Conventional versus strategic nuclear scenarios?

Question

If the Russians started a nuclear war, the US could choose to fire back, but the Russians would have chosen armageddon on the basis that the US would definitly return fire.

If the Russians started a conventional war, when they got to the French border or the outskirts of Paris, the French would have to make the call, start armageddon or not (they have independent nukes).

It seems like the US either puts enough conventional forces in Europe to stop the Russians before they get to France, or the US has to let someone else make the call on Armageddon.

Unless the US starts armageddon at Belguim just for the hell of it!

Do you agree?

Answer 1

Pretty sure the Cold War ended. And even if the Russians did make a run for France, either the US, France, or Great Britain would drop low yield devices over the advancing Russian forces somewhere near the Fulda Gap, if not in Poland, and that may or may not be the spark that starts armageddon. Either way the reality of Mutually Assured Destruction will prevent large scale nuclear war against the US.

Answer 2

obvosouly if the russians launched strategic weapons we would in turn retaliate (MAD princeaple) and every one said if Nato ever went against the Warsaw pact it would'nt stay conventional.

heres the problem i have with you theory on the "conventional" side, i dont think a ground war would leave germany, due to the fact that Nato forces have a technological superiority well the Warsaw pact had a superiority in numbers. i think it would look more like a High tech stalemate with the russians making early gains until the US could send additional support to the Aid of europe. i think someone would get the bright idea to drop a tactical sized weapon and it would spin out of control

but as of today the US has elements of the 1ID (minus 4th brigade and 1st brigade) in GE, they also are redeploying the majority of those units to the stated leavening 1 "heavy brigade" and a stryker "medium" brigade this is because the cold war is over and russia wouldnt threaten the other European nations like that. look at the russians chechen campaign they cant even hold down there own soil

Answer 3

No. I don't think Russia is going to invade anything. It's not on its political agenda. We see (and will) many border disputes as a consequence of the separation of the former USSR but I don't see it going further (at least not in the near future).

I'm a lot more worried about other countries that are on an invasion spree trying to achieve world domination the way Reich (before WWII) and Russia (after WWII) did before. It's even worse because they're not going over the neighbors. Due to the high mobility of their armies, they're creating chaos the other side of the world and moving from there.

Meanwhile, they're using the same internal policy the 3rd Reich and the Soviet USSR used to control the population and have access to unlimited resources to keep the invasion going. Press control, misinformation, repression, creation of social fear, unlawful prosecution of undesirable minorities, restrictions to personal rights (even total elimination), etc etc.

I can't remember the names of those countries but you can find them on the news every day...

Answer 4

It's been that way for a long time, and we're still here.
Don't see a problem with it.

Actually, the Cold War scenario was that Russia would attack Europe, and the outnumbered NATO forces would be forced to use tactical nuclear weapons to halt the advance - which would then lead to a nuclear exchange.

Answer 5

Why do you think that it is going to be that way? Try this one and see: The French and the rest of Europe decide that they have had enough of the neurotic and dangerous Americans so they join forces with Russia and secretly launch all nukes overnight flattening the US coast to coast. Bless!

Start thinking!