T2k v.1 - assuming there's no strategic nukes useage

[raketenjagdpanzer]

I realize how tricky defining "strategic" can be; I mean, a Flogger dropping a low-yield nuke to break up a POMCUS site that's located in a major port city - is that strategic or tactical?...but anyway...

Assuming for a minute that we're considering the v.1 timeline, if the Soviets don't turn the key, is it an eventual victory in Europe for (what's left of) NATO?

[Legbreaker]

The lack of strategic strikes completely unbalances the situation in my view - the US for example would be untouched, their industry able to churn out replacement tanks, planes, etc in the tens of thousands, people would still be available for military service, oil from Alaska, Texas, etc
Meanwhile, the Soviets and their allies would have suffered tactical nukes in their very own front yard decimating their industries on a scale very similar to that seen in canon.

Strategic strikes are totally necessary to avoid a Nato cakewalk as early as mid 1998.

[Targan]

In my opinion it would have to be a scenario where nukes weren't used at all. Once the nuclear genie was let out of the bottle it's going to run to its natural conclusion.

No nukes at all would apply to the Chinese front as well. The Chinese front was a real meat grinder for the Soviets and the Chinese and not using nukes in that Theatre would make things even harder for the Soviets in Europe.

[weswood]

What would the war be like if nukes weren't used until the last year or so of the war? Say it was purely conventional until the USSR got desperate, started out with tac nukes in late '98/early '99 with the nuke exchange escalating until it culminates in the Thanksgiving day massacre?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by weswood

What would the war be like if nukes weren't used until the last year or so of the war? Say it was purely conventional until the USSR got desperate, started out with tac nukes in late '98/early '99 with the nuke exchange escalating until it culminates in the Thanksgiving day massacre?

I think it'd be generally the same but the title would be "Twilight:2002" and the action would take place in Latvia or Byelorussia rather than Poland. OTT, nothing much would be different.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by weswood

What would the war be like if nukes weren't used until the last year or so of the war? Say it was purely conventional until the USSR got desperate, started out with tac nukes in late '98/early '99 with the nuke exchange escalating until it culminates in the Thanksgiving day massacre?

The Soviets already were desperate in July 1997. They were being pushed back and actually had NATO units within the USSR borders - so much for the buffer states such as East Germany and Poland...

There doesn't seem any justification in delaying the use of nukes at all, especiallly considering the Pact navy was about 99% on the bottom of the sea and there was no way short of ICBMs and SLBMs that they could even slow down the flow of NATO reinforcements and supplies from outside Europe.

[dragoon500ly]

When you look over the various sources for the time, Soviet doctrine planned for the usage of chemical and nuclear weapons from the very outset, to be true, this is if the Soviets launched an attack into NATO, but I feel that they would have used these weapons against the German/UK/USA attack formations as well as the air and log bases in the FRG.

From a ready use of tactical nukes, the decision to go strategic would have happened in a very short time. Would it have been the limited strategic that GDW "cannoned"? IMO, this was a short-sighted approach, once the decision was made to nuke the US/UK....it would have an all or nothing attack.

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

When you look over the various sources for the time, Soviet doctrine planned for the usage of chemical and nuclear weapons from the very outset, to be true, this is if the Soviets launched an attack into NATO, but I feel that they would have used these weapons against the German/UK/USA attack formations as well as the air and log bases in the FRG.

From a ready use of tactical nukes, the decision to go strategic would have happened in a very short time. Would it have been the limited strategic that GDW "cannoned"? IMO, this was a short-sighted approach, once the decision was made to nuke the US/UK....it would have an all or nothing attack.

I recall there was an uproar in Poland some time ago , when the military contingency plans for repelling a Nato attack on the USSSR were made public. In the event of a situation where the Soviets were forced to retreat and the borders of the USSSR themselves were threatened, a Nato ground assault through Poland would be stopped by the liberal use of Soviet nuclear weapons on key Polish communications and population centers as well as on field formations of NATO tropps in Poland. These plans of course -were without the Poles knowledge. This way the USSSr hoped to crush the military advance using nukes but at he same time leaving the ball in NATOs court regarding the possible full scale retaliation with nukes targeted at Russian / US / Western European territory. Technically the USSR had not attacked NATO soil with nuclear weapons in this scenario.

A dangerous - and cynical gambit - worthy of evil masterminds hiding in deep cold war bunkers imo.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by headquarters

I recall there was an uproar in Poland some time ago , when the military contingency plans for repelling a Nato attack on the USSSR were made public. In the event of a situation where the Soviets were forced to retreat and the borders of the USSSR themselves were threatened, a Nato ground assault through Poland would be stopped by the liberal use of Soviet nuclear weapons on key Polish communications and population centers as well as on field formations of NATO tropps in Poland. These plans of course -were without the Poles knowledge. This way the USSSr hoped to crush the military advance using nukes but at he same time leaving the ball in NATOs court regarding the possible full scale retaliation with nukes targeted at Russian / US / Western European territory. Technically the USSR had not attacked NATO soil with nuclear weapons in this scenario.

