|
|
Post by Anchises on Sept 27, 2018 1:33:00 GMT
Very glad that I have found this board!.
As my first topic here I would really like to discuss how NATO and WP could end WW3.
Sure, a full nuclear exchange initiated by the loser is not unlikely but I have my doubts about that.
So how can WW3 end without nukes flying?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,985 
Likes: 49,390
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 27, 2018 2:57:29 GMT
Very glad that I have found this board!. As my first topic here I would really like to discuss how NATO and WP could end WW3. Sure, a full nuclear exchange initiated by the loser is not unlikely but I have my doubts about that. So how can WW3 end without nukes flying? Welcome aboard Anchises. Welll in the Tom Clancy book called Red Storm Rising there was a coup in the Soviet Union wich ended World War III in NATO favor, so that is a option how World War III can end without nukes start flying around. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Sept 27, 2018 8:43:43 GMT
Very glad that I have found this board!. As my first topic here I would really like to discuss how NATO and WP could end WW3. Sure, a full nuclear exchange initiated by the loser is not unlikely but I have my doubts about that. So how can WW3 end without nukes flying?
Welcome aboard. Hope you enjoy it here. 
Basically I think it needs both sides to accept that ending the war by compromise, of some form, is better than one side or the other pushing their opponents into a corner. What this would require is that the aggressor - almost certainly the Soviets have to realise that their attempt to win a military victory has failed and their willing to offer terms that their opponents would accept. Details would depend on the exact circumstances. For instance the west would almost certainly want at the minimum a restoration of pre-war borders and possibly, if its got to the point where their on the offensive and there is widespread rebellion in the eastern block they might want to liberate some of those lands. [Although if faced with a major nuclear exchange its far from impossible they would accept a return to the status quo and abandon such rebellions, as they failed to support the Hungarians in 56 and the Czechs in 68].
Other options are some sort of coup in the SU which leads to it collapsing, or at least returning inside Soviet borders. Or that the Soviets 'win' in terms of overrunning say W Germany, Denmark and the Turkish straits but don't push on into France, as a nuclear power and then offer a ceasefire that the rump remains of NATO feels they have to accept.
The other option that comes to mind, although extremely unlikely, is that some technological breakthrough enables one side to basically nullify the other's nuclear weapons and hence win a total military victory.
Steve
|
|
archangel
Chief petty officer
Posts: 115
Likes: 69
|
Post by archangel on Sept 27, 2018 17:45:17 GMT
Welcome to the board, anchises! |
|
mcnutt
Chief petty officer
Posts: 162
Likes: 7
|
Post by mcnutt on Sept 27, 2018 18:16:07 GMT
The Soviet Union collapses.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Sept 27, 2018 19:18:47 GMT
Very glad that I have found this board!. As my first topic here I would really like to discuss how NATO and WP could end WW3. Sure, a full nuclear exchange initiated by the loser is not unlikely but I have my doubts about that. So how can WW3 end without nukes flying? Welcome to the forum. Just some thoughts: There are a zillion possibilities, naturally, because it depends why, how and when a war erupts. However, I would think that if an end came that wasn't nukes everywhere, it would come unexpectedly. One side would open back channels when things got too much and peace was better than the apocalypse for them. A start might begin in exchanges of badly-wounded POWs or held diplomats and lead to talks on a form of talks to take place to end this. Each side would also probably try to hide losses and show strength in an attempt to not appear weak ready to be destroyed: they'd aim to dupe the other into thinking it was in their interest to see peace. War could come to an end and might not even see peace but maybe a Korean scenario like in 1953 where there are no treaties on peace, but a general armistice and then exchanges of POWs. Political and diplomatic fallouts would be extraordinary and far-reaching. Patriotic fever to 'finish this' might not be diminished even when the scale of losses were revealed. Any government, east or west, who was seen as giving in before defeat, and both sides would be regarded that way, would come under massive post-war strain at home too. |
|
|
|
Post by Anchises on Sept 27, 2018 23:52:41 GMT
Very glad that I have found this board!. As my first topic here I would really like to discuss how NATO and WP could end WW3. Sure, a full nuclear exchange initiated by the loser is not unlikely but I have my doubts about that. So how can WW3 end without nukes flying? Welcome to the forum. Just some thoughts: There are a zillion possibilities, naturally, because it depends why, how and when a war erupts. However, I would think that if an end came that wasn't nukes everywhere, it would come unexpectedly. One side would open back channels when things got too much and peace was better than the apocalypse for them. A start might begin in exchanges of badly-wounded POWs or held diplomats and lead to talks on a form of talks to take place to end this. Each side would also probably try to hide losses and show strength in an attempt to not appear weak ready to be destroyed: they'd aim to dupe the other into thinking it was in their interest to see peace. War could come to an end and might not even see peace but maybe a Korean scenario like in 1953 where there are no treaties on peace, but a general