I don't think the Soviets would use NBC right off the bat either. Nothing in canon supports this and, as Web pointed out, such use when immediately up the ante, escalate/broaden the conflict, and invite retaliatory strikes.
Webstral's argument relies heavily on the idea that the Soviets need to be weary of public opinion in the west, lest they inadvertently bring all of NATO into the fighting. It is for this very reason that I don't think an all out assault on West Berlin would serve Soviet strategic interests. Wouldn't video footage of West Berliners killed by artillery and air strikes have the same effect on the rest of the West as video footage of West Berliners killed by chemical agents? I contend that an all out assault on West Germany invites a broader NATO response- one that the Soviets would wish to avoid. If the NATO forces in West Berlin successfully resist an urban assault, the Soviet Union looks weak. If the Soviets succeed, but kill a lot of civilians in the process, they look like the aggressors. A siege accomplishes most of the same goals without an extreme media backlash in the west. Cut West Berlin off, isolate its garrison troops, and concentrate on defeating Bundeswher field formations. A siege would be much easier to justify diplomatically and politically on the world stage than an all out Grozny-style assault. The Soviets might even try to use a besieged Berlin as a honey trap to draw GDR forces on to ground of their choosing. That way, the Soviets could fight a largely defensive battle white they await reinforcements from the east, and still retain some initiative by effectively selecting the primary front.
|