Although we all know as much, I'll say it anyway: the Soviet attitude towards casualties was a calculated indifference. If losses had to be taken to achieve a specific end, then losses had to be taken. Throwing men away for the sake of throwing men away was not part of doctrine. If the hypothetical use of chemical weapons promised a certain benefit that outweighed the cost in manpower, we should expect the use of chemical weapons. If the perceived benefit did not outweigh the cost, then we should not expect to see the the use of chemical weapons.
On the defensive in Poland, the Soviets might well see use of persistent agents to be to their advantage. Their own people would have the advantage of prepared positions, while NATO forces would be obliged to move through contaminated areas. If anti-tank defenses obliged the NATO troops to dismount, the Pact troops in their strong points would be at a significant advantage vis-a-vis the Western dismounts.
On the other hand, the Poles would not much appreciate having their country turned into a chemical witch's brew in the name of defending it. Granted, the Soviets viewed Poland as a defensive bulwark, not an ally. However, the kind of massive civilian casualties that would result from widespread use of chemical weapons could cause some disaffection among the Poles. Someone in the Kremlin would have to decide whether the benefits of using chemical weapons in Poland would outweigh the cost.
On the other hand, the use of chemicals against NATO air bases and other critical point targets in Germany has a different logic. Heck with German casualties. The West Germans are the cause of the whole problem, while the East Germans are turncoats. Civilian casualties are to be embraced, unless they cause some other problem. If NATO retaliates with chemical attacks against Pact air bases in Poland, the issue of civilian casualties among the Poles might inspire disaffection among the Poles. Without exploring the issue in much greater depth, it's hard to predict how the Soviet-Polish relationship would be affected. It is also hard to know where the limits of chemical weapons use will be drawn. Is the exchange limited to Poland? Poland and East Germany? Poland and Germany? Poland, Germany, and Czechoslovakia? Poland, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Belarus, the Netherlands, and Denmark? Poland, Germany, Czechoslovakia, Belarus, the Ukraine, Lithuania, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Jugoslavia, Greece...? Chemical escalation would have its own logic.
Lots to ponder with this one.
Webstral
|