Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral
China will answer a lot of questions about chemical use. I think there’s a very good chance that after the drawbacks of chemical use become a bit more apparent both sides will find foreswearing their use desirable. If China suffers a million casualties from chemical use, James, we can bet that they will find some means of retaliating. The use of theater ballistic missiles to deliver persistent agents against communications hubs inside the eastern Soviet Union probably will cause the Soviets to give serious consideration as to whether chemicals are worth using. Fairly quickly, use will escalate to the point at which the use of chemical weapons probably resembles the use of incendiaries in strategic bombing by the Western Allies in WW2: the logic will be that denying the enemy the use of transportation, power generation, and factories by means of persistent agents is a natural development from the use of persistent agents to shut down communications hubs, chokepoints (like bridges and mountain passes), airfields, and supply dumps closer to the front. Both sides will ramp up use quite rapidly until someone cries uncle internally. At that point, threats of nuclear use probably will be aired. The Soviets might suffer fewer casualties in this scenario, but their more restricted supply lines are quite vulnerable to disruption by a relative handful of successful employments of persistent agents. Being on the offensive, the Soviets are going to need an uninterrupted flow of supplies more than the Chinese. I would expect that by the time Operation Red Willow (the main Chinese counteroffensive in 1995) kicks off, both sides would have foresworn further chemical use out of sheer necessity.
|
With all due respect Web, but the use of chemicals as an "equalizer" to Chinese numerical superiority is just going to be too much for the Soviets to pass up. Plus, their chemical arsenal is going to be a lot more advanced than anything the Chinese have. And, if the Soviets start going after the means of production for the Chinese chemical arsenal during Tchaikovsky, as well as fairly indiscriminate use of persistent nerve agent against Chinese cities in general, yes, the Chinese will retaliate, but considering the Soviet theater ABM capability, I don't think that the Chinese retaliation will be much more effective than their retaliation during the later nuclear exchange is. In fact, what's to say the launch of TBM by the Chinese doesn't spark a panic by the Soviets that a nuclear weapon has just been released?
I think tactical use tit for tat is far more likely, or perhaps long range artillery being used in much the same manner as you describe. Now there's a lot of argument over how READY the Soviets were to fight with chemicals. Zaloga said one thing, the Army said another. Depends on who you believe. I think the truth is probably in the middle.
One related note, how many of Alibek's creations get unleashed on China during Tchaikovsky? Remember the Japanese had no such compunctions in the 30s, and I am sure the Soviets would do anything to thin out the near-inexhaustible Chinese manpower reserves. Yes, it's genocide, and morally indefensible. But the Soviet Union is at war for what could be its life. The Soviets, short of nukes (which will bring the West in, and then we all lose), will use whatever they have to. So I think limited and most importantly, deniable use of biological weapons is on the table.