World War 3

[95thrifleman]

This is fairly old but quite interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZf-M_vC22w

Basicly a what if, alternate history based on the success of the coup against Gorby back in 1990

[conon394]

A clever find.

A couple thoughts. I would think the logically given the fact of a hot war already a Russian signal would be a short range tactical nuclear weapon in Germany [If NATO had achieved air superiority how a did a Russian bomber get anywhere]. In any case it raises the issue some have argued about China's ballistic missile CV killer. Using an ICBM based weapon invokes the prospect of the US interpreting that as strategic nuclear war. In this I would assume the Russians would use a delivery method that could not be mistaken or at least interpreted as a harsh threat inside what was or had been Russia's sand box.

It would have been right time for the F-117 to be a real surprise and w/o time to work out how to find them.

Good point on how neither side really had ready reserves of its top line equipment to fight a real peer to peer war at high intensity with out exhausting supplies. Production capacity for things like top shelf tanks or advanced missiles is not something you can just turn on. Interesting even though the Tomahawk missile is central to almost any US war (and even more so with its upgrade to have anti ship missiles) it somewhat surprising the US only has about 3 or maybe 4000 of them on hand. I don't have a good source on hand (I'll try and find a link) but from what I recollect the NATO average was just two weeks of high intensity combat, the Pact a bit longer, reserve high end gear exists more less only in Russia and the US. The fate of the UK harriers or the fact Poland is driving ex German and Dutch Leopards are telling examples- Almost nobody in Europe keeps stocks of near high end weapons that would be useful.

Its interesting they mention the US SIOP - it was nasty piece of work until the mid the 2000s. The US plan targeted the USSR and China and all communist countries any nuclear power that was not A list ally. Ironically it likely would have worked back in the Cuban missile crisis. The USSR could have hit NATO in Europe hard and Japan, but if the US pulled the trigger first the lasted data seems to show the US winning (sure with an irradiated planet) and whole lot of dead people. The USSR at the time could not get its ICBMs up in time, hence the whole desire to put missiles on Cuba.

[Cyclops]

....Its interesting they mention the US SIOP - it was nasty piece of work until the mid the 2000s....

Thats very interesting, I had wondered about bombing priority. I recall the British program "Threads" which depicted war in 1984, and used a published British document that predicted the likely Soviet strikes on the UK (I think the list was a bit silly as UK planners did not want to reveal their own methodology by showing what the y really though the Reds would hit). A quick Google shows it was McNamara created the first really flexible list of response, gee that bloke made a lot of trouble for the US.

Is 1990 a real flashpoint? I guess any change of leadership in Russia would be problematic, but later changes in leadership weren't quite as disruptive as when Stalin died or Khruschev was toppled.

From the Western POV my own impression is that Truman and Kennedy were the two dangerous periods, neither very intelligent or honest men, and Kennedy seems to have been almost as much of a fool as Trump. He was elected by lying about the US "losing" the nuclear arms race, and started dicking around in Cuba and Vietnam as sooin as he was elected.

[conon394]

I not sure a see a knock on Truman. He was holding the leash tight on his generals who rather liked the ideal of going nuclear while the US still had an overwhelming edge. Kennedy blundered in Cuba, and Ike got the US into nam. Its true Kennedy talked up the missile gap thing up, but he was being played and Ike puled a Obama and was unwilling to correct the inflated info Kennedy was getting fed from various sources. But overstating the red risk is was well established US thing just consider Bush senior and team B. Trueman may well have been the last president to not get sucked into seeing and evil empire with 2 or 3 time any US capacity.

Trueman deserves credit there is no doubt the US could have nuked China, and the USSR and likely not suffered any real counter attack. I don't have a good link handy but if memory serves the US had maybe 200-400 devices usable and about 100-200 bombers that could deliver them. The USSR had perhaps just a dozen bombs and only the most tenuous of delivery platforms. Operation Hudson Harbor (for real) would likely have won the Korean war for the US. I mean if you consider incinerating a lot a Manchuria a win. Note by that time the US bombs with cores it Europe as well.