A dangerous - and cynical gambit - worthy of evil masterminds hiding in deep cold war bunkers imo.

All too true! But the Soviet use of WMD on NATO formations would invite the same.

The whole Soviet policy was, IMO, designed with two objectives in mind, the more obvious one of defeating NATO, and the more subtle one of insuring that there would never be a strong threat from the nations along its borders.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

From a ready use of tactical nukes, the decision to go strategic would have happened in a very short time. Would it have been the limited strategic that GDW "cannoned"? IMO, this was a short-sighted approach, once the decision was made to nuke the US/UK....it would have an all or nothing attack.

Policy is one thing. The decisions made by a handful of people at the top once in the decision-making cycle is another. An all-out attack by the Soviet Union on the West would result in the Soviet leadership losing power. Whether they actually died in the exchange isn’t relevant. Kingship of a barren wasteland hardly counts as kingship. The pattern described by GDW makes perfect sense if one places human nature above doctrine. The idea behind using nukes in the first place was to bring the situation under control, not immediately to spiral it downward into the s***house.

As a perfect example, we should turn our eyes to the situation in southeastern Europe. The v1 chronology makes it clear that the Soviets used nukes against the Yugoslavs, the Romanians, and the Turks—all of whom were NATO members at the time. NATO retaliation appears absent. For the non-nuclear members of NATO, the nuclear shield provided by the US would have been one of the most important motives for being in NATO. Clearly, the US leadership balked at using nukes in southeastern Europe, even in retaliation for Soviet use. On a visceral level, I deeply dislike this part of the chronology because it makes the US senior leadership look like gutless turds (feedback on how this relates to real life is neither solicited nor welcome). At the cerebral level, I love this part of the chronology because it adds complexity and mystery to the chronology. What exactly happened such that the US failed to live up to her treaty obligations in this theater?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by headquarters

A dangerous - and cynical gambit - worthy of evil masterminds hiding in deep cold war bunkers imo.

There is a reason Ozzy wrote the lyrics to "War Pigs" the way he did.

[dude_uk]

Originally Posted by raketenjagdpanzer

I realize how tricky defining "strategic" can be; I mean, a Flogger dropping a low-yield nuke to break up a POMCUS site that's located in a major port city - is that strategic or tactical?...but anyway...

Assuming for a minute that we're considering the v.1 timeline, if the Soviets don't turn the key, is it an eventual victory in Europe for (what's left of) NATO?

Being Pedantic somewhat. We have to define Victory and define NATO's idea of it.

NATO is no longer the multitude of free western nations (plus France), its down to the rump. Good thing its the fighting rump.These remaining nations then have their own agendas or can perceived to be. First up the Germans.

Whatever you make of their intentions, the Germans have started this war or at least made it global. Their main goal of liberating and reunifying has paid off , but at quite a high price. What the Soviets said for years has come true and the rest of the alliance is somewhat worried about this new found aggression. So the German idea of victory is one that allows them to remain intact. But with the Russians at arms length.

The United States and the United Kingdom are of the same mind: End it as soon possible with a good result. Pushing on to Moscow is not what the American and British public's will accept if the cost of life is too high (plus the financial cost, but with lives at stake. This mainly worried by the respective treasury's). Joe and Tommy must not stand watch on the Kremlin wall for the next 50 years. The liberation of Eastern Europe is the goal up to a point. It seems every week another communist dictator is nothing more than red mist on a wall and abandoning them may not be a option. Perhaps as far as the Ukraine and the Baltic's.

The rest of the alliance is then divided out of those who have stayed for necessity (Turkey and Norway) or loyalty (Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands).

If the Soviets don't go nuclear for NATO (or their mind to prevent them from going nuclear) a point must be found that keeps Eastern Europe free but keeps the Soviet Union intact. It may collapse, but NATO thinks if it go's too far the button gets pushed. The remaining communist powers are on the way out, fragmenting as the allies pushed through and will not survive without Moscow.

The Point Webstral thought a few years ago which would be acceptable to the Allies was around the Dnepr-Dvina. This the Allies can do with the resources they have right now.

Hopefully the ultimate wildcard, the Chinese who have gambled the entire western economy and who's long term plans remain elusive, can then be fobbed off with a concession of some kind (Siberia?).

For the poor Eastern European caught in the middle, sheltering in a basement with family knows only two things, he does not want the Germans to stay, but he most certainly does not want the Russians back.