what if the cold war had turned hot?

pi-r8

Luddite
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
2,564
Location
Babylon
I've been scouring the net for information on this recently, but I've been unable to find much of anything. I guess some of this stuff is still classified, but I'd love to see what people here know about this subject.

Let's suppose that relations between NATO and the warsaw pact (WP) broke down, and turned into a full-scale war. Suppose further that leaders on both sides are sane enough not to use strategic nuclear weapons, since it's pretty obvious that that would result in a nuclear Armageddon that would annihilate both sides.

However, some tactical nukes WOULD be used. From what I've read, it seems that the battle plans for both sides relied heavily on tactical nukes, so it's unrealistic to consider a war without them. Since these have never been used in any real conflict, it's hard to tell what they might do, but I guess they'd be pretty much the same as a very large conventional bomb.

The year matters a lot of course. In the 50's, it seems like the US had an overwhelming nuclear advantage, so no contest there. And in the 80's, the USSR was falling apart and Reagan massively ramped up US military spending, so probably no contest there either. I'm more interested in the 60's and 70's, which seem like more of a fair fight. Let's pretend that the Cuban missile crisis sparked the war, so we're talking mid 60's. Of course the USA was busy with Vietnam at that time, but I'm sure that in the event of a real war with the WP we would have immediately withdrawn all troops from Vietnam.

So, who comes out on top? The Godless communists, or the forces of Freedom and Liberty?:crazyeye:

From what I can tell, NATO would not have stood a chance. We were badly outnumbered by WP troops, and we would have had difficulty transporting divisions from the USA to the front lines in Germany. I also think that politics would have worked against us, since the liberal democracies of the west would have been far more willing to talk surrender than the rulers of the USSR, especially after what they went through in WW2.
 
It the atomic bomb had never been invented, Moscow would end up ruling Eurasia and the US would take the americas.

With it a war would always go nuclear, I fear. There was no way that the US would allow an eurasian block to form against it without escalating the war, and no point in the USSR being involved in a war without attempting to conquer the whole of Europe.

A more interesting question would be: in the absence of nuclear weapons, was there any period during the Cold War where the US and its allies would conceivable wish to start a conventional war?

Or the opposite, the USSR start one?
 
It the atomic bomb had never been invented, Moscow would end up ruling Eurasia and the US would take the americas.

With it a war would always go nuclear, I fear. There was no way that the US would allow an eurasian block to form against it without escalating the war, and no point in the USSR being involved in a war without attempting to conquer the whole of Europe.

A more interesting question would be: in the absence of nuclear weapons, was there any period during the Cold War where the US and its allies would conceivable wish to start a conventional war?

Or the opposite, the USSR start one?

I don't see why it's inconceivable that the countries might go to war, but still be sane enough not to resort to full-scale nuclear war. Would you want to be the first one to launch an ICBM??? Anyway, even if it's not realistic, I'm just interested in the overall balance of power.

Talking about a war completely without nukes just doesn't seem possible, because both sides completely relied on nukes for their battle plans. It's like saying, "hey, what if neither side had tanks? Then who would win?" Well that would make anti-tank weapons rather ridiculous, wouldn't it???
 
The post-war 1945 seems to me a nice playground--neither side had nukes (US spent them all and USSR was working on it).

What would happen immediately when Germany was partitioned? Before or after Japan surrenders?

USSR--Advantage:
  1. High number of military personnel
  2. Good armor corps
  3. Through the hardship of Great Patriotic War, no anti-war sentiment
  4. lots of anti-Nazi forces in Eastern European in alliance with USSR
  5. Colonial uprising will side with Soviet
Disadvantage:
  1. Relatively weak industry capacity
  2. Virtually no navy, bad air force
 
So if Cuban missiles start it---say the US invades, were there tactical nukes in cuban then, which the US didn't know about (I've seen that allegation by Russian tech forces at the time, interviewed on video? So maybe a bunch of navy and marines get a very nasty surprise as a start of the war. Might not be a total surprise after that moment (all forces possibly on alert already), but if Soviets take the initiative to launch at that moment then they might achieve a temporary surprise (though greater chance of it going to ICBMs, as well, no?).
 
NATO was established 1949. Warsaw Pact 1955, following West-Germany's joining NATO. So, to answer the question: there's a good chance you would not have been able to start this thread.:eek:
 
plarq ummmm... well ok that completely ignored my OP where I specified 60's and 70's. But Ok, let's do that. At that time, the soviet union wouldnt have the logistics to invade western Europe, and the western allies wouldn't have the manpower to invade the soviet union. So it would be a stale mate while the US built more nuclear bombs, at which point the USSR would be forced to surrender. Not all that interesting IMHO.
 