[Cyclops]

I not sure a see a knock on Truman. He was holding the leash tight on his generals who rather liked the ideal of going nuclear while the US still had an overwhelming edge.

That's a fair point, I was thinking more that he blundered into Korea. I haven't quite got a handle on that war, I think the split position there has screwed the Korean people hard, but OTOH it probably has kept Japan safe. Its stopped China from getting Taiwan, maybe good for Taiwan? Bad for regional stability, I think its more likely to start a war than Chain's aggressive oil grab in the SCS.

My impression of Truman is a corrupt time server made VP to satisfy some bent Dem faction who lucked out by being rusted on by the time FDR died. Happy to be corrected though, and he did tell MacArthur to STFU, always a good thing.

Kennedy blundered in Cuba, and Ike got the US into nam. Its true Kennedy talked up the missile gap thing up, but he was being played and Ike puled a Obama and was unwilling to correct the inflated info Kennedy was getting fed from various sources.

I think Kennedy's sources were A. his own arse and B. see A. It was pure Wag the Dog Hollywood bulldust, like his entire legend. He kicked off Cuba by putting nukes in Turkey, then sent Khrushchev an ultimatum to withdraw from Cuba which if Khrushchev had not conceded to would have started nuclear war. Its worth repeating: he started the clock on nuclear war, and left it to a foreign leader to stop. Insane incompetence. No wonder they shot him, I wonder how many branches of government weren't involved.

I know Ike flirted with Vietnam, but I think it was Kennedy who sent the boys in (he definitely got Australia in). It was literally Stalingrad II, a pissing contest he had to win with no clear military objective or parameters, just a body count and some publicity. I think probably they went into Vietnam to prove "the big boys are in charge now, lets win this little war the Republicans screwed up first".

But overstating the red risk is was well established US thing just consider Bush senior and team B. Trueman may well have been the last president to not get sucked into seeing and evil empire with 2 or 3 time any US capacity.

That's a fair point too. Perhaps I am over-reacting because of my allergy to the Kennedy myth. The more I read about Eisenhower the more I think he was the most competent and ethical US president of the 20th century, ahead even of Wilson. No WWIII on the cards when Ike was in the office.

[conon394]

My impression of Truman is a corrupt time server made VP to satisfy some bent Dem faction who lucked out by being rusted on by the time FDR died. Happy to be corrected though, and he did tell MacArthur to STFU, always a good thing.

If I understand corruption to mean getting his VP tap via old school inside party politics. That is fair I suppose. But he and administration were certainly not corrupt in the more typical sense. No hidden list of mistresses, no financial corruption or political dirty tricks (similar to Tricky dick). He was a commendable president: Desegregation of the Civil service and military; Vetoed (but overridden) the attack on labor rights that is Taft-Hartly act. He was good foot soldier for FDRs New Deal.

I think Kennedy's sources were A. his own arse and B. see A. It was pure Wag the Dog Hollywood bulldust, like his entire legend. He kicked off Cuba by putting nukes in Turkey, then sent Khrushchev an ultimatum to withdraw from Cuba which if Khrushchev had not conceded to would have started nuclear war. Its worth repeating: he started the clock on nuclear war, and left it to a foreign leader to stop. Insane incompetence. No wonder they shot him, I wonder how many branches of government weren't involved.

As a Gen X with parents that still are infatuated with Camelot - I can see your view. However I think Khrushchev would have done Cuba even without the Turkey deployments. Internally Russia did not feel it had a credible chance to stop a US first strike (and they were likely correct). Once in office the Air force, the CIA etc were spooked the Russian space program and really were delivering inflated views of Russian capability.

[Cyclops]

If I understand corruption to mean getting his VP tap via old school inside party politics. That is fair I suppose. But he and administration were certainly not corrupt in the more typical sense. No hidden list of mistresses, no financial corruption or political dirty tricks (similar to Tricky dick). He was a commendable president: Desegregation of the Civil service and military; Vetoed (but overridden) the attack on labor rights that is Taft-Hartly act. He was good foot soldier for FDRs New Deal.

