Poll: World War Three.

[LtWigglesworth]

So, having seen a large discussion of this subject on other forums, I was interested as to what this community thinks.

The question is, In the event of the cold war turning hot, who would win? Any answer accepted!
A couple of qualifiers to frame the discussion.
1) Timeframe: Mid 'eighties.
2) WMDs: No tactical use, no strategic use unless one superpower was existentially threatened.

Other things such as warning times, background and locations are up to you lot to set!

I personally think that If there was a Warsaw Pact (WP) attack that occurred with less than a weeks warning then the WP would have reached the french border in a matter of days, and then either kept rolling or discussed a ceasefire depending on the political and domestic situations in WP and NATO nations and the survival rates of NATO forces.
EDIT: Added cockroach to options. Maybe. If the webpage is feeling generous.

 

[SlaveNumber23]

No one would win World War Three.

 

[LtWigglesworth]

Well not if it went nuclear...

 

[MrGalactus]

No one would win World War Three.

You sound like Batman. Are you Batman?

 

[Nickolai77]

I'm not really an expert, but if we're talking the 1980's then i'd be inclined to suspect NATO forces would have done better than the OP's analysis. When the cold war ended and countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary etc were looking to join NATO one of the major problems they faced was that their equipment and military training was not up to NATO standards, which to me suggests that in terms of equipment and training, Warsaw pact countries were inferior to NATO. I'm a bit more uncertain about Russia's capabilities however.

Also, if it's the 1980's then the AH 64 Apache would have just been introduced- and it's purpose was to be a Russian tank hunter essentially, and if there were a sufficient number of AH64's deployed in Europe at that time then they'd have fucked over Russian tank-columns. That's assuming NATO can attain air superiority (which would have been the main determent over who would win) which is a question i don't know the answer to. F16 v MIG29?

 

[BringBackBuck]

How about a nice game of chess instead?

 

[Soviet Steve]

Pre-nuclear would be in NATOs favour (If they were mobilized), whereas post-nuclear would be in the pact's favour. It's worth observing that quantity has a quality of its own, so a surprise attack by the pact would probably result in overrunning the European mainland.

 

[Iron_will]

When the cold war ended and countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary etc were looking to join NATO one of the major problems they faced was that their equipment and military training was not up to NATO standards, which to me suggests that in terms of equipment and training, Warsaw pact countries were inferior to NATO. I'm a bit more uncertain about Russia's capabilities however.

If I recall correctly, the export versions of Russian military vehicles were typically inferior compared to the ones Russia produced and fielded for themselves.

 

[A Raging Emo]

There wouldn't be any winners; only survivors.

I've wanted to say that for around 15 years now.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Nobody would win. That's why it wouldn't have happened. Nuclear weapons would most certainly be deployed, and when one flies, they all fly.

In regards to conventional warfare, and the quality of Soviet equipment, the Soviets recognised that a war would be exceedingly bloody. The first invading forces weren't there to conquer, they were there to exhaust the NATO forces, getting decimated in the process, but leaving the opposition severely weakened for when the better equipped later waves attacked.

The OP mentions Switzerland. That nation would have been destroyed in WW3. The Soviets recognised that various nations not part of the fighting would suddenly become world powers once the current powers destroyed each other, and so neutral and even allied nations were targeted by ICBMs (generally one to hit the capital and destroy the government).

 

[Muspelheim]

Sweden, of course! We coatturned our way out of the first, the second and surely we can stay away from three, selling ore and cheap furniture to whoever's winning as we go.

Well, until the atomic bombs start flying.

 

[Zipa]

''I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.'' -
Albert Einstein .

Smart guy.

 

[lRookiel]

''I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.'' -
Albert Einstein .

Smart guy.

Damn Einstein you clever bastard.

Yeah..... The next war is going to end EXTREMELY badly (For everyone)

 

[marurder]

Nobody on that list would 'win', except perhaps Fiji, but that's more because it is of little strategic importance and isn't really worth the nuke.

 

[sextus the crazy]

At First, the NATO forces would wreck the WP's shit, but if they could hold on for a year or so, the tide would shift. By that time, much of NATO's (especially the US's) aircraft and machinery in general would be in under going maintenance or getting scrapped for parts simply because of how complex western weapons systems. By this point the Russians would still be able to crank out many more tanks and aircraft than NATO could destroy, leading to an eventual Russian counter offensive. Then, the US's manufacturing sector would kick into overdrive and the war would either turn into a stalemate with peace or some sort of nuclear annihilation.

 

[QuartzQuadreant]

I have a feeling the Warsaw Pact would have a pretty decent advantage given that it has very few reasons to spare anyone. If the Pact was clever about it then there would be a large amount of bickering to be done before any attack against them was made - for example, covert 'salami' tactics involving little direct warfare would put their armies in perfect striking position before NATO got its trousers up; of course, they might be able to hold them back for about a month but by that time nuclear weapons would be involved, and the Pact would be very willing to use them.

 

[General Twinkletoes]

The only place that would win would be neutral islands in the middle of nowhere, away from anywhere that has strategic value. Nukes would make sure that both sides lose, badly.

 

[Major_Tom]

The Non-Aligned Movement, of course.

 

[Brainwreck]

Yuri, because he is fucking OP as shit against both the allies and the soviets.
He's got a counter to literally everything they can throw at him, for cheaper, and he's got mind control on top of that.
Fuck that guy.

 

[BristolBerserker]

Obviously the UK because we've got Captain Price.