negotiated to a close, then it should be. You actually bring up a scenario in which this could happen;


If I were sitting in Moscow, this series of events would lead be undesirable. I'd have the idiot who suggested STARTING A NUCLEAR WAR sent off to the KGB for his attempt to destroy the Soviet State. He may not be a Capitalist Spy, but you can never be too careful.

This could easily happen; less crazy people instiage a coup against the Kremlin after the war starts in order to stave off nuclear war. A Red Storm Rising style ending.:rolleyes:

In all seriousness, I think that you give a possible scenario of what would happen, but where I disagree with is where you say that it's ASB that it won't happen. Cooler heads prevail and the war ends before in blows up and ends the world. Easy, no ASBs. The idea that the West will destroy the earth because, well, they said they would, is absurd. Of course they said that---they didn't want the USSR getting any ideas. The exact scenarios in which nukes would be used was kept purposely vague for situations like this. Could it happen--all nukes launched and world ends Mad Max style? Sure. Is it preordained? No, not by a long shot.
 
What I will NEVER understand about these scenarios of yours, LA, is why you are so very uneven in your thinking.

The Soviet Union doesn't want to die. It's leadership might have been heavy-handed and more willing to crack a few eggs to get the breakfast cooked, but it doesn't want to eat heavy losses, suffer millions dead or withering nuclear attack either.

The Idea that the West would not launch even as the Soviets opt to make their own nuclear war is unfathomable. It might not begin with a massive glassing, but if the Soviets start a nuclear war the ideal of self-preservation is hard to act upon. Giving in to Soviet Demands encourages future Soviet nuclear attack; going tit-for-tat with the Soviets leaves them with the initiative to make the first move hitting for everything. Only hitting the Soviets first, as hard as one can, solves the problem of an insane nation starting a nuclear war and reduces their nuclear arsenal as best possible. It will invite a massive counterattack, but if that attack was coming, the opportunity cost is that it will be SMALLER and LESS DESTRUCTIVE to one's own people.

In short, Self-Preservation demands that once any ability to deal with the other guy is gone (pretty likely if the Soviets start slagging things), they need to be killed as quickly and cheaply as possible.

The world doesn't end. I probably have the scenario about right--there will be a century of rebuilding, and the children of the survivors will attempt to "Finish what Hitler Started."

Fortunately, you're mistaken about the Soviets completely. They knew all of this, some of it better than the West did. They would not start this war, because they don't want to be left with or find the west forced to answer the question above. Attacking a Nuclear Power, even by indirect measures like hitting their allies, is not a winning proposition.

So it couldn't have happened. And if it did, then the big one follows and the Soviets get it worse than the Allies, but there will be hell to pay in 2200.
 
So it couldn't have happened. And if it did, then the big one follows and the Soviets get it worse than the Allies, but there will be hell to pay in 2200.

Quite possibly the former USSR has been colonized by the Indians by this point anyway... :D

Anyway, the standard US policy was first use of field nuclear weapons if the conventional situation got bad enough: a US response is pretty much a certainty if the Soviets go first. And what the hell was the Soviet's original objective that was worth such a risk?

Bruce
 
What I will NEVER understand about these scenarios of yours, LA, is why you are so very uneven in your thinking.

The Soviet Union doesn't want to die. It's leadership might have been heavy-handed and more willing to crack a few eggs to get the breakfast cooked, but it doesn't want to eat heavy losses, suffer millions dead or withering nuclear attack either.

The Idea that the West would not launch even as the Soviets opt to make their own nuclear war is unfathomable. It might not begin with a massive glassing, but if the Soviets start a nuclear war the ideal of self-preservation is hard to act upon. Giving in to Soviet Demands encourages future Soviet nuclear attack; going tit-for-tat with the Soviets leaves them with the initiative to make the first move hitting for everything. Only hitting the Soviets first, as hard as one can, solves the problem of an insane nation starting a nuclear war and reduces their nuclear arsenal as best possible. It will invite a massive counterattack, but if that attack was coming, the opportunity cost is that it will be SMALLER and LESS DESTRUCTIVE to one's own people.

In short, Self-Preservation demands that once any ability to deal with the other guy is gone (pretty likely if the Soviets start slagging things), they need to be killed as quickly and cheaply as possible.

The world doesn't end. I probably have the scenario about right--there will be a century of rebuilding, and the children of the survivors will attempt to "Finish what Hitler Started."

