Reasonable NATO Stop Line

[Benjamin]

Suppose NATO high command, via HUMINT and SIGINT, learns that the Soviets have given the OK for nuclear release if NATO, especially German, forces enter Soviet territory. With this in mind SACEUR, after consulting the President and other NATO leaders, decides to set a stop line ~75km west of the Polish-Soviet Border.

What happens next?

[Raellus]

That depends on quite a lot.

First, if NATO is willing to stop, they will probably attempt to arrange some sort of cease-fire with the Soviets.

After that, a lot depends on Soviet leadership. Will they agree to a cease-fire? Will they take the NATO offer at face value, or assume it is a ruse of some sort and reject it out of hand. If the Soviets do take it at face value, will they honor it themselves, or agree to it solely as a means of gaining some time to arrange a counter-offensive?

IF both sides agree to a cease-fire, what next? Is NATO willing to negotiate with the Soviets? Specifically, are they willing to leave Poland, as I'm sure the Soviets will demand as a matter of course.

At the heart of it, is the Politburo/Stavka willing to accept defeat in Europe?

Based on the last 100 years of RL history, I would think not.

[Benjamin]

I'm thinking of a more unilateral stop line brought about by concern over nuclear escalation.

Given the situation in China I think the Soviets might be willing to allow the stalemate/impasse to continue in Poland. In our own reality the Soviets let Eastern Europe go without a fight. It's likely that here they'd be willing to postpone the Polish and German question until China is dealt with.

With the fighting in Europe paused instead of roasted in nuclear hellfire, will the Soviets still nuke China? Maybe. Eventually they will reach a breaking point and need to bring about a change in the military situation.

I think the Soviets have several choices.
1. Nuclear release despite NATO's halt.
2. Counter offensive in Poland after a brief build up.
3. Offensive elsewhere such as the Balkans or stronger presence in the Middle East.
4. Negotiate an end to combat on one or both of the major theaters of war.

There is no indication that the US or any western nation has an alliance with China so a separate peace is certainly not out of the question.

Benjamin

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

In our own reality the Soviets let Eastern Europe go without a fight. It's likely that here they'd be willing to postpone the Polish and German question until China is dealt with.

Yes, but are you going by our reality or by the T2K backstory/history? And, if the latter, which one?

In the T2K reality, the Soviets are fighting quite hard for E. Germany and Poland. Why they should decide to give that up with NATO approaching the Motherland runs counter to the Soviet/Russian Federation mentality since 1941. The whole point of dominating Eastern Europe after WWII was to create a buffer zone against a future German/Western attack. If Germany attacks again in 1996 or whenever, all the hard-liners would be screaming, "See! I told you so!" Even today, IRL, Russia is working hard to destabilize Ukraine and bring it back into its sphere of influence. They've also been flexing on the Baltic States, trying to intimidate them into leaving NATO's orbit. I just can't see the Soviet Union/Russia allowing a strong, aggressive Germany/NATO anywhere near its home soil. In v1.0 T2K, the Soviet border with Poland is the red line, the crossing of which prompts the release of TBNs.

But if NATO is willing to stop short of the Soviet border and offer to negotiate, I can see the Soviets taking a break, nuking the sh*t out of China- both to free up units to send back to Europe and to send a message to the West- and prepping a counter-offensive. I just don't think the Soviets would be willing to lose Poland to the West, and lose face to the world by willingly doing so. For that reason, I see the U.S.S.R. of T2K (v1 and 2) fighting on, regardless of whether NATO stops 75km short of its border or not.

[Benjamin]

I'm using V.1, so you are almost certainly correct. This is not our USSR. It is very likely that this Soviet leadership would be far less likely to concede Poland.

Not sure how China would end. Perhaps limited nuclear strikes, both tactical and strategic, to bring about a collapse of China's ability and will to fight. The Chinese response would see Vladivostok and a few other Siberian cities destroyed. Is that worth it for the Soviets?

In the West it could lead to a sad fate for Poland wherein that nation becomes newly divided along a rough Vistula River line with a divided Warsaw.

Benjamin

[Raellus]

Just out of curiosity, why are you diverging from the v1.0 timeline?

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Just out of curiosity, why are you diverging from the v1.0 timeline?

I have some people who might play T2K but don't want it to be post apocalyptic. They'd prefer a techno thriller Cold War style game, and I think a war ravaged Europe still dealing with the aftermath (while bracing for round two) would be a great setting.

Besides the aforementioned stop line I'm going to insert a few bits and pieces from other sources like "Red Storm Rising", "The War that Never Was" and both of Hackett's books.

- capture of Iceland
- stealth bomber pre-emptive strikes
- large B-52 conventional raid
- much more NATO naval success in North Sea
-fighting in North Africa (Egypt vs. Libya), South Africa (South Africa vs. Angola and friends), South America (Peru vs. Ecuador), etc.

Not sure yet how to handle China and still on the fence concerning Indian sub-continent.

Benjamin

[Silent Hunter UK]

Would there be any nuclear use at all in your game?

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Silent Hunter UK

Would there be any nuclear use at all in your game?

Not sure yet, but leaning towards Tactical exchange + limited strategic use in China/Eastern USSR as well as a smaller but still brutal exchange on the Indian subcontinent.

Benjamin