armistice and then exchanges of POWs. Political and diplomatic fallouts would be extraordinary and far-reaching. Patriotic fever to 'finish this' might not be diminished even when the scale of losses were revealed. Any government, east or west, who was seen as giving in before defeat, and both sides would be regarded that way, would come under massive post-war strain at home too. Interesting. Back channels are probably the decisive factor, without them it is probably really hard to tame the military hardliners. Your slow approach makes a lot of sense. Swapping POWs and diplomats and then using these fledling connections to figure out how to end this mess. I just imagine that it would be awfully hard to accept some form of defeat, if you still have your ultimate weapon. Might be easier for leaders, who know what their fate will be after losing such a war, to delude themselves into believing that a limited nuclear war is possible. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,225
|
Post by stevep on Sept 28, 2018 11:56:29 GMT
Welcome to the forum. Just some thoughts: There are a zillion possibilities, naturally, because it depends why, how and when a war erupts. However, I would think that if an end came that wasn't nukes everywhere, it would come unexpectedly. One side would open back channels when things got too much and peace was better than the apocalypse for them. A start might begin in exchanges of badly-wounded POWs or held diplomats and lead to talks on a form of talks to take place to end this. Each side would also probably try to hide losses and show strength in an attempt to not appear weak ready to be destroyed: they'd aim to dupe the other into thinking it was in their interest to see peace. War could come to an end and might not even see peace but maybe a Korean scenario like in 1953 where there are no treaties on peace, but a general armistice and then exchanges of POWs. Political and diplomatic fallouts would be extraordinary and far-reaching. Patriotic fever to 'finish this' might not be diminished even when the scale of losses were revealed. Any government, east or west, who was seen as giving in before defeat, and both sides would be regarded that way, would come under massive post-war strain at home too. Interesting. Back channels are probably the decisive factor, without them it is probably really hard to tame the military hardliners. Your slow approach makes a lot of sense. Swapping POWs and diplomats and then using these fledling connections to figure out how to end this mess. I just imagine that it would be awfully hard to accept some form of defeat, if you still have your ultimate weapon. Might be easier for leaders, who know what their fate will be after losing such a war, to delude themselves into believing that a limited nuclear war is possible.
That is always the fear, although this depends in part on whether its an offensive or defensive defeat. I.e. its a lot more likely a power under attack and threatened with conquest will risk using a single nuke say as a strong diplomatic message/shot across the bow to say thus far and no further than a power which has launched an offensive invasion will use such a weapon if their invasion is failing. [Presuming of course that both sides have similar nuclear capacity.
However there is the danger that as you say some weak leaders will consider upping the ante rather than accepting defeat of their plans. The saving grace, especially if they live in a dictatorship with control of the media is that they have the capacity to redefine defeat and victory. I.e. 'our glorious liberation of our oppressed neighbours' becomes 'our successful defence against a heinous attack by our enemies'.
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Sept 28, 2018 18:17:08 GMT
Welcome to the forum. Just some thoughts: There are a zillion possibilities, naturally, because it depends why, how and when a war erupts. However, I would think that if an end came that wasn't nukes everywhere, it would come unexpectedly. One side would open back channels when things got too much and peace was better than the apocalypse for them. A start might begin in exchanges of badly-wounded POWs or held diplomats and lead to talks on a form of talks to take place to end this. Each side would also probably try to hide losses and show strength in an attempt to not appear weak ready to be destroyed: they'd aim to dupe the other into thinking it was in their interest to see peace. War could come to an end and might not even see peace but maybe a Korean scenario like in 1953 where there are no treaties on peace, but a general armistice and then exchanges of POWs. Political and diplomatic fallouts would be extraordinary and far-reaching. Patriotic fever to 'finish this' might not be diminished even when the scale of losses were revealed. Any government, east or west, who was seen as giving in before defeat, and both sides would be regarded that way, would come under massive post-war strain at home too. Interesting. Back channels are probably the decisive factor, without them it is probably really hard to tame the military hardliners. Your slow approach makes a lot of sense. Swapping POWs and diplomats and then using these fledling connections to figure out how to end this mess. I just imagine that it would be awfully hard to accept some form of defeat, if you still have your ultimate weapon. Might be easier for leaders, who know what their fate will be after losing such a war, to delude themselves into believing that a limited nuclear war is possible. Oh, I fear you might have been correct that in the face of defeat, a 'clever' strategy to win by nuclear means might have been likely. Still, there would have bene the chance that a situation like an armistice might have occurred too. Thankfully, we never had to find out. |
|
