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was busy with Vietnam at that time, but I'm sure that in the event of a real war with the WP we would have immediately withdrawn all troops from Vietnam.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?
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.
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?
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.