I'm working on some ideas for realistic Cold War scenarios involving Soviets, and I'm trying to figure out something.

 

Under what circumstances would you have the Soviet Navy shooting at people, possibly even NATO ships, c. 1985, where things do not rapidly turn into a global exchange of nuclear weapons?

 

Some ideas...

 

1. Spies on the run. Submarines on both sides probably sneaked in close to enemy shores all the time to gather intelligence, etc. I'm guessing that if those submarines had been forced to surface, perhaps even fired on, there would have been a lot of grumbling from the country that sent them and maybe a tit-for-tat response like sending an ambassador home but probably no nuclear weapons--it was a risk each side took to listen in on the other side.

 

Obviously, within the 12-mile limit, a country would be within its right to force a submarine to surface. What if it happened 50 miles out? Technically, I suppose that would be an act of war, but since it would not involve a launch of ICBMs, but just a couple of ships vs. a single submarine, and the "war" would be over as soon as one side was sunk or got away, it probably would not lead to a nuclear exchange. A court martial or three, yes, but not a nuclear exchange.

 

2. Non-critical blockade. Cuba was a special case because nuclear weapons were involved. What if the US had blockaded Angola--no direct threat to the US but we were putting out foot down about stopping the communist expansion into Africa--and the Soviets ran that blockade (or at least tried to sneak submarines past it)? There would probably be a battle, maybe more than one if there was more than one attempt to run and/or reinforce the blockade, but would it automatically turn into a major war?

 

Any other ideas? Am I missing anything really obvious?

 

Thanks.

 

Mark

More and related ideas. Again, any feedback would be welcome, even if it is just "Yes, that sounds plausible" or "No, that would never happen."...

 

3. The Soviets blockade someone and it is the West that has to break through. Who would they blockade? Probably not NATO itself, that would be too risky, but perhaps a country that looked like it was on the brink of a revolution and which the Soviets wanted to isolate so the West could not help the falling government. Or one where a coup had taken place that the Soviets wanted to help cement--they would give the new government supplies and make sure no one helped the remnants of the old one. Or perhaps someone outside of NATO who had just really ticked them off, like Sweden or Israel or Japan.

 

I can see them being really annoyed with Sweden if the Swedes had managed to actually sink one of their submarines. It sounds like the Swedes were trying, too.

 

Was there anyone outside of NATO during the Cold War that the Soviets just really hated? I know Japan probably falls into this category. Anyone else?

 

4. I've been ruling out a blockade of NATO nations, but am I being too cautious here? Say the Canadians seized a couple of Soviet fishing boats and the Soviets said, "Fine, we're blockading one of your ports until you release our fishing boats. And, by the way, you all play ice hockey like a bunch of girls." Well, the US and the UK would probably try to break the blockade. If the people involved start to shoot at each other, what are the odds that a) the incident is contained and whoever loses goes home with their tails between their legs and starts trying to figure out how to spin this or although no troops have crossed the German border, either way, someone launches a first strike? 50-50? 80-20? What do people think?

 

I guess my resistance to a pure World War III scenario is that no one can really win those. Tactically, they might be interesting--all around the world, small groups of ships suddenly learns that the Soviets are now targets, but they might not know at the moment which Soviet forces are out there, where they're headed, etc. So there's a "mystery" and there's the tactical problem of "No, this is not an ideal force, you only have X to work with, but you'll have to make it work." But, in the end, what's the point? Even if your ships survive, neither side is really there anymore, not after all the bombs have dropped. It sort of ruins the stories for me.

 

What I want is medium-sized Cold War battles that don't turn into global annihilation. Under what circumstances would a NATO-Soviet battle be "Falklands-sized," though?

 

5. For a reconnaissance, is this plot plausible: US sends a spy ship or a submarine into a Soviet-controlled region...the Soviets actually chase it into international waters but still inside their 200-mile EEZ (they believe they have proof it violated their national waters and they ARE going to take these people into custody...or sink them) and NATO forces intervene, claiming that as the ship/sub is NOW in international waters that the Soviets have no right to seize the ship/sub. (By the way, just out of curiosity, under international law, who would be in the right here?). So you have the pursuing Soviet vessels and submarines intercepted by NATO forces maybe 150-175 miles from the Soviet shore. Is this plausible? Would they chase a spy ship/sub this far out if they thought it had gotten too close earlier? Would they chase it that far even if they did not think it had gotten inside the 12-mile limit?

 

Again, thanks in advance for feedback, comments, etc.

 

Mark

Mark,

 

regarding 4). I doubt that any direct Nato-USSR confrontation would had led to doomsday, to an automated escalation towards a global nuke exchange. I think there was a possibility of a pure conventioanl conflict. That´s why I love to write scenarios about non-nuke direct confrontations.

Mark,

 

regarding 3). I think they did not like South Korea, either.