Thx, thats news to me, good to be informed and corrected. I have a patchy picture of US politics and its likely with few sources that i have caught stray propaganda.

As a Gen X with parents that still are infatuated with Camelot - I can see your view. However I think Khrushchev would have done Cuba even without the Turkey deployments. Internally Russia did not feel it had a credible chance to stop a US first strike (and they were likely correct). Once in office the Air force, the CIA etc were spooked the Russian space program and really were delivering inflated views of Russian capability.

Is that a fair stab at the assassination, could it have been "Murder on the Orient Express'? Like there were actually multiple shooters, CIA, Republican and Democrat, Amy, Marine etc assassins making sure?

[conon394]

Thx, thats news to me, good to be informed and corrected. I have a patchy picture of US politics and its likely with few sources that i have caught stray propaganda.

Unbiased opinion on Truman is tough. Some see a through a lens that the Atomic bombings are unforgivable so that colors their opinion. Others (American right) see a man 'lost China' (although as Stillwell could and did tell everyone nothing was going save Chiang Kai-shek) and failed to win in Korea (while ignoring IKE did not either). Of course he also had to deal with McCarthy's rad scare as well. On balance a solid president who had to deal with Stalin's reckless green light for Kim and a war that really had no good resolution.

[Cyclops]

Unbiased opinion on Truman is tough. Some see a through a lens that the Atomic bombings are unforgivable so that colors their opinion. Others (American right) see a man 'lost China' (although as Stillwell could and did tell everyone nothing was going save Chiang Kai-shek) and failed to win in Korea (while ignoring IKE did not either). Of course he also had to deal with McCarthy's rad scare as well. On balance a solid president who had to deal with Stalin's reckless green light for Kim and a war that really had no good resolution.

The premise for Watchmen was that "to win in Vietnam the US would have had to elect Nixon five times" oh and also deploy Nukerman.

What would be the preconditions for a US win in Korea? Not including superheroes or other spacebats. Is it a semi-win if MacArthur dies before crossing the 38th? Would stopping at the 38th create a stable peace? The proposed Wall of Fallout along the Yalu surely is a general defeat. If MacArthur somehow beats the Chinese does he take Vladivostok? If he comes home and wins the election does he go nuclear? If China wins does Japan fall within a decade?

I lack the knowledge to even rank these questions likelihood let along discuss them intelligently.

[conon394]

I can't see a good way for win. If you mean a win for everyone than Truman almost assuredly would have had to reign in MacA. Stopping before the Yalu (as the Chinese made clear that's what they wanted in several ways) and then asking China what settlement they would support. The whole who lost China thing kinda killed that politically for Truman, and even Ike had to grind on for pointless stalemate to carry his party into being done with it.

On the US side there was a real problem however. The US was locked into a view of a monolithic communism run out of Moscow alone.

There is a good read to had here

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-f...article06.html

Essentially the US was locked into a mindset that the USSR called all the shots. Thus no matter China's signals the US saw no moves by the USSR for war in Europe so assumed more or less that Stalin had washed his hands of Kim. Obviously MacArthur's unfounded on the ground opinion (of Chinese capabilities) and even worse intel conclusions on China only made matters worse. On top of that Truman's political wound 'who lost china weak on Communism' meant it was really going to take space bats for some kind policy for the US end to the war after clearly crushing North Korea that did not involve trying to take the whole peninsula. Especially when MacArthur really seemed to have been snorting too much of his own ego and wanted I think a wider war.

Now could the US have won a wider war. I really don't think so at that time or at least not without looking like the greatest mass murdering nation in history. Truman had more or less done what the US had always done demobilized after the end of WW2. Tactical nuclear capabilities were not in production and deployed. The US obviously had a massive advantage in large nukes but it had no good delivery system. Neither the B-52 nor the B-47 were flying yet. The combination of those three is what let IKE demobilize and still have a credible nuclear deterrence vs the USSR.

