Thread: Why no China?
View Single Post
  #43  
Old 09-26-2018, 10:00 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 5,070
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin View Post
So gives you an idea of the scale of the commitment they made in China - and why they had to go nuclear as they did - otherwise with what was going on in Poland they would have lost for sure by the end of 1997
Absolutely. Even with the USSR and it's allies as powerful as they were in the game, there's no way they could maintain that level and number of multiple operations at once any longer. They NEEDED to close down at least one major front to give them a hope of surviving even as long as until winter.
Alaska, Korea, China, Middle East, Europe (and probably numerous other minor hotspots such as Mexico) were all draining resources and manpower faster than they could be replaced. Heavily nuking China was the best bad option they had and one I think many commanders would have taken in a similar situation.
Every other front had members of Nato (usually the US as the major opponent) fighting there and it would have almost immediately escalated into a full exchange. China had nukes, but no nuke armed allies. Any retaliation from China could be counted on to be limited and relatively ineffective.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.

Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"

Mors ante pudorem
Reply With Quote