So if Cuban missiles start it---say the US invades, were there tactical nukes in cuban then, which the US didn't know about (I've seen that allegation by Russian tech forces at the time, interviewed on video? So maybe a bunch of navy and marines get a very nasty surprise as a start of the war. Might not be a total surprise after that moment (all forces possibly on alert already), but if Soviets take the initiative to launch at that moment then they might achieve a temporary surprise (though greater chance of it going to ICBMs, as well, no?).

Oh, I was assuming both sides would just ignore Cuba and fight in Europe. The Cuban
missile crisis just a political charade anyway, since having missiles in Cuba wouldn't allow the USSR to do anything they couldn't already do. In any case, even if we did try to invade Cuba and got a bloody nose doing so, I really doubt that the troops lost in such a battle would be enough to affect a larger war.
 
Oh, I was assuming both sides would just ignore Cuba and fight in Europe. The Cuban
missile crisis just a political charade anyway, since having missiles in Cuba wouldn't allow the USSR to do anything they couldn't already do. In any case, even if we did try to invade Cuba and got a bloody nose doing so, I really doubt that the troops lost in such a battle would be enough to affect a larger war.

I wouldn't call the Cuban crisis a charade, but mutual brinkmanship (unless you are implying it was an international charade orchestrated in concert with the USA and USSR?). And if Cuba went nuclear during an amphibious invasion, it would make the character of the war very hot (nuclear) from the onset. Another thing I was thinking was the negotiations during the brinkmanship might have been distracting, that if the Soviets launched attacks simultaneously, they might gain an hour of surprise. Surprise that might be a strategic advantage to invade West Germany? But this suggest the SAC was on high alert then: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/cuba-62.htm

Also, from snippets I've googled (can't find an actual full battle plan, probably top secret for the day it might get used ;) ) but 82nd and 101st might have airdropped in, which would not have been minor event in itself, plus the large naval, army armor, and marine presence. Tactical nukes then would be very rude, and wonder---would it go instantly to ICBMs? Apparently back then the Soviets only had a few hundred to our thousand.
 
It would of been bad?
 
Depends on when it happened.

A hot war would never happen under Stalin. He only goes to war when invaded or in secret. Stalin wasn't a gambler.

In Cuba Missile Crisis, '62, the Soviet Union would be nuked out of commission, only to cripple the United States. Today, the US would resemble the '50s, of sort, except with many ruins and radioactive areas.

If in 1984, when both sides were at the peak of their nuclear power, North America, Europe and Russia would be radioactive wastelands, with all governments dissolved and only tribe-like governments, trying to survive. South America, Africa and some parts of Asia now the most advanced civilization.

Don't get me started on what Skynet would do...
 
With it a war would always go nuclear, I fear. There was no way that the US would allow an eurasian block to form against it without escalating the war, and no point in the USSR being involved in a war without attempting to conquer the whole of Europe.
This. There's no way the Us could stand by and allow Russia to take over Europe. It's not a matter of if they would, they simply couldn't. It would be crippling for the US in every way.

A more interesting question would be: in the absence of nuclear weapons, was there any period during the Cold War where the US and its allies would conceivable wish to start a conventional war?

Or the opposite, the USSR start one?
I doubt it, both sides were comparable in strength, and the costs of either would be too great. While the West was always stronger, the USSR was strong enough that a war between the two would be crippling for both sides. Perhaps a Soviet leader might go to war in a desperate attempt to keep the USSR from collapsing by promoting an upsurge of patriotism, but I doubt it.

I don't see why it's inconceivable that the countries might go to war, but still be sane enough not to resort to full-scale nuclear war. Would you want to be the first one to launch an ICBM??? Anyway, even if it's not realistic, I'm just interested in the overall balance of power.
Because if the US didn't use nukes then Russia would conquer Europe. That simple. This would cripple the US economically, remove most of their airfields in range of a great many Russian targets, and make them appear unreliable in the eyes of other allies, such as Japan, Australia and Israel, which would immediately start looking elsewhere for protection and survival. The US would have no choice but to use nuclear weapons. The USSR, which was hopelessly outmatched in this regard, would have no choice but to respond. Then we all die.

Assuming the US plans very well and launches an invasion of Russia, the Soviets would throw them into the sea and proceed with an invasion of Europe. Assuming something along the lines of the West intervening in Czechoslovakia or Hungary during the near-revolutions there, Russia would be forced to respond militarily to keep the West from taking one of their satellites, on the grounds that if one broke away, all of them would try to do so. Such a war could not remain limited, they'd go at it.

