1975 NATO vs. Warsaw Pact

[Aussie1001]

What about Nukes has anyone considered this. If i recall correctly Russia did have the most nukes...... What about ICBM's these would have played a huge even primary role. In the event of an actual war i would rate everything other than ICBM's of secondary importance the real war would be who could get more nukes off at the other.....
1 nuke could liquidate a massive soviet tank formation and at the same time easily knock off the hardened air shelter that aircraft relied on to keep them safe...

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Both sides had eneough nukes to destroy the world 100 times over.

Russia had the most nuclear bombs while the United States had the most ICBMs.

 

[mkloby]

Both sides had eneough nukes to destroy the world 100 times over.

Russia had the most nuclear bombs while the United States had the most ICBMs.

I saw something the other day regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis. Although over a decade before our scenario, it is now believed that in the early 60s the US had roughly a 10 to 1 superiority in ICBMs.

I am not sure what estimates are for nuclear parity in 1975, however.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont think it changed that much a decade later.

It seams that the Soviets wanted more to rely on large bomber formations with nuclear bombs while the US was more prepared to use ICBMs.

Lets not kid ourselves though, the USSR had eneogh ICMBs to destroy the world a good times over as well.

 

[SoD Stitch]

What about Nukes has anyone considered this. If i recall correctly Russia did have the most nukes...... What about ICBM's these would have played a huge even primary role. In the event of an actual war i would rate everything other than ICBM's of secondary importance the real war would be who could get more nukes off at the other.....
1 nuke could liquidate a massive soviet tank formation and at the same time easily knock off the hardened air shelter that aircraft relied on to keep them safe...

Actually, I seriously doubt we would've used ICBM's, they're more of a deterent (or should be) than a useful weapon. I think what you meant to say was IRBM (Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missle), like the old Pershing IA and Honest John tactical missles. All of the ICBM's we had at that time were already aimed at fixed targets, like Army bases and Air Force bases; it would have been extremely difficult to re-target the second-generation ICBM's we had back then which had analog systems (like the Minuteman II's III's) for tactical targets, like a tank formation, whereas IRBM's were designed for just such a scenario.

 

[timshatz]

I remember reading some time ago (had to be 20 years) that many of the wargames in the Mid to Late 70s had the thing going nuclear. The first shots were tac nukes used by the west to stop Soviet Armor formations. After that, it got kinda "iffy" (if the Soviets respond, if they go after the US, if the tac nukes are effective, ect, ect).

Most of them ended up with a general exchange of weapons. I think the theory was, from the Soviets side, in for penny, in for a pound and they start throwing the big stuff around fairly soon, two to three weeks into it. The response was immediate and premeditated. Like switching on a machine (or similar to the way the First World War got started with everyone thinking they were the victim).

All of it came down to the West not being able to stop the land forces of the WP with Conventional weapons.

 

[SoD Stitch]

I remember reading some time ago (had to be 20 years) that many of the wargames in the Mid to Late 70s had the thing going nuclear. The first shots were tac nukes used by the west to stop Soviet Armor formations. After that, it got kinda "iffy" (if the Soviets respond, if they go after the US, if the tac nukes are effective, ect, ect).

Most of them ended up with a general exchange of weapons. I think the theory was, from the Soviets side, in for penny, in for a pound and they start throwing the big stuff around fairly soon, two to three weeks into it. The response was immediate and premeditated. Like switching on a machine (or similar to the way the First World War got started with everyone thinking they were the victim).

All of it came down to the West not being able to stop the land forces of the WP with Conventional weapons.

You're right; generally speaking, once you start tossing nukes around, even tactical nukes, there's usually no stopping the escalation. It'll get outta hand in hurry . . .

 

[syscom3]

Anyone here remember when the neutron bomb was going to be deployed and the Soviets called it the ultimate capitalist weapon..... "It kills people and leaves property intact"

 

[timshatz]

Anyone here remember when the neutron bomb was going to be deployed and the Soviets called it the ultimate capitalist weapon..... "It kills people and leaves property intact"

When you think about it, they're probably right. I mean, it costs you 200 million to make the bomb, (just guessing here) including development cost. Drop the sucker and you get a several tens of billion dollar city with only moderate blast damage and no people.