Fortunately, you're mistaken about the Soviets completely. They knew all of this, some of it better than the West did. They would not start this war, because they don't want to be left with or find the west forced to answer the question above. Attacking a Nuclear Power, even by indirect measures like hitting their allies, is not a winning proposition.

So it couldn't have happened. And if it did, then the big one follows and the Soviets get it worse than the Allies, but there will be hell to pay in 2200.

Fair enough in regards to the Soviet mindset--they'd pretty much have to go insane in order to do this. At the same time, the Cold War and MAD were all logical paradoxes, and I could imagine that the USSR could believe that they needed to invade Europe to prevent Western attack. People have done fucking crazy things throughout history(granted this would be high on the list). But as I said before, the West would retaliate. Nukes would fly. I never meant that the West would not retaliate, just that the world would be recognizable after this limited exchange. Europe probably wouldn't, however. After the USSR moves West and nukes strategic NATO targets, NATO will hit strategic Warsaw Pact targets. Central Europe ceases to exist. We seem to be on the same page here-that a nuclear war could occur. The question now is escalation. A western preemptive strike after this occurs is defiantly possible, but in my opinion depends on the person in charge, like Reagen vs. Carter. I'm not sure they'd both launch nuclear strikes.

Quite possibly the former USSR has been colonized by the Indians by this point anyway... :D

Anyway, the standard US policy was first use of field nuclear weapons if the conventional situation got bad enough: a US response is pretty much a certainty if the Soviets go first. And what the hell was the Soviet's original objective that was worth such a risk?

Bruce


Tensions are high, the USSR has some internal dissent, and suddenly the KGB is sure that the West is about to launch an invasion of Eastern Europe. 99% sure :rolleyes:


Also, do any of ya'll have sources on American Nuclear strategy? Wikipedia tells me that Kennedy did away with the "Massive Retaliation" doctrine, but we all know how good Wikipedia is...
 
Tricky part is to give the Soviets the impression that invasion is their best option.

POD : Weak president being followed up by a strong one. KGB profile convinces Politburo that US president won't give MAD orders. To weak, to rational? Correctly? Incorretly?

So they see a closing window of oppertunity to remake world in their image.
 
Putting aside the mental state of the Soviet leadership for one moment. In the scenario that you propose, the Sovs 'won' and added West Germany to their empire. A West Germany that is ostensibly a radioactive slag heap (along with a large chunk of central europe). How is this really a loss for NATO? The Soviet empire now includes a large chunk of territory that has millions dead, shattered cities, tens of millions of refugees, complete economic dislocation and no doubt millions more who will die of starvation and the inevitable epidemics.

One of the big drivers of empire is the deire to add profitable colonies to it, not worthless dungheaps;) This scenario might actually cause a much quicker economic collapse of the USSR without the west needing to indulge in an expensive arms race:D
 
I remember a political cartoon criticizing the notion of "limited" nuclear war showing smoke rising from Europe and President Reagan and whoever was Soviet leader at the time saying, "well, at least we kept it limited to Europe" or something like that.
 
For a scenario, perhaps something like the novel "Red Army," in which West Germany vetoes the deployment of tactical nukes and seeks an accommodation with the USSR?

Only make it so a few nukes get used on both sides before WG calls it quits and fractures NATO.
 
Fair enough in regards to the Soviet mindset--they'd pretty much have to go insane in order to do this. At the same time, the Cold War and MAD were all logical paradoxes, and I could imagine that the USSR could believe that they needed to invade Europe to prevent Western attack. People have done fucking crazy things throughout history(granted this would be high on the list). But as I said before, the West would retaliate. Nukes would fly. I never meant that the West would not retaliate, just that the world would be recognizable after this limited exchange. Europe probably wouldn't, however. After the USSR moves West and nukes strategic NATO targets, NATO will hit strategic Warsaw Pact targets. Central Europe ceases to exist. We seem to be on the same page here-that a nuclear war could occur. The question now is escalation. A western preemptive strike after this occurs is defiantly possible, but in my opinion depends on the person in charge, like Reagen vs. Carter. I'm not sure they'd both launch nuclear strikes.

The Problem is that there are actually four players that might opt to launch the nukes in response: The USA, the UK, France, and China. France has issued very public warnings regarding the placement and posturing of its forces and its willingness to hit Soviet Population Targets can't be denied. The UK has its nuclear weapons on Bike Locks--it is entirely possible in the face of a nuclear salvo that a commander hits the wrong target on his own authority.

