Posted: 12/16/2010 9:23:30 PM EDT
| Alright, time for a hypothetical World War Three thread. Assuming that the Cold War went hot between Warsaw Pact and NATO, and assuming that the war stayed conventional, would it be a long, drawn out conflict like the other world wars? Let's say the war took place in the 1980's. Both sides have high-tech aircraft, ships, etc. However, much of these weapons would be destroyed. Expensive weaons at that. During World War Two, every side was able to crank out large numbers of tanks, aircraft, ships, etc. Would this be possible in a World War Three scenerio? Would we be able to crank out F-16's, ships, Abrams tanks, etc. like we cranked out P-38's, B17's, Sherman Tanks, etc? |
|
It's a ridiculous scenario. Any major aggressive move by either side would have resulted in a full blown nuclear conflict. There is no hypothetical scenario for a conventional WWIII. We nearly had a nuclear war because the Russians put a handful of medium range missiles in Cuba. An invasion of any territory would have launched the birds. |
|
Quoted:
Alright, time for a hypothetical World War Three thread. Assuming that the Cold War went hot between Warsaw Pact and NATO, and assuming that the war stayed conventional, would it be a long, drawn out conflict like the other world wars? Let's say the war took place in the 1980's. Both sides have high-tech aircraft, ships, etc. However, much of these weapons would be destroyed. Expensive weaons at that. During World War Two, every side was able to crank out large numbers of tanks, aircraft, ships, etc. Would this be possible in a World War Three scenerio? Would we be able to crank out F-16's, ships, Abrams tanks, etc. like we cranked out P-38's, B17's, Sherman Tanks, etc? War with the Soviets would of resulted in a nuclear exchange. Use of "tactical" nukes was part of there war with the west policy and so was chemical weapons. I think division level commanders had nukes at thier disposal while we need presidential approval for such weapons. Either way a war with the Former soviet union would have been disasterous for the us and them as well as the rest of the world. It most likely would not be fought in either Russia or the USA but in eastern and western eroupe. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: IMO, there hasn't even been a WW2 yet.  Oh do tell!  WW1 didn't end until the Soviet Union collapsed. Everything in the 20th Century happened as a consequence of WW1. I'm not the only one who believes it, there are some high profile historians that say it, and many an ARFCOMMER in WW1 threads have said it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Alright, time for a hypothetical World War Three thread. Assuming that the Cold War went hot between Warsaw Pact and NATO, and assuming that the war stayed conventional, would it be a long, drawn out conflict like the other world wars? Let's say the war took place in the 1980's. Both sides have high-tech aircraft, ships, etc. However, much of these weapons would be destroyed. Expensive weaons at that. During World War Two, every side was able to crank out large numbers of tanks, aircraft, ships, etc. Would this be possible in a World War Three scenerio? Would we be able to crank out F-16's, ships, Abrams tanks, etc. like we cranked out P-38's, B17's, Sherman Tanks, etc? War with the Soviets would of resulted in a nuclear exchange. Use of "tactical" nukes was part of there war with the west policy and so was chemical weapons. I think division level commanders had nukes at thier disposal while we need presidential approval for such weapons. Either way a war with the Former soviet union would have been disasterous for the us and them as well as the rest of the world. It most likely would not be fought in either Russia or the USA but in eastern and western eroupe. Yup. I was stationed at RAF Chicksands, UK, from April 1983 to April 1985. We wargamed the crap out of different scenarios. REFORGER was huge back then as was Team SPIRIT (Korea) and Autumn Leaves (UK component of REFORGER). We forward deployed to Stavanger, Norway one year as base defence for a FOL. Most scenarios envisioned a large armored mech attack through the Fulda Gap, preceded by a "Churned Earth" artillery bombardment by the Soviets. Our part in the UK dealt with dealing with Soviet sleeper cells and SPETNAZ attacks on airbases. The UK was a massive aircraft carrier back then, with RAF Lakenheath, Bentwaters-Woodbridge, Greenham-Common, Upper Heyford, Wethersfield, Alconbury, High Wycombe,etc. We had F-111s, A-10s, F-4s, B-52s (At RAF Mildenhall), as well as nuclear alert F-16s with gravity B61s at Hahn AB, in West Germany. Couple that with the Pershing IIs and GLCMs in the UK and Europe, it would've been a fast, hot, ugly war. Soviet doctrine never really differentiated between conventional/nuclear/chem/bio weapons. Soviet field commanders could release "tactical" nukes at their discretion, IIRC. If we survived (and we would) the initial Warsaw Pact artillery/aerial strike, we would've opened up the world's largest can of whoop-ass anyone's ever seen. The Soviets might've then seen that the only way to get back the advantage against our tactical air and technology would be to go nuclear. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
IMO, there hasn't even been a WW2 yet. Oh do tell!
