1975 NATO vs. Warsaw Pact

Tough call. I see his point. Think about it if Carter had been in Presidency. Figure the Soviets do a major league propaganda run at him before sending the tanks across the boarder. He saw himself as so much of a peacemaker that he might bite. He couldn't make a decision to save his life.

I could see Carter going belly up.

SoD Stitch said:

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.

Click to expand...

Again I think you're over-looking European nuclear capability (beyond the dual-key weapons)

Let's say Russia piles across the border, NATO forces delay them for 2/3 days but don't stop them. France has little choice but to commit its tactical nuclear weapons at their 'line in the sand' - let's say the Rhine. It's conceiveable the UK would too.

If the Russians don't stop and their 3/4 wave passes the Rhine, or respond swith a deep nuclear strike into the NATO back lines France would launch it's ICBM's. Likely the UK too.

Even if the UK holds off 'til the last moment to use ours are the Russians going to leave their missiles on the ground waiting for the French strike? Doubt it - they'd launch and are likely to launch all their missiles - at which point the US has to launch.

UK/France combined have (and had) enough nuke capability to make global nuclear conflict certain devastating. The US had (and has) little choice when it gets to that stage.

Until SDI / ABM systems are 100% reliable the US could not stay out of such a conflict

I see both sides of the arguement. It is a very tough call.

For a long time, I went on the accepted idea that a WP move in Western Europe ended in a general nuclear exchange. But I think Stitch's idea has merit. Especially considering the political climate of the mid to late 70s. MAD was a generally accepted proposition and nobody wanted to be nuked out of existence.

On the other hand, once France initiated a general nuclear release, the US and England keeping out of it becomes irrelevant. It is doubtfull the WP would see such an act as an isolated event by one nation. General policy for WP would've been an attack by one of the NATO nations would've been considered an attack by all the nations. So France initiating the exchange might've brought about a full scale nuclear exchange.

This is tricky.

I would think ..Europe would have anuff nukes at that time to make a mess of the USSR.. ?

What did Europe have nuke wise at that point in time ...?

from wiki:

France

A land-based component was added in August 1971 with the commissionning of the 18-silo IRBM launch site at Plateau d'Albion in the Vaucluse region. Later, the land element was augmented with the mobile short-range Pluton and Hadès missiles, designed to be launched from the front lines at approaching Soviet armies. Since it was deemed that a full-scale Soviet invasion of Europe was unlikely to be stopped by conventional forces, these weapons were meant as a "final warning" (ultime avertissement) which would tell the enemy that further advance would trigger a full-scale nuclear attack on its main cities. The Pluton, introduced in 1974, was retired in 1993 and its successor, the Hadès, was produced in limited numbers in the 1990s and placed in storage in 1995 (the last missile was dismantled on June 23, 1997). The Albion site, approaching obsolescence and deemed no longer relevant following the fall of the Soviet Union, was shut down in 1999.

The sea-based component of the triad entered service in December 1971 with the commissioning of Le Redoutable, France's first ballistic missile submarine. Since then, the sea-based deterrent has expanded to a force of four submarines, at least two of which are on patrol at any time

UK

The Resolution class submarines were the first British strategic ballistic missile submarines, carrying the Polaris missile. They were first commissioned in the 1960s and decommissioned in the 1990s.

Five boats were planned but only four were completed (Ramillies was to have been the fifth vessel). Traditional battleship names were used, signifying that they were the capital ships of the time.

Vickers Armstrong in Barrow-in-Furness constructed Resolution and Repulse and Cammell Laird in Birkenhead constructed Renown and Revenge. The construction was unusual in that the bow and stern were constructed separately before being assembled together with the American-designed missile compartment.

The design was a modification of the Valiant Class Fleet Submarine, but greatly extended to incorporate the missile compartment between the fin and the nuclear reactor. The length was 130 metres, breadth 10.1 metres, height 9 metres and the displacement 8,400 tons submerged and 7,600 tons surfaced. A Rolls-Royce pressurised water reactor and English Electric turbines gave them a speed of 25 knots and they could dive to depths of 275 m. Sixteen Polaris A3 missiles were carried, in two rows of eight. For emergencies there was a diesel generator and six 21 inch (533 mm) torpedo tubes located at the bow, firing the Tigerfish wire-guided homing torpedoes. The submarines put to sea with a crew of 143.

The first to be completed was HMS Resolution, laid down in February 1964 and launched in September 1966. After commissioning in 1967 she underwent a long period of sea trials culminating in the test firing of a Polaris missile. Fired from the USAF Eastern Test Range off Cape Kennedy at 11:15 on February 15, 1968. Resolution commenced her first operational patrol on June 15, 1968, beginning 28 years of Polaris patrols. The class were part of the 10th Submarine Squadron, all based at Faslane Naval Base, Scotland.

IE more than enough to attack Russia ensure a full-launch response