And both sides would definitely want to be the first one to launch an ICBM. Would you want to be the second nation to launch an ICBM?

The overall balance of power was always in the West's favour. Russia constantly pretended to be stronger than it really was, and sometimes the US even stupidly believed it. Kennedy got to the White House by claiming the US was losing the arms race, then somehow managed to still believe it even after he was in power and was shown he'd been wrong. But the West always had the advantage. The Soviets often had more actual numbers of things than the West, but the West had better quality, better soldiers and superior technology.

The post-war 1945 seems to me a nice playground--neither side had nukes (US spent them all and USSR was working on it).

What would happen immediately when Germany was partitioned? Before or after Japan surrenders?

USSR--Advantage:
  1. High number of military personnel
  2. Good armor corps
  3. Through the hardship of Great Patriotic War, no anti-war sentiment
  4. lots of anti-Nazi forces in Eastern European in alliance with USSR
  5. Colonial uprising will side with Soviet
Disadvantage:
  1. Relatively weak industry capacity
  2. Virtually no navy, bad air force
The USSR would lose. It was much, much weaker than anybody realised. There's a reason Stalin retreated whenever confronted, such as in Northern Iran, Berlin and elsewhere. He relied on "popular fronts," coalitions between communists and other left-wing parties, to get friendly governments in France and Italy because he simply couldn't get such governments any other way. He wanted Tito and Greek communists to stop harassing the West because he feared retaliation. He wouldn't have feared it if he could handle it.

Stalin was a master realist, a brilliant political opportunist. He only started wars he knew he could win, and, as in Finland, when the situation turned out to be unfavourable, he got out of it with as much as he could. He would never start a war with the West, and was legitimately frightened that they may move on him, because he knew Russia couldn't handle it.

Ironically, the West always believed Russia was much stronger than it actually was, so they never pressed him. Of course, in their defence, they themselves were massively weakened and anti-war sentiment was high. But Operation: Unthinkable, Churchill's planned war with the USSR, could well have succeeded. It would have been tremendously costly, but it could have worked. One great irony of the Cold War is that Stalin's post-war Eastern European acquisitions, which many took as a sign of Soviet expansionism - and let's be honest, they were - were also a sign of its weakness. Stalin wanted those territories as a buffer between the West and Russia, not as a doorway to an invasion by Russia.

Also, I think you're wrong about colonials rising in support of the USSR. With a few exceptions, most post-colonial governments were comprised of elites who'd already had much power under colonialism. They certainly weren't communists, and feared them more than they did their colonial masters. Groups like the Viet-Minh were already fighting, and couldn't help the Soviets much. France would concentrate on Russia much more than Vietnam in the case of war.
 
alot of the stuff has been declassified :) or drawn from old soviet archives. i really liked Gaddis' "We Now Know". it's full of all kinds of neat info.

as for where the soviets would've attacked...the fulda gap is the most often cited area in west germany. it was ideal b/c it was one of the few areas that allowed for access to massive armored forces. i think the northern german plains was the other locale. would have to double-check though.

conventionally speaking (ie no nukes), the soviets had a pretty big edge in manpower and armor while the nato bloc had absolute naval superiority and a slight qualatative edge wrt technology (the soviets weren't that far behind though and it's certainly subjective). nato air forces, typically speaking, were more well rounded. by this i mean that the soviets had a fantastic air defense network but lacked long range capabilities. their interceptors were pretty good - perhaps on par (in terms of performance) w/ those of the west.

asw was perhaps the biggest thing for nato in the 50s and 60s. soviet naval doctrine called for trailing the carrier groups and were obviously tasked w/ trying to sink them. the USN instituted a massive build-up in the 50s irrc.

the soviet navy, outside of its submarine arm, would never had stood a chance against the west. i'd even go so far as to say that there'd have been little chance for them to even beat the RN. no knock against the RN of course but the point i'm trying to make is that the soviet navy could've been defeated w/out the USN. their DDs were lousy and they had no carrier capabilities whatsoever (until the late 60s i think). if i were to sum up the possible naval battles, i'd say that it would've been a buff blue ocean navy comprised of ships and sailors from the world's best navies (ie USN & RN) against a coastal defense navy w/ a heavy bend on submarine warfare.

the soviets also lacked projection in terms of their air force and navy whereas nato had strategic long range options that could strike from afar (ie carrier groups, long range jet bombers, tactical strike aircraft capable of carrying nuclear ordanance). so ivan would've had a tough time keeping up w/ this.

i'd imagine that the soviets would roll hard in europe but would've had a a hard time being able to stop american transport across the atlantic. iirc, nato's goal was to at least be able to stem a soviet advance until full mobilization could occur, this would mean control of the sea lanes and the ability to project from afar. it would be hard for me to say who would actually "win". i mean, it's tough to say one or the other. but it's not hard to see what would've went down had the reds invaded...

another interesting note about soviet armor - they were designed to be able to cross the bridges in europe whereas american designs were not...or at least they were clearly not as efficient at it compared to soviet designs.
 
