NakedWeasel
Posts: 500
Joined: 1/14/2014
Status: offline
|
I have a related question; In a cold war scenario I am designing I am trying to determine the most realistic way to gradually escalate to a full-blown, world-ending nuclear exchange. Understand, it's not the goal of the scenario to get to that point, but rather to use that final event as the realistic result of not de-escalating the conflict from the brink of nuclear holocaust.
Here's the setting: 1987 Western Germany, North Central Europe. NATO/France versus the Soviet Union/WARPACT. Premise: In this alternative timeline, decades of hatred and bitterness between East and West has continued unabated. There have been no significant peace accords or treaties between the US/NATO and the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact since SALT II. Things are really bad. ;) During the most recent REFORGER-style exercises in West Germany and the North Sea, Soviet reconnaissance aircraft make dozens of blatant incursions some distance into Western airspace. NATO fighters are finally ordered to shoot them down. The action results in a huge instantaneous furball along the border region, with dozens of aircraft on either side being destroyed. Eventually, both sides lose AEW, tankers, and EW aircraft to leakers. This escalates the scenario further as both sides begin to use fighters to make limited strikes against the opposing air defenses. ( in preparation for a broader attack if needed. ) Once key systems and command and control facilities are destroyed, the opposing side will launch comprehensive land interdiction alpha strikes against military facilities in earnest. If/when these strikes are successful, the OPFOR will launch unrestricted attacks against all ground targets, including civilian population centers. At the point when cities, airbases, and high command bunkers are destroyed, nuclear weapons are deployed. At first, this will be limited to military and industrial targets. But once these begin to be destroyed, the OPFOR will finally launch its entire strategic deterrent against all targets, both military and civilian.
My conundrum is this: I know what the impetus will be for the West to use nuclear weapons against the Soviets. They are retaliatory to what is widely regarded as "Soviet aggression." It wasn't wanted or asked for, but it was the correct thing to do. But using the punch for punch formula I have described above, what would be the soviet impetus for using tactical nuclear weapons in retaliation? Once the burning wreckage of fighters and SAM sites from both sides litters the landscape, and rear-echelon support aircraft are shot down, what would cause the Soviets to launch their first wave of SS-20's against tactical targets like airbases?
Naturally, I know that the Soviet/WARPACT doctrine for war against the West would have begun with nukes, dozens of them scattered throughout the continent, including major cities- some in even neutral nations like Switzerland, Austria, and Sweden. This isn't my own conjecture; I have read much about this from a number of sources. Honestly, I found it a bit shocking. They would have started WWIII with nuclear weapons on innocent and neutral civilians in population centers. Like, how does one even begin to process that in a logical manner? Anyways...
So if anyone has any ideas of how to gradually escalate the conflict to full-blown nuclear war in a gradual, fun sort of way (LOL), I'd love to hear them.
_____________________________
Though surrounded by a great number of enemies
View them as a single foe
And so fight on!
|
Printable Version
Learned an Important Lesson Today Regarding Nuclear Wea... - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread