Jump to content

World War III scenario...please comment


Recommended Posts

Questions. How are the following nations likely to respond...

 

South Korea

North Korea (will it use the war as an excuse to attack South Korea?)

Indonesia (probably a critical one...who do they help?)

Brazil

Argentina (they hate the UK...will they help the Soviets? Do we get a second Falklands invasion because they figure the UK is too busy to do anything?)

Bangladesh (probably sides with India/Soviet Union?)

Other Latin American and Central American countries (I imagine there are communist uprisings in several...perhaps the 1990s will consist of a lot of Panama-type invasions?)

Nigeria

Angola

Other sub-Saharan African countries

Cuba (after harassing American shipping, the US uses the war as an excuse to invade? Certainly, you wouldn't want a Soviet base this close to Florida during a war...)

 

Others???

 

South Korea would go to full defensive alert. Remember it is 1) an close aly of the United States and 2 there are several Soviet Air bases within EASY flight distance. I think the Korean Air Force and the 56th Fighter Group and attendant forces would be bottled up right from the start providing defense to South Korea.

 

North Korea in this timeframe had a pretty poor food production to begin with. I doubt their army could last more than a few days in the field. It would all depend on how Red China acts. IF Red China acts. Remember we are talking pre- Tineman Square so China won't nearly be as cut off from the West as it is today.

 

Indonesia would completely depend on how Islam is being treated by both the Soviet Union and Iraq. If the Islamic faith is being treated with respect and involved in an open and honest relationship, they would be Neutral leaning pro Soviet (eg Soviet forces would not be actively perused by Indonesian forces. However if Islamic faith is not being treated as well as described above then Indonesia would fully come into the western powers. Remember Indonesia had a serious falling out with the USSR in the late 1970s.

 

Argentina and Brazil would form their own power block. They would quietly support the US and I believe both would receive support from the US for doing that. Aftermath time-frame I see a normalization between Argentina and the UK. Argentina would NOT invade the Malvais islands again unless the UK GAVE them a reason to do so, Simply because Brazil and the US would smack em down.

 

Cuba would be bombed almost immediately after the start of the war. There are enough forces in SAC and TAC based around the Gulf of Mexico in this time-frame to wipe out most of Cuba's defenses within 48 hours of start of war.

 

I think the rest of your countries you are asking about would act like they do normally.

 

 

Hope that helps

 

Craig P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't believe I overlooked this thread until now!!

 

First of all, a reading recomendation: http://thedeadhandbook.com/

 

Focusing on 1983 you have very real crisis going on that could have sparked a preemptive move by the USSR:

 

- In April FleetEx 83 saw the USN operating 3 carriers off Kamchatka, including an accidental overflight of the Soviet Kurile islands that earned the local PVO commanders a major reprimand, see fotos here: http://www.cv41.org/photos/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=18586

 

- September saw the shooting down of KAL 007 over Sakhalin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 and a false alarm on the Soviet early warning system.

 

- November livened things up with Able Archer 83 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

 

Further, the Chief of the General Staff was Nikolai V. Ogarkov, who coined the term Revolution in Military Affairs and did not kid himself about the lead the West was building in terms of weaponry (smart weapons, night vision systems, etc.)

 

You can easily conjure the Soviets feeling cornered and trying to achieve a quick military solution (a la Galtieri/Falklands) in order to neutralise NATO (occupying Germany, Netherlands, Belgium and Denmark, plus the N. part of Norway). I don't see them going into France for the reasons mentioned above, nor do I see the US using battlefield nukes because:

 

- collateral damage would be mostly in West Germany

- The Soviets had loads of SS-20 to retaliate

- things could escalate out of hand.

 

On another matter, although the Soviets exercised for the use of nukes and trained for a nuclear battlefield (so did NATO), I seriously doubt they would ever get the green light to use them from the political leaderships and there are abundant testimonies in this regard at the National Security Archie and the Cooperative history project (previously the Parallel history project on NATO and WP).

 

I'm looking for feedback on a general "outline" for an alternate history World War III I could use to develop scenarios...

 

November 1, 1983. After the Falklands War, having studied British tactics, American assistance, and the economic effects on the West of fighting a war, the Soviets decide to seize control of Western Europe....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm....

 

I roughed up some ideas that pushed the European invasion to 1987 (I'm assuming Chernobyl put a significant damper on any enthusiasm the Soviets might have had about using nukes and led to the decision to rely only on conventional weapons UNTIL nuclear weapons were used by NATO). The French idea makes sense--especially if it was part of a larger plan...what if NATO had made the decision that a TEMPORARY loss of Germany would be better than a near PERMANENT irradiation of Germany? What if the US had told Germany, "We liberated France. We will liberate you. Just stay alive. We are coming." Would West Germany, given a choice between surrender and the nuclear option, which at best would give them a free but ravaged country, accept defeat without playing the nuclear card? I'm also assuming that the loss of Germany is not any meek, mild surrender--NATO fights like crazy to keep the Soviets out and takes horrible losses but as a result pretty much exhausts their ability to do anything but occupy Germany. So, as 1988 dawns, the Soviets are in control of Germany, but are now surrounded by a very angry NATO that sees no reason to treat the Soviets as anything but hostile and which is rebuilding as fast as a war-oriented American economy can drive the process. The future is not looking bright for the Soviets...

 

Is this more plausible?

 

Once, I worked out Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising to 1st June 1987. This scenario sounds better to me, and you can add a twist, the USSR reached a separate peace with France, and the new D-Day must happen on the North Sea coast of Germany/Netherlands...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...