Would we really have sacrificed ourselves to save Western Europe? From what I understand, A Soviet Invasion of Western Europe would have resulted in a U.S nuclear strike on the USSR.
If our idea was just to Nuke them, why did we bother to station troops in Europe? It seems to me that even if we lost a conventional war with the USSR and they did take over W.Europe, it wouldn’t last forever. There is always a chance we could launch a counter-invasion and take it back. Was the whole MAD doctrine just a bluff? Even if the U.S itself was invaded there is always hope for the future if it stays conventional.
So, lets say in the late 70s/early 80s the USSR launches an invasion, takes West Germany and will soon reach Paris, do we really launch a full Nuclear Strike or do we start up the draft again and just try to fight it out? Answers from military personel from that era would be especially appreciated.
Why would you think we wouldn’t risk American troops to save Western Europe? Europeans are more our allies than South Koreans, South Vietnamese, or Kuwaitis and Saudis ever were. We didn’t having a problem sacrificing American troops to defend those countries against aggression. Also keep in mind that a nuclear strike on the USSR would result in their equally nuclear retaliation.
We stationed troops in Europe, not to repel an invasion but to a) buy time until they could be reinfornced from the continental US and b) serve as a “tripwire”. In other words, while a single Brigade in Berlin would be overrun in no time by the USSR, doing so would bring the USSR into direct conflict with the nuclear armed USA and NATO.
Its always easier to defend than to attack. Why let the Russians invade and fortify and then hope that the military and political climate is such that we could take it back?
Yes, the entire MAD doctrine is a bluff. Or is it? That’s the point. The idea is that you don’t know if the other guy will use his nukes or not. You assume he will because it is better in this case to err on the side of caution.
There probably would be a draft if we went to war with circa 1970-90 Warsaw Pact.
There is a good chance that once one side or the other came close to defeat, nukes would be used. Which means that the war would have probably either stalemated somewhere between Russia rules Europe and NATO takes Moscow or most of the world would be a much quieter place.
Its not that I dont think we would risk American troops to defend Europe. I’m asking what was the point. If our policy was a nuclear strike in case of invasion, then why put troops there at all?
My memory of MAD is that we would not make a first use of nuclear weapons, but we would respond overwhelmingly if the USSR used them. I do not recall a policy specifying that we would use nuclear weapons in defence of an invasion of Europe by conventional weapons. Do you have a cite on this?
No, I dont have a cite, just the way I remember things. However, if our policy was only to use them in defense, what kept the USSR from expanding into Western Europe. I always thought they could have pushed us out of Europe if they wanted to, it was our willingness to go nuclear that kept them in check.
I think you overestimate the thoroughness of a nuclear attack (i.e., contrary to popular belief, nukes aren’t magical devices that automatically kill everyone–both sides were expecting plenty of survivors, esp. in hardened miltary installations) and underestimate the value in having your troops already stationed on the right continent (remember all of WWII? Normandy? Italy? the Pacific theater?)
A nuclear attack would not stop the enemy (though the destruction would be horrifying). And trying to re-take Europe via sea after an invasion would be hard as hell.
A single nuclear explosion may not stop the enemy. A general nuclear attack against mobile enemy forces certainly would.
Let’s not forget the English and French nukes. Where are the French nukes (I presume in wetern France to make them most defensible)? If a Russian steamroller was headed toward them, they’d be lobbin’ nukes like they were bottle rockets into Germany.
It’d have some effect, but not nearly enough to entirely stop them, or even cause too serious of damage to them.
First off, modern armored vehicles, including russian T-80s and BMPs, are very resiliant against the concussive and flash effects of a nuke. You’d have to land it just about right -on- a motorized company to destroy that company. And the russian millitary emphasized mobility, both land and air. Their tanks were designed to be highly mobile in all sorts of terrain, and just about all of their armored vehicles were either amphibious or capable of hasty fording of rivers. Planning a nuclear strike on an attacking soviet force would have to be done by in-theater tactical nukes, and there probably weren’t many of them. Strategic nukes would be useless except for area fire by predicting where they’ll be when it hits. And then you not only are taking away assets targeted towards their strategic assets, but you’re also chewing up a BIG chunk of your own land in the process (How many cities do you want to sacrafice?).
