Cold War

[The Dork Knight]

Time period: 1945-75
Nuclear Weapons do NOT exist in this scenario but all other science/tech does


Round 1: USA vs USSR both at peak power. All other countries neutral. Can either side score a decisive military victory over the other


Round 2: NATO vs Warsaw Pact. Same conditions. Can either side score a decisive military victory over the other


Round 3: All American allies ever, vs all Soviet allies ever including China, in world war. Can either side win decisively?


Although the conditions are military victory, assume economic measures such as naval blocades etc are applicable, as well cutting off trade/ economic isolation in all except first Round


Basically if there were all out war instead of proxies, with full and fit forces (so assume not after effects of WW2) but minus nuclear weapons, would the outcome of the Cold War be different?

[Pendaran]

Is there some sort of time limit here? Are all sides so committed that they will fight past the point of materiel exhaustion? What do you define decisive military victory as, is what I'm getting at.

[The Dork Knight]

I'll leave the victory conditions free for interpretation. Like perhaps losing the major west coast cities would cause the more free American public to rebel and demand a negotiated peace while maybe the Soviets being more oppressive would make their citizens fight on to the bitter end

I'll accept any reasonable victory condition where one side cannot take losses anymore, perhaps due to starvation, maybe due to loss of life or civil unrest. Whatever you feel pushes one side to that point, based on socio political conditions in either country up to 1975

No time limit but assume no major technological or global political change post 1975

[Pendaran]

So for instance, does continuing on in some guerilla warfare style count for keeping things going for a given side?

[The Dork Knight]

So for instance, does continuing on in some guerilla warfare style count for keeping things going for a given side?

Hmm... I'd say no, if like the other side has occupied the capital city or declared victory or something and such declaration is likely to be taken seriously by the rest of the world / not just propaganda

[Pendaran]

Hrm. I kind of feel like it would be one of those things where the winners would be as badly mangled as the losers.

That and if the victory condition for the US/NATO requires taking Moscow, General Winter makes invading Russia a heavily problematic mess.

[The Dork Knight]

Not necessarily conquest of the capital. The Russians for instance in WW1 gave up the fight due to public pressure and the losses sustained. So something like that, which might cause the nation/system to collapse

[Pendaran]

Not necessarily conquest of the capital. The Russians for instance in WW1 gave up the fight due to public pressure and the losses sustained. So something like that, which might cause the nation/system to collapse

Welllllll… that also had to do with basically being on the verge of a revolution. There's no condition like that in either the US or Russia in this case. It would basically have to be take the other guy's capital then.

[Pendaran]

I am not sure what statement it makes that the thread about who could undo the Snap in the MCU has 34 replies and this thread is just me and you pondering geopolitics and the viability of sustaining military effort in Russia during the winter ;p

[The Dork Knight]

Haha. I think it tells us that is primarily a board meant for discussing fictional characters lol

Couple of things I would like to note re winter in Russia

1. Americans enjoy a technological advantage over likes of Napoleon. They could already get planes within thousands of miles of Soviet mainland by the '50s itself so something like Berlin airlift maybe, if they do penetrate deep into Soviet territory

The magic neutrality condition that I've thrown in doesn't change the presence of American bases in Europe, or naval bases in the Pacific so supply lines will be open for invasion from either side


2. They enjoy a basic practical advantage over Nazis, they'll not be so foolish as to start massacring the conquered people, especially in Latvia, Ukraine etc, which already hated the Soviets and presumably under OP conditions still aren't that keen on the whole oppression/poverty combo that comes with the communist package, see Czechoslovakia '68. They could also try the classic American economic imperialism on conquered territory to build alliances, Marshall Plan 2.0 maybe

Then again '60s-'70s was height of apparent communist ideological success, in Africa and Asia so maybe it would be harder to win over locals at a time Communism seemed to be working out after all. Also Americans for all the talk of being more rational than the Nazis, did tend to end up alienating the local populace themselves at times notably ((Vietnam))

[The Dork Knight]

Here's what I think- if Americans do manage to contain Soviets militarily on the mainland, preventing them from counter attacking, they can conceivably overthrow the government through the tactic that won the cold War in the first place- by introducing capitalism and pumping in massive economic aid in the conquered territories, spreading propaganda and causing a Berlin Wall like scenario- people will be deserting en masse to the wealth and apparent freedom of the West. USSR was only at 60% of American economy even at its heyday

But I do not think they can manage to contain USSR military on their own considering they were beaten back by Chinese armies in Korea itself so your answer is probably closest to the expected outcome- even if they "win" it will be at the cost of economic and military ruin

[Captain Smith]

[QUOTE=The Dork Knight;4271935]Time period: 1945-75
Nuclear Weapons do NOT exist in this scenario but all other science/tech does


Round 1: USA vs USSR both at peak power. All other countries neutral. Can either side score a decisive military victory over the other

NO - conquering the land mass of the Soviet Union would exhaust the material and financial resources of the United States. If other countries are neutral, there is no way to actually get to the land mass of the USSR. Similarly, the USSR cannot affect the continental USA in any significant matter. Unless the USA maintained significant forces in Europe, the Russians could reach the Channel after the WWII level forces were brought home.



For the rest - the Germans and Japanese were beaten as they were fundamentally weaker than the Allies. They were too stupid (or their leaders were) to see that. They thought they could achieve victory in a shock and awe mode but when that failed, economic strength, population numbers, manfacturing capacity and logistics took them down.

A battle of the USSR vs. the Allies would be a grinding horror that neither could win on the battlefield. A victory would have to be a political change from one side or the other. I can't see the Allies folding, there would be a small chance of another 'Russian' revolution.

[Pendaran]

Here's what I think- if Americans do manage to contain Soviets militarily on the mainland, preventing them from counter attacking, they can conceivably overthrow the government through the tactic that won the cold War in the first place- by introducing capitalism and pumping in massive economic aid in the conquered territories, spreading propaganda and causing a Berlin Wall like scenario- people will be deserting en masse to the wealth and apparent freedom of the West. USSR was only at 60% of American economy even at its heyday

But I do not think they can manage to contain USSR military on their own considering they were beaten back by Chinese armies in Korea itself so your answer is probably closest to the expected outcome- even if they "win" it will be at the cost of economic and military ruin

Basically you yourself noted a lot of points for me, but ultimately I don't think this will really boil down to anything but a brutal, endless hell slog of attrition for all those reasons. That and if the USSR did one thing really well, it was propaganda, I can't see American propaganda having much penetration.

[BitVyper]

Do they have to fight until one side is able to clearly declare victory? If not, I think they probably end up signing an armistice where both sides claim to have won.

[big_adventure]

The USSR, even at her peak, couldn't have done a damn thing conventionally to the US. The US would enjoy massive air superiority due to massively superior hardware and training and has the advantage of being un-invade-able without a ridiculous amphibious assault.

OTOH, the US at the time could not occupy the USSR. The issue being that maintaining control of a territory in the short term requires open, abject brutality of non-combatants that simply won't fly in the modern world in countries with an open media, at least not post-Vietnam. Or it requires Roman-style colonization, also a thing greatly frowned on in the Occident since... well, that same time period.

If the victory condition is a parade through Red Square with the American flag flying over the Kremlin, well, maybe. But they'd have to leave pretty directly I would say.