It only takes one of these guys hitting Soviet Targets for the game to be over. The UK, France, and China all have the power to hit Soviet Targets, and thereby break this division of powers. It matters little if the USA restains itself if one of the others hits the Soviet nuclear silos.

And then what? Someone nukes the wrong thing, or perhaps the French, Chinese or British hit Soviet targets. Carter or Reagan's willingness to "Blow up the world" might well never be the critical point.

On the fly, these four powers are going to have to assess how to respond. The idea of self preservation would simply argue that hitting the Soviet Union for everything is the best course of action. There is, of course, the option of a Soviet "Second Strike", and this is the crucial problem. The Soviets have launched an unprovoked nuclear attack.

What does a limited Allied Strike hope to accomplish? Destroying Warsaw Pact targets mirrors the situation on the ground, but this is not a conventional war, but a nuclear one. Furthermore, it does nothing to mitigate the obvious threat--a second Soviet Nuclear Strike.

There is little else that can be done. A Disjointed counterattack led by one nation would lead to the Soviets throwing more megatonnage at the West, while a reprisal strike does nothing to prevent the Soviets from launching a second strike, seeing as how they launched a first one.

Tensions are high, the USSR has some internal dissent, and suddenly the KGB is sure that the West is about to launch an invasion of Eastern Europe. 99% sure :rolleyes:

Also, do any of ya'll have sources on American Nuclear strategy? Wikipedia tells me that Kennedy did away with the "Massive Retaliation" doctrine, but we all know how good Wikipedia is...

Beyond insane. And one point is clear to consider: if the Soviets are willing to accept the consequences of nuclear war, why aren't they hitting for everything first?

The Soviets historically foreswore the first use of nuclear weapons; they'd wait for the invasion to begin before they used such weapons. Again, they know that they can't win a war against a nuclear power, so they'd try to stomach their fears as best possible.

For the Soviets to strike first would probably mean a hardliner coup in the Soviet Union and a cold realization that the Soviet State is mordibund and that its only chance for survival is armed confrontation. A handful of "True Believers, like Mikhail Suslov, finally make the call that nuclear destruction is worth the end of everything, and they get that nuclear destruction.
 
Putting aside the mental state of the Soviet leadership for one moment. In the scenario that you propose, the Sovs 'won' and added West Germany to their empire. A West Germany that is ostensibly a radioactive slag heap (along with a large chunk of central europe). How is this really a loss for NATO? The Soviet empire now includes a large chunk of territory that has millions dead, shattered cities, tens of millions of refugees, complete economic dislocation and no doubt millions more who will die of starvation and the inevitable epidemics.

One of the big drivers of empire is the deire to add profitable colonies to it, not worthless dungheaps;) This scenario might actually cause a much quicker economic collapse of the USSR without the west needing to indulge in an expensive arms race:D

It really could, especially if you consider the millions of deaths in the Red Army, and public dissatisfaction with that. This also lends itself to Blue Max's point. If we assume hardliners are now in power, and the war has only worsened revolutionary furor, then they may see no other option than to go out in a ball of fire. And even if they don't intend to, if the West thinks that they do...




The Problem is that there are actually four players that might opt to launch the nukes in response: The USA, the UK, France, and China. France has issued very public warnings regarding the placement and posturing of its forces and its willingness to hit Soviet Population Targets can't be denied. The UK has its nuclear weapons on Bike Locks--it is entirely possible in the face of a nuclear salvo that a commander hits the wrong target on his own authority.

It only takes one of these guys hitting Soviet Targets for the game to be over. The UK, France, and China all have the power to hit Soviet Targets, and thereby break this division of powers. It matters little if the USA restains itself if one of the others hits the Soviet nuclear silos.

And then what? Someone nukes the wrong thing, or perhaps the French, Chinese or British hit Soviet targets. Carter or Reagan's willingness to "Blow up the world" might well never be the critical point.

On the fly, these four powers are going to have to assess how to respond. The idea of self preservation would simply argue that hitting the Soviet Union for everything is the best course of action. There is, of course, the option of a Soviet "Second Strike", and this is the crucial problem. The Soviets have launched an unprovoked nuclear attack.