WW1 didn't end until the Soviet Union collapsed. Everything in the 20th Century happened as a consequence of WW1. I'm not the only one who believes it, there are some high profile historians that say it, and many an ARFCOMMER in WW1 threads have said it. Semantics. Hell, people call what we are doing in Iraq and Afg a war. The Soviets caused the situation in Afg, which lead to OBL attacking on 9/11, which lead to us going to war in Afg. Therefor Operation Enduring Freedom is still part of WW1 
|
|
When we assume WWIII would have stayed conventional, we're assuming a lot.
The use of nuclear weapons was an integral part of the Soviet military doctrine - to the Soviets the concept of conventional war meant effectively nuclear war. That is why much of the Soviet nuclear capability was deployed in the form of medium range ballistic missiles, the most infamous of them being the dreaded SS-20. Those weapons were not meant to be a deterrent, they were meant to be used. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: IMO, there hasn't even been a WW2 yet. Oh do tell! WW1 didn't end until the Soviet Union collapsed. Everything in the 20th Century happened as a consequence of WW1. I'm not the only one who believes it, there are some high profile historians that say it, and many an ARFCOMMER in WW1 threads have said it. Semantics. Hell, people call what we are doing in Iraq and Afg a war. The Soviets caused the situation in Afg, which lead to OBL attacking on 9/11, which lead to us going to war in Afg. Therefor Operation Enduring Freedom is still part of WW1 You can make an argument that 9/11 could have still happened without the Soviet invasion because of the nature that Afghanistan has always been tough to govern. |
|
Quoted: I see where you're going with the first part, but how are you relating the second part to the first part? None of the 9/11 planners or hijackers were from Afghanistan, and if not for the Soviet-Afghan war there likely would've been no reason for any of them to train there or even go there at all.Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: IMO, there hasn't even been a WW2 yet. Oh do tell! WW1 didn't end until the Soviet Union collapsed. Everything in the 20th Century happened as a consequence of WW1. I'm not the only one who believes it, there are some high profile historians that say it, and many an ARFCOMMER in WW1 threads have said it. Semantics. Hell, people call what we are doing in Iraq and Afg a war. The Soviets caused the situation in Afg, which lead to OBL attacking on 9/11, which lead to us going to war in Afg. Therefor Operation Enduring Freedom is still part of WW1 You can make an argument that 9/11 could have still happened without the Soviet invasion because of the nature that Afghanistan has always been tough to govern. |
|
Quoted: Alright, time for a hypothetical World War Three thread. Assuming that the Cold War went hot between Warsaw Pact and NATO, and assuming that the war stayed conventional, would it be a long, drawn out conflict like the other world wars? Let's say the war took place in the 1980's. Both sides have high-tech aircraft, ships, etc. However, much of these weapons would be destroyed. Expensive weaons at that. During World War Two, every side was able to crank out large numbers of tanks, aircraft, ships, etc. Would this be possible in a World War Three scenerio? Would we be able to crank out F-16's, ships, Abrams tanks, etc. like we cranked out P-38's, B17's, Sherman Tanks, etc? 'Crank 'Em Out' war died with WWII. The US would not and cannot sustain those sorts of casualties. If the cold war had gone hot, it WOULD have gone nuclear - there's really no way around it.... |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: IMO, there hasn't even been a WW2 yet. Oh do tell! WW1 didn't end until the Soviet Union collapsed. Everything in the 20th Century happened as a consequence of WW1. I'm not the only one who believes it, there are some high profile historians that say it, and many an ARFCOMMER in WW1 threads have said it. Semantics. Hell, people call what we are doing in Iraq and Afg a war. The Soviets caused the situation in Afg, which lead to OBL attacking on 9/11, which lead to us going to war in Afg. Therefor Operation Enduring Freedom is still part of WW1 You can make an argument that 9/11 could have still happened without the Soviet invasion because of the nature that Afghanistan has always been tough to govern. I personally think that the current Euro/Dollar competition-war is just a continuation of the Thirty Years' War. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
OP, check out the book Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy. Resolved by one giant DEM (in the form of a coup) to prevent the use of nukes... Still a good read. Not entirely inconceivable. The way I saw it, a nuclear WW3 would've ended extremely ugly for everyone, so that generals actions reflect his awareness of that fact. No one wants to die if they can prevent it. |
| If you were of age in the 80's, you would know that nuclear war was a real threat with the soviet union. They could have land grabbed much of Europe with ease in conventional ways, before nukes woud have been used. Overall, it would be a matter of days or possibly a week before it all ended. The nukes would fly before you know it. |