Who would have won WW3??

Question

If war had errupted between NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations, which side would claim victory??

Answer 1

Unfortunately, in the nuclear age, the only true enemy is war itself. Global suicide would have been, and may be, the outcome of WWIII. As Einstein is often quoted as saying, "WWIV will be fought with sticks and stone...." as the world will have been plunged back into the stone age....

Answer 2

It depends on when it would have been fought.

If fought immediately after WW2, probably the U.S.A. though it would have taken a very long time. The USSR had more and better tanks, artillery, etc. than the U.S. (look at how the Russian made tanks blew through our WW2 era tanks in Korea in the 50s). Our only advantages would have been sea power (not important in an Asian land war) , air power, and the bomb, and our alliance with Nationalist China.

If fought in the 50s...again probably the USA. Up untill the early 60s, even if it had gone nuclear, the U.S. had such an edge in airpower that it would have won the war... though it would have been a terrible holocaust and/or very long.

After about 1967 or so, you have to give it to the USSR. Primarily because of espionage superiority. The Russians had (thanks to the Walker spy ring) access to American codes. Thanks to the North Korean capture of the USS Pueblo they had the code machines. They also had access to American War plans. Given all of that it would have been very hard for them to loose. The efforts of the "anti-war" (i.e. anti- military ) U.S. left helped them also. After Vietnam the military was starved for funds, and would not have been capable of surviving, much less fighting or wining a non-nuclear WW3. ( I was told that in 1978 when the hostages were taken in Iran President Carter asked how many B-52s were available for a strike on Iran... when he was told 4 were the total number available he decided that diplomatic means were his only option.) From about 1968 to 1985 the Russians would have won... hands down.

By about 1985 or so the U.S. military, under Reagan, had been rebuilt. Still the Russians retained their espionage advantage... it would have been close...by 1989 the Warsaw Pact was starting to come apart... a non-nuclear war might have seen several of the Warsaw Pact countries coming in on the NATO side.

So the strategic ballance shifted throughout the Cold War. It is hard to say who would have won at any given time... obviously neither side was ever confident enough in their ability to win that they were willing to try it... which is what deterrance is all about.

Answer 3

well have gamed scenarios in Washington during 89-92.....most of the scenarios had the Warsaw Pact reaching the Rhine in less than 2 weeks...which was the nuclear trip line for NATO...and you can guess where we end up with that one....there were other ingenious or devious suggestions like suitcase nuking Warsaw Pact units but using something like a neutron bomb...leaving vehicles intact and our guys hopping in.

The only other plausible scenario and given the results of Desert Storm (although the Russians said those were Iraqis in junk models) I think would have most likely happened....is that NATO would have achieved air superiority and with the A-10's decimated the ranks of the T-72's or T-55's in and around the Fulda Gap...even though Warsaw Pact outnumbered us in all the relevant categories....NATO would have fought them to a standstill well before the Rhine....which would have the Warsaw Pact (The assumed aggressors) with two options: tactical nukes or chem weapons....either of which would escalated to Armageddon or negotiate a peace....I think option 2 would have been likely which would have started a chain reaction like the one we actually saw....

The scary thing is we now the Warsaw Pact's play---courtesy of Poland.....it called for a tactical nuclear strike and/or chem weapons even so far as to say Brussels and Manchester would have been nuked....and again....there goes the ballgame....however, any plan on both sides would depend on whether or not the people in the field would execute it....I believe that both sides would have sought to find a way out similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis after the requisite shedding of blood took place....

I'm American so I am biased, I think WWIII ends badly for the planet....or badly for the Warsaw Pact.....

Answer 4

Well the general consensus would be no one. If there was to be a victor it would be a non aligned nation (South American, African or Micronesian), far enough from the fighting to avoid direct consequences (stray nukes). Given that the gigantic numerical superiority of the USSR could only be canceled out by the deployment of NATO tactical nuclear strikes. The Warsaw pact would launch retaliatory strikes and nuclear escalation would result in the "MAD" scenario- (mutually assured destruction), Europe and much of North America would pretty much be uninhabitable, the remainder of the earth wouldn't be a plesant place either.

Answer 5

No one. NATO strategy was based on M.A.D. - Mutually Assured Destruction. Meaning both sides would be completely wiped out and that was the deterrent for why it never happened. Any small skirmish could have escalated into full scale nuclear war.

Sure, the US could have "won" world war 3. But the win would come with the complete destruction of, and death of all citizens of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, Houston, as well as London.

Answer 6

WW3 ended when the Iron Curtain fell, and in case you missed it, the NATO won that one.

Answer 7

The war would have continued until both sides and most of the bystanders had been devastated.

Answer 8

that all depends if we, Nato, really fought the war or pussy footed around like weare notorious for.

Answer 9

Nobody

Europe and parts of the USA would now be a nuculear dustbin

Answer 10

If nuclear power had been used then nobody would have won.