This. There's no way the Us could stand by and allow Russia to take over Europe. It's not a matter of if they would, they simply couldn't. It would be crippling for the US in every way.
Please, just pretend for the sake of argument that strategic nukes are not used.

I doubt it, both sides were comparable in strength, and the costs of either would be too great. While the West was always stronger, the USSR was strong enough that a war between the two would be crippling for both sides. Perhaps a Soviet leader might go to war in a desperate attempt to keep the USSR from collapsing by promoting an upsurge of patriotism, but I doubt it.

Because if the US didn't use nukes then Russia would conquer Europe. That simple. This would cripple the US economically, remove most of their airfields in range of a great many Russian targets, and make them appear unreliable in the eyes of other allies, such as Japan, Australia and Israel, which would immediately start looking elsewhere for protection and survival. The US would have no choice but to use nuclear weapons. The USSR, which was hopelessly outmatched in this regard, would have no choice but to respond. Then we all die.
First you say that both sides are comparable in strength. Then you say that the West was always stronger. Than you say that, without nukes, Russia would conquer Europe. That doesn't sound simple to me! I'd like to know what would have actually happened in such a war.

And both sides would definitely want to be the first one to launch an ICBM. Would you want to be the second nation to launch an ICBM?
It really wouldn't matter. Both sides had earlier warning capabilities, with more than enough time to launch a counterstrike before the ICBMS hit. And even if they DID hit before a countersrike could be launched, both sides had enough hidden/hardened nukes to still launch a devastating counterstrike. That's the whole point of MAD. It wouldn't work any other way.

The overall balance of power was always in the West's favour. Russia constantly pretended to be stronger than it really was, and sometimes the US even stupidly believed it. Kennedy got to the White House by claiming the US was losing the arms race, then somehow managed to still believe it even after he was in power and was shown he'd been wrong. But the West always had the advantage. The Soviets often had more actual numbers of things than the West, but the West had better quality, better soldiers and superior technology.
Ah, so now you're back again to saying that NATO had a huge advantage. Earlier you said that Russia would easily conquer Europe if nukes were not used? Anyway, I'd like to see sources which actually prove that the West had better quality in everything like you say. In the 80's that's probably true, but I doubt there was much difference in the 60's and 70's. Certainly not enough to make up for the fact that USSR had at LEAST a 2:1 numerical advantage in tanks, artillery, and mechanized infantry.
 
alot of the stuff has been declassified :) or drawn from old soviet archives. i really liked Gaddis' "We Now Know". it's full of all kinds of neat info.

Can you give me some sources? That one seems good, but I'm really having a hard time finding concrete numbers on any of this stuff.

And yeah, NATO clearly had a much more powerful navy, but I'm not sure that would have mattered. Most likely, NATO would be able to see a war coming enough that they could transfer the whole US army to Europe before the fight started, and after that, what else could the navy do?
 
From what I can tell, NATO would not have stood a chance. We were badly outnumbered by WP troops, and we would have had difficulty transporting divisions from the USA to the front lines in Germany. I also think that politics would have worked against us, since the liberal democracies of the west would have been far more willing to talk surrender than the rulers of the USSR, especially after what they went through in WW2.

1960s conventional WW3 - WP forces sweep through Western Europe.
1970s conventional WW3 - stalemate somewhere along the Rhine, then cease-fire or dragged war in which the WP loses (lower morale, weaker economy etc.)

Anyway, until mid-1970, conventional WW3 was never an option. People started talking about it only once the Soviets had reached a parity with the US in nuclear arms, which happened in 1970s.

1980s conventional WW3 - WP forces stopped somewhere in West Germany, then pushed back by NATO reinforcements.

IMO the Soviets had their chance in late 1940s and early 1950s.
 
I'd like to know what would have actually happened in such a war.

I'd advise you to read Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising for this - not only is it a heck of a good read, it also adresses exactly the scenario you're talking about: conventional war in Europe after an attack by the Soviet Union.