The B29D/50 and B-36 could likely have delivered MacArthur's nuclear attack on China, at cost and if the USSR was surprised. I can't really see the gain MacArthur imagined. China would be very much in the war and can't imagined it be a winning harts and minds move. I can't also see Stalin not escalating. The fact is the US was simply not in a position to stop the Red army from advancing anywhere it wanted to. The only fall back option would be to desperately try to send really vulnerable US bombers to strategically bomb the USSR to make Stalin blink. I think that is about it. The USSR sweeps across Europe, into Korea. The US nukes Russia losing plenty of bombers and looses any moral credibility. I really doubt it but I suppose if Truman can rally public support for a new total war sure the US might win a long economic grudge match, but would the world really back the US in what would really US nuclear aggression? In some ways Stalin picked the right moment to test the US. The US had lost its absolute nuclear advantage, the USSR had the air force to shoot down the US's aging delivery methods, The Soviet army was well really big, Truman could not expand the war without well loosing.

[Cyclops]

Appreciate the response, I agree with the points I understand, and thanks for the info on the rest.

...In some ways Stalin picked the right moment to test the US. The US had lost its absolute nuclear advantage, the USSR had the air force to shoot down the US's aging delivery methods, The Soviet army was well really big, Truman could not expand the war without well loosing.

This is my strong impression. I think Stalin was a skilled player, he milked Wiemar and Hitler for agreements that benefited him, and really only was surprised in 1941 because he didn't figure on Hitler choosing the suicide play (attack Russia in mid summer surrendering moral high ground and ensuring US contributions to Lend lease by doubling down on Japan's suicide play).

I think Korea was a masterstroke, that murderous scum bastard's timing was very fine and the results are still with us in a divided Korea and a divided China. If you rate leaders on their big decisions Nixon (for all his personal problems) looks like a very strong international leader in his rapprochement with China, that's as good a moment as any for calling the decline of the Soviet Union.

To Reagan's credit he was able to step back from his "Evil Empire" rhetoric (at the time he looked like a potential Armageddon president), but I wouldn't say he was a statesman guiding the crashing Soviet empire to a relatively soft landing. I don't know enough about Gorbachev, maybe he helped avoid bloodshed with his reforms. My impression of Bush Snr is while he wasn't a great President for the US domestically (eg not a great grasp of the economy) he was a capable company man, versed in US foreign policy and relationships from CIA days, so maybe he was a positive force in those dangerous years?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

The irony is that Stalin always gets memed as reckless when he was in fact a very cautious strategist that liked to take the safest option. This is basically why he refused to get sucked into a war with Germany in 1939, knowing full well that Chamberlain intended it be a removal of both of his key rivals. He also forced the Germans to renegotiate the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact when they were at their most vulnerable. Quite possibly though he overreached in doing so, this is probably what set off red flags for the Germans. Maybe his other mistake was in not signing a more permanent agreement with the Germans. But given the hindsight that he actually won the war maybe not.

Part of it makes me question why it was that Stalin agreed to the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact. Was he really being so opportunistic as to making a temporary agreement with the Germans so that he could focus on reducing the Capitalist enclaves in the Baltic States, Romania and Finland? Then justifying it ideologically as the Western Imperialists waging war to destroy each other and thereby inevitably causing the proletarian revolution? Or was there perhaps something more to the the agreement perhaps on an ideological level? Was the ideological expectation of Western collapse what Hitler promised to Stalin? It honestly does seem like they had a clear ideological common ground here. Even if Hitler was just playing the Soviets, was this enough for Stalin to believe it? It is worth considering, although Stalin quite clearly didn't trust the Germans if he forced them to renegotiate the R-M Pact on more than one occasion.

Something that could help... what was Stalin's reaction when Hitler purged Ernst Roehm, Otto Strasser and Gregor Strasser etc? One of the main contentions within the NSDAP which led to the Knight of the Long Knives was the rival faction wanting to ally with the USSR against the Western powers. Would Hitler purging this faction therefore not be proof to Stalin that such cooperation would not be possible? This was such a major point of contention within the Party between Nationalism and Socialism, that when Hitler decided to conciliate with Britain, France and Poland rather than USSR, Goebbels would say "at that moment I stopped believing blindly in Hitler". But for whatever reason Goebbels quickly switched from the Strasser faction to the Hitler faction.