Pretty good ROI (Return on Investment). I'm suprised the bunch over at Goldman Sachs hasn't made one and dropped it in Manhattan!

 

[SoD Stitch]

Anyone here remember when the neutron bomb was going to be deployed and the Soviets called it the ultimate capitalist weapon..... "It kills people and leaves property intact"

Yeah, I remember that; it was a Reagan weapon. I think they were talking about an IOC of '85 or so.

 

[rogthedodge]

Don't forget both UK and France both had (and still have) independent ICBM nuclear weapons.

Agree with the escalation scenario above but NATO could have gone tactical nuke in a matter of days - 1 week from the start of hostilities.

UK's ICBMs were intended to be fired after the Soviets launched theirs but the UK as well as France would have had a 'line in the sand' beyond which any Soviet incursion would have to be answered.

It was unstated European policy that the US wouldn't be able to stay out of a European war (still is!).

 

[timshatz]

Good point about the French. They are smart enough to know the Comrades weren't going to stop at the Rhine. Hop, skip and a jump and they're in Paris. After two world wars on their turf, I would think they would want to fight this one "forward", aka, German Territory. That goes for tac nukes especially.

But, being the French, they'll probably argue about it until the Tangos are rolling up the Champs d'Elysee.

 

[Aussie1001]

so wadda you think would all the tank formations and aircraft meant anything ? or would armageddon happen.....

 

[timshatz]

so wadda you think would all the tank formations and aircraft meant anything ? or would armageddon happen.....

After Nato shoots it's bolt and the Soviets are still coming...it's mushroom time.

 

[SoD Stitch]

After Nato shoots it's bolt and the Soviets are still coming...it's mushroom time.

Hard to say . . . I could see the US holding back on pulling the nuclear trigger and just letting Soviet forces have Europe in order to avoid having the US nuked. It's hard to believe the US would've sacrificed themselves just to try save Europe; as soon as we would've launched a tactical nuke, things would've escalated pretty quickly after that to the strategic level. It would've been a form of nuclear suicide for the US to initiate a tactical nuclear attack in Europe.

 

[timshatz]

Hard to say . . . I could see the US holding back on pulling the nuclear trigger and just letting Soviet forces have Europe in order to avoid having the US nuked. It's hard to believe the US would've sacrificed themselves just to try save Europe; as soon as we would've launched a tactical nuke, things would've escalated pretty quickly after that to the strategic level. It would've been a form of nuclear suicide for the US to initiate a tactical nuclear attack in Europe.

That is actually a pretty good line of reason. Hadn't heard the arguement of the US using nukes in NW Europe countered in such a way. Always heard it would go nuclear after Nato was worn down.

Good arguement, good thought.

Good post.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Hard to say . . . I could see the US holding back on pulling the nuclear trigger and just letting Soviet forces have Europe in order to avoid having the US nuked. It's hard to believe the US would've sacrificed themselves just to try save Europe; as soon as we would've launched a tactical nuke, things would've escalated pretty quickly after that to the strategic level. It would've been a form of nuclear suicide for the US to initiate a tactical nuclear attack in Europe.

I serously doubt the US would have stood aside.

We were a founding member of NATO and would have honored our treaty. Also allowing Europe to fall under the Iron Curtian would have had lasting effects on the US due to trade and economic issues and possibly later military issues.

 

[comiso90]

I serously doubt the US would have stood aside.

We were a founding member of NATO and would have honored our treaty. Also allowing Europe to fall under the Iron Curtian would have had lasting effects on the US due to trade and economic issues and possibly later military issues.

I agree. The decision to "commit nuclear suicide", was made the moment we signed the treaty.

 

[SoD Stitch]

I serously doubt the US would have stood aside.

We were a founding member of NATO and would have honored our treaty. Also allowing Europe to fall under the Iron Curtian would have had lasting effects on the US due to trade and economic issues and possibly later military issues.

Yes, we were; but I still think our National Command Authority would've chosen self-preservation over honor and commitment. Who do you think our Commander In Chief is? First foremost, he is a politician; politicians don't commit suicide when they can sacrifice something else (like all of Europe) to save their skin.

If it's a choice between death honor, or learning to live with an enemy just on the other side of the Atlantic, I think they would chose the latter.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I dont think so...