What does a limited Allied Strike hope to accomplish? Destroying Warsaw Pact targets mirrors the situation on the ground, but this is not a conventional war, but a nuclear one. Furthermore, it does nothing to mitigate the obvious threat--a second Soviet Nuclear Strike.

There is little else that can be done. A Disjointed counterattack led by one nation would lead to the Soviets throwing more megatonnage at the West, while a reprisal strike does nothing to prevent the Soviets from launching a second strike, seeing as how they launched a first one.



Beyond insane. And one point is clear to consider: if the Soviets are willing to accept the consequences of nuclear war, why aren't they hitting for everything first?

The Soviets historically foreswore the first use of nuclear weapons; they'd wait for the invasion to begin before they used such weapons. Again, they know that they can't win a war against a nuclear power, so they'd try to stomach their fears as best possible.

For the Soviets to strike first would probably mean a hardliner coup in the Soviet Union and a cold realization that the Soviet State is mordibund and that its only chance for survival is armed confrontation. A handful of "True Believers, like Mikhail Suslov, finally make the call that nuclear destruction is worth the end of everything, and they get that nuclear destruction.

Ok, I see your point about a preemptive strike being logically the way to go. I don't think that all of the Western leaders would be up to this, since not everyone is prone to acting completely logically. However, the idea that one of the allies may instigate a nuclear despite not actually being nukes is not out of the question. It would also be interesting to see how the USSR responded to an attack only be France, or only by the USA. Would it retaliate against all NATO nuclear armed nations? Does France or the UK have enough strategic weapons to level the USSR, or does only the USA?

As for your comment on insanity in the USSR; there were people that crazy. Capitalism and communist cannot co-exist, and all that nonsense.
 
Ok, I see your point about a preemptive strike being logically the way to go. I don't think that all of the Western leaders would be up to this, since not everyone is prone to acting completely logically. However, the idea that one of the allies may instigate a nuclear despite not actually being nukes is not out of the question. It would also be interesting to see how the USSR responded to an attack only be France, or only by the USA. Would it retaliate against all NATO nuclear armed nations? Does France or the UK have enough strategic weapons to level the USSR, or does only the USA?

As for your comment on insanity in the USSR; there were people that crazy. Capitalism and communist cannot co-exist, and all that nonsense.

Mikhail Suslov is my best bet on that Insane Soviet Leader, unless you want to drag up Andrei_Chikatilo from FaT.

Part of the thinking of nuclear war is "Control", the idea that the people waging a nuclear war are fighting the war as they intend to instead of being forced into reacting to the situation. The Soviets opening up with a large number of nuclear weapons is extremely scary and it is the outright murder of millions. It would be very hard to argue against a counter-force or even an all-out nuclear attack in the face of it.

Logically, hitting the Soviets when they intend to kill you is the only choice. Emotionally, these are murderers who deserve what's coming--and they're insane. They're out to kill you all! Kill them, before they kill you!

The Soviets have gone insane. They have a vast amount of nuclear weapons. If you don't nuke them first, the Soviets will be able to hit a large number of tertiary targets: Minor Population Centers, Minor Economic Targets, Secondary Targets in Third World Nations. The Difference between nuking first for everything and not may well be the difference between 20 Million and 50 Million Americans surviving the war.

I recognize I have a serious "Kill Joy" streak when it comes to nuclear war. But I think I get it right.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/andrei chikatilo
 
well, from the info i have on the cold war period , on the hight of that period the Nuclear Arsenal of the USA , was far more Powerfull and they had much more Nulclear Missiles And Atomic Bombs.So if the soviets had atacked , it would have lead to WWIII ,with a total counterstrike from the USA ,and the Allied West Powers ,leading to to world being totaly devasted. It would take Centurys to rebulid Europe and Russia, And probably the US would also need a good time to get back on their feet.
 
well, from the info i have on the cold war period , on the hight of that period the Nuclear Arsenal of the USA , was far more Powerfull and they had much more Nulclear Missiles And Atomic Bombs.So if the soviets had atacked , it would have lead to WWIII ,with a total counterstrike from the USA ,and the Allied West Powers ,leading to to world being totaly devasted. It would take Centurys to rebulid Europe and Russia, And probably the US would also need a good time to get back on their feet.

I was under the impression the Soviets surpassed the US in nukes sometime in the 1970s and had a lot more by the end of the conflict.

It was only in the early period (up until the 1960s) that the US was ludicrously superior in terms of firepower.
 
Top