And of course, that would only hit the attacking wave. They’d still have reinforcements that weren’t in the area, units in other areas of their country, etc. You’d likely seriously disrupt the attacking unit, and inflict some fairly heavy casualties (As a high estimate, -maybe- 50% of their armored vehicles taken out), and they would be indisorder for a while… But they’d by no means be out of the game for good. Withdraw those units while the reinforcing units move in through the nicely-leveled area (The nuke onslaught would probably make travel through once-wooded areas much easier), and reorganize the first wave as reinforcements for the units now in the lead.
I don’t think there would be enough tactical nukes to have make a significant dent in a soviet attack, except as a reason to justify their own use of nukes… Which would be much more devestating against semi-static defensive possitions. A barrage of nukes centered on a few percieved “weak points” would be the perfect start to a concentrated breakthrough (Which by my understanding, was the soviet SOP for an eastern-europe attack).
Even with all the nukes pointed at industrial centers, estimates generally seem to run from 30-50% survival of civilians. No matter how you spread it out, unless the US had a LOT more missiles, and Europe wasn’t worried about destroying a hundred-mile deep stretch of itself, nukes weren’t a replacement for troops on the ground. And I don’t think Germany would be too happy if the plan designed to protect them consisted of pretty much writting off their country.
We needed troops in Europe for lots of reasons, not the least of which is that the Soviets didn’t necessarily have to launch a full-scale invasion of Western Europe - they could have attacked a bit at a time, taking small bits of territory.
Another reason is pure deterrance. You want to make sure that the Soviets don’t decide to take the risk that we won’t shoot nukes at them, so you have to put up a conventional defense as well.
The more complex reason has to do with the various defense treaties we had with the various western nations. NATO specified specific roles for each country, and their militaries were designed around those roles. For instance, Canada’s role in NATO was anti-submarine defense and northern patrol. Therefore, we didn’t need a huge ground army and floating navy, and the U.S. in turn didn’t have to fly northern patrols out of Alaska or build ASW aircraft with long ranges that could patrol northern waters.
You’re looking at this from totally the wrong perspective.
The Soviet Union wasn’t this Evil Monolithic Empire that wanted nothing more than to invade and kill everything in western Europe.
The Soviets wanted to prevent another WW2. The best way to do this, they thought, was to constantly maintain a strong army with an aggressive stance. They didn’t actually care about invading western Europe, they just wanted to be left alone by constantly projecting the threat of force.
Reminds me of an old Doonesbury strip where a TV news person was reading a White House press release clarifying a speech by Reagan. “Finally, substitute ‘response’ with ‘nuke-fest’.”
Well, I never really had the idea that they wanted to kill everything in western europe, but at the same time they didn’t have a problem with spreading their ideology via military force. I believe that, especially in the years just after WW2, if they had the chance they would have grabbed W.Europe.
Does anyone know if the USSR ever seriously drew up plans for an invasion?
Maybe one important aspect could be the “fog of war” thing.
Say the red Army crosses the inner-German border and invades Western Europe. The White House immediately holds an emergency meeting and comes to the conclusion that America would better leave Europe to the Soviets and return to its isolationism rather than starting a nuclear war. The President gives order to America’s nuclear forces not to push the button.
There is, however, a slight chance that an American nuclear attack might be launched against the USSR nonetheless; the order might get lost in the chaos resulting, or the commanders of American nuclear forces in Europe might think it was forged by the Soviets, or one of those commanders might simply run havoc (in the manner of General Jack D. Ripper in Dr Strangelove) and launch an attack on his own initiative. It might sound like a scinece-fiction movie scenario, but I suppose it is at least in the realm of possible events. Anyone knows how much direct control the White House had over the bombs stationed throughout the world?
And, remember that at two Western European countries, France and UK, had nuclear forces on their own. At least those would have been used if the Russkies start The Big One.
The President doesn’t need to issue an order NOT to launch, except to rescind a previous launch order. The default is NO launch except by Presidential order. So a “lost order” might PREVENT a nuke-fest, but wouldn’t start one.
As to lunatics or conspirators taking rogue actions with nukes – well, in reality that’s an every DAY risk, war or not. The temptaions would be higher, but the nukes are kept OUT of the control of local field commanders. General X at the front might try nukes if X saw a massed force about to overrun his troops. But X doesn’t hav them, General Y does, who’s a few hundred miles west and operating in a whole different environment. Even if Y agrees to launch, there’s pilots or missile crews trained thoroughly about what is a valid or INVALID launch order.
