Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
The plate is from 1996. The notes state:
It's my guess the Canadians, as well as the Greeks and Italians, would have withdrawn their forces rather quickly once hostilities broke out between them. Likewise, I can't see Finland leaving troops there in the face of a possible Soviet attack through their country. That leaves just Sweden and Australia carrying the load. Any bets on what they'll be doing when the others pull out...?
|
Assuming they can get transport...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
Possible, but more likely they'd have been sent to China to support/reinforce British units listed in that country.
|
Probably but it might be an option for political reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
It was no quicker than anywhere else on the planet. My guess is Nukes would have been withheld for as long as possible actually, given that the USSR didn't go into Korea until late 1997, after China was glowing in the dark and after the Nato offensive of 1996-97 was turned back (aided by tactical nukes).
I'm not sure if Korea had nukes in 1997, but if they did, I'm certain the Soviets would have done everything they could to dissuade their use before the Soviets were ready. With war raging right across the planet, any escalation of that sort is a very bad thing.
|
Chemical is likely from the outset though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
It's interesting to note the invasion of Alaska occurred shortly after nukes were first used. It would seem the Soviets were banking on their nukes to do nasty things to the US ability to respond effectively - it would seem likely the Soviets had been planning both the invasion and use of nukes for some time.
|
If there weren't plans there is something wrong, a sensible military plans for EVERYTHING but thanks, I hadn't noticed that connection before.