January 4, 201313 yr Playing around with ideas... This is a revision of a World War III concept I was playing around with a few months ago. I've tried to trim it back a bit, maybe make it a bit more realistic. I'd be grateful for feedback on this one as a background for wargame scenarios...How plausible is this? What else might happen (or what might happen instead)? What am I missing?Here goes...What would happen if, in 1985, the Soviet Union joined forces with Iraq and Syria (and some help from India, which had a military pact with the Soviets at the time) and invaded Iran? The Soviet Alliance is able to seize control of most of Iran, including its ports and oil fields, in a few months.Not surprisingly, the West is pretty concerned about this. The Soviets could take control of the entire Persian Gulf. Even a best case scenario is to accept sharing dominance of the Gulf with the Soviets.Rather than use nukes, the West informs the Soviets they will initiate a global blockade of their shipping until the Soviets withdraw from the Gulf. Half the reason the Soviets wanted Iran was the warm water port, which greatly improves their ability to trade with places like India, Vietnam, and Angola. The Soviets refuse to budge. They say any attack on Soviet shipping will result in attacks on Western shipping.War erupts on two fronts. There is a shipping war, with the Soviets and the West both trying to destroy the other's navies and merchant fleets. This is global. Ports and shipping around the world are attacked.There is also a war of air raids in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan (which sides with the West), and India. Each side (US, EU, and their allies, including South Africa, Morocco, Pakistan, etc. vs. the Soviet-Iraq-Syria bloc and allies like India and Vietnam) try to knock out the ability of the other side to fight. But they're not trying to invade, simply make the other side weaker and weaker. It is a curious kind of World War III, with virtually no action in Europe (except the Norwegian Sea and the North Atlantic), a war of relatively small skirmishes and convoy actions, and some medium-sized battles meant to cripple rather than seize cities that have strategic value. Basically, neither side is trying to take territory (aside from the Soviets, who have already taken Iran and are not trying to take more, although Iraq is hungrily eying Kuwait). Rather, both sides are trying to wear the other down until either the Soviets give up and withdraw, the West having made Iran too expensive to keep, or the West gives up because it just can't fight anymore (or at least won't risk more ships and planes on top of the ones it has lost), and accepts the new world order.What do you think?Thanks. I look forward to your comments.
Create an account or sign in to comment