To put it in a nutshell, the SU attacks because of a crisis with their oil supply and advances through Europe, though with massive casualties against superior Western technology. They manage to hinder US reinforcements across the Atlantic by invading Iceland in a surprise attack - which allows them to attack convoys both with submarines and long-range bombers.
The war ends with no clear cut victory for either side, with a new Soviet government making peace after a coup d'etat.

As I said, a very good read and IMO quite realistic if you accept that nukes are out of the picture - and BTW, tactical nukes are also not used, because, to quote from the book: there is no clear cut line between tactical and strategic nukes. It's felt that using tacs inevitably would lead to strategic nuclear war.
 
I'd advise you to read Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising for this - not only is it a heck of a good read, it also adresses exactly the scenario you're talking about: conventional war in Europe after an attack by the Soviet Union.

Oh God, no! :eek:

It may be a fun read, but it's as far from reality as one can get.

If you want a future/alternate history of WW3 between WP and NATO, I suggest "Third World War" by John Hackett

It's the most plausible thing I've read regarding the hypothetical "cold war gets hot" scenario.

As I said, a very good read and IMO quite realistic if you accept that nukes are out of the picture - and BTW, tactical nukes are also not used, because, to quote from the book: there is no clear cut line between tactical and strategic nukes. It's felt that using tacs inevitably would lead to strategic nuclear war.

In the book I linked, nukes are used in the end, when the Soviets, desperate after their conventional offensive grinds to a halt, decide to scare the Europeans and nuke Birmingham. NATO responds by nuking Minsk, after which the USSRs WP allies start to rebel (fearing that they're going to be annihilated), Soviet morale crumbles and the war ends.

Though it's older than the Clancy's fantasy (and so the first edition counts with a different balance of power - for exampl, Iran is still on the Western side), it's IMHO much more informative and accurate. As someone from the former Eastern Bloc, I must say his description of the failings of the communist system are spot on.

It's not a novel, but a sort of anternate history book.
 
Please, just pretend for the sake of argument that strategic nukes are not used.
But they would be.

First you say that both sides are comparable in strength. Then you say that the West was always stronger. Than you say that, without nukes, Russia would conquer Europe. That doesn't sound simple to me! I'd like to know what would have actually happened in such a war.
It is simple. The USSR was always in a weaker position than the West, but it was close enough to be comparable. Like how China has more people than India, but they're 'comparable.' The West was stronger with the US, but without them was weaker. That's why Russia would have a massive advantage in Europe proper.

Their navy and airforce were outmatched, particularly their navy - submarines wouldn't be much good to them if they weren't launching nukes from them. Their ground forces had inferior equipment - most Russian equipment was worse than Western equipment, but there were some areas they excelled in, and in most they were again comparable - and morale, but had the size advantage.

Winner's summing up of where the war would have ended at the times he said is actually about right, but he's wrong about the Soviets having their shot in the forties and fifties. A strong breeze could have blown Russia over in 1945; it just so happened that everyone else was susceptible to weak breezes at the time. But when confronted with force, Stalin always backed down. He wouldn't do that if he felt he could handle it.

It really wouldn't matter. Both sides had earlier warning capabilities, with more than enough time to launch a counterstrike before the ICBMS hit. And even if they DID hit before a countersrike could be launched, both sides had enough hidden/hardened nukes to still launch a devastating counterstrike. That's the whole point of MAD. It wouldn't work any other way.
And Russia's early warning capabilities were far inferior to those of the US. The USSR almost unleashed armageddon on the world in the 1980s when their early warning system revealed a sneak nuclear attack by the US on them. Luckily, the guy in charge of actually firing the retaliatory missiles didn't do it.

The USSR was gradually getting weaker and weaker compared to the West. It was far more vulnerable than anyone thought.

Ah, so now you're back again to saying that NATO had a huge advantage. Earlier you said that Russia would easily conquer Europe if nukes were not used? Anyway, I'd like to see sources which actually prove that the West had better quality in everything like you say. In the 80's that's probably true, but I doubt there was much difference in the 60's and 70's. Certainly not enough to make up for the fact that USSR had at LEAST a 2:1 numerical advantage in tanks, artillery, and mechanized infantry.
Don't put words in my mouth. The Western advantage was never "HUGE." It was always there though. Nor did they have "better quality in EVERYTHING." They had better quality in a lot of things, and it was usually in what mattered. And your numbers are way off, the USSR had nowhere near that kind of an advantage.

Unfortunately most of what I know I have from books. I'll find them and put their names up, maybe they're on googlebooks. I know at least one is, but I'll wait to see if the others are also before searching for a link.
 
Top Bottom