Part of the strategic missiles were based in the french Alps (south-eastern France) the rest were on submarines. The tactical bombs were mostly carried by bombers, IIRC.
Anyway, making french ICBM sites “more defensible” would have contradicted the french nuclear doctrina which stated that they would be used directly against cities (not against communication centers, missiles sites, or whatever) as soon as france would have been under a major threat. Tactical nukes would have been used only as a “last warning”, not as a military tool, in theory. The idea was something like “you can possibly invade the country, but given the level of destruction you would face in this instance, it’s not worth it” (the disuassion from the weak to the strong concept, slightly different from the “MAD” concept)
What would constitute a major threat was never clearly stated, as usual. But it was generally considered that France would have used her nukes (still in theory) if the Warsaw Pact had broken the NATO lines in Germany (hence before the french border would have been reached, that’s why I said deliberatly installing the sites in western france would have contradicted the nuclear doctrina).
By the way, your question point out a reason why france wanted her own ICBMs, instead of relying on the US “nuclear umbrella”. There was indeed no guarantee that the US would have actually protected western Europe in any instance. For instance an isolasionist US government could have suddenly decided to withdraw US forces from Europe. Or in case of a NATO defeat, the US could have been reluctant to actually threaten to use its nukes, since it would have probably resulted in the so feared MAD. Would have an american president actually taken the risk of having the US nuked for the sake of western Europe, or would have he accepted the defeat and came to an agreement with the USSR? Who knows…
By the way, since the fall of the Soviet Union, all french land-based nuclear missiles have been dismantled. France only kept her sub-based ICBM (apart from tactical nukes).
It still makes no sense to me why the French or anyone would go nuclear to stop an invasion. If the Soviets conquered France, they could organize resistance like when the nazis took over and wait until they got bailed out. It’s like blowing up your own house and sacrificing your family to stop a robber.
Actually, it’s more like having a hand grenade and threatening the robber with it if he doesn’t leave, knowing you, the robber and the house will be blown up if you use it. Will the robber call you bluff or not? Will you actually do it? No one knows and it’s the whole point of nuclear deterrance, french or not. You hope that the robber won’t take his chance and will leave you alone. The same question applies to any country which threatens to use nuclear weapons on a country which also owns them.
That said, stating that the whole nuclear detterance concept is totally insane is a pretty common and perfectly acceptable opinion. The pacifists used to say “Better red than dead”…
There were, by as early as 1965, sufficient numbers of tactical nuclear weapons in Western Europe to counter an expected thirty to sixty division tank invasion by Warsaw Pact nations. These were not ICBM mounted weapons aimed at Russia. These weapons would have been used on advancing enemy forces well inside the borders of NATO nations.
The dark secrets of Cold War military planning are truly horrifying. Part of the philosophy included such glib terms as “sustained ionic barrier” and “atmospheric interdiction” to describe lobbing nukes in serial waves for days at a time over the most densely populated places in the world, in order to deny the opportunity for the enemy to launch it’s own missiles. Germany, east and west not withstanding was projected to be “irreversibly interdicted for military use” within days of an attack by land forces.
Why? Well, it’s better to be dead, than red, isn’t it?
Don’t convince yourself that military thinking doesn’t still work the same way. Winning isn’t everything, in a war, it really is the only thing. One man left standing is a victory, if he is your man.
Tris
“For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.” ~ Sun-tzu ~
Why is it always a “russian invasion”? I don’t know about you, but I think it would have been the Americans invading the USSR!
Who was surrounding who anyway? While the americans had a massive amount of troops in Europe of all things and fighting or preparing to fight foreign wars (Vietnam? Afghanistan? support to Taiwan? messing around with the Americas?) and some generals were thinking of doing a first strike to annihilate the USSR, they were also crying “not fair” when the communists were invited by their Cuban allies to install a few nukes (like if we didn’t do the same thing in Europe!).
So who was more of the potential aggressor in all this?
Sure, we’re the “better” (I hesitate to say good) guys, but that doesn’t mean that the Reds wanted to kick our ass at every corner. They were too busy oppressing their own people anyway and holding on to their immediate neighbors…