|
Mgellis -> RE: Limited nuclear exchange? (9/23/2014 4:49:45 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FlyingBear
Any NATO conventional or nuclear attack would result in a Soviet nuclar response. Any Soviet attack would be nuclear from the beginning and result in a NATO nuclear response.
Therefore I do not see a scenario where NATO misunderstands the Soviet strategy so that a limited NATO nuclear response to a conventional Soviet attack results in an unanticipated Soviet all out nuclear attack. Reason: There would be no such thing as a conventional Soviet attack that NATO could try to counter with a limited nuclear response.
/FlyingBear
Just curious...what do you think of this situation:
One of the superpowers attacks an ally of the other one (e.g., the U.S. attacks Syria, the Soviet Union attacks Japan, etc.) Neither superpower is directly threatened, but the ally is important enough that the superpower allied with it feels it has to do something and moves forces to help defend its ally.
For example, say the Soviet Union had attacked Pakistan in 1982. Not even an invasion, but blowing up some air bases that it believed were providing help to Afghan rebels. An American carrier battle group in the area aids Pakistan in defending itself. So American and Soviet forces are directly engaged, but there is no direct threat to either the Soviet Union or the United States. Could a war like this stay regional, in effect another Vietnam? Or would it automatically escalate into a global confrontation?
Related question...what if the Soviets used tactical nukes against Pakistan?
A somewhat different question...is there any way to model chemical weapons in Command?
What are your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
