Soviet/NATO invasion and nuclear targets across the world thread

[gillan1220]

Aug 16, 2020 12:52:10 GMT stevep said:

Aug 16, 2020 3:23:37 GMT gillan1220 said:

Probable targets in the People's Republic of China.

The first one is from 1983: Doomsday:

- Beijing
- Changchun
- Chengdu
- Chongqing
- Dalian (Port Arthur)
- Dinghai
- Fuzhou
- Ganzhou
- Guangzhou
- Guiyang
- Harbin
- Jinan
- Lanzhou
- Lhasa
- Nanjing
- Nanning
- Qingdao
- Shanghai
- Shenyang
- Shenzhen
- Tianjin
- Wuhan
- Xi'an
- Zhanjiang
- Zhengzhou

---

This from Ashes of the Dragon: A Protect and Survive Tale in the other forum, written by user General_Paul

  A bit surprised that Lhasa is on the list as I didn't think the Chinese had that much of a military presence there other that what was needed to keep the Tibetans suppressed.  Might you I think by some measures Tibet is majority Han Chinese due to encourgement of them to settle there.

  Suspect there is a hell of a lot more targets in China now, for both the US and Russia I expect given how much its economical and technological as well as military strength has expanded since 83.

I was surprised why the Soviets would target Lhasa. It's not that significant of a nuke. Even if it is not nuked, the Tibetans would have rose up since the Han Chinese would lose their contacts in the East.

[James G]

Aug 11, 2020 9:08:55 GMT stevep said:

   That's why so many WWIII novels have the Soviets seeking to seize Iceland to weaken the barrier as well as it becoming an air base for them.  There is another way, especially since just about everybody hoped/expected such a conflict to be short, by getting as many subs as possible pass the gap and into the Atlantic before fighting started.  However of course such a sub surge was something NATO looked out for and would take as a prominent warning sign of a probable attack.

There are other ways of opening up the gap though. The SOSUS stations were land-based including the one on Iceland and another one which, IIRC, was near Bude in Cornwall: others were elsewhere. Hit them with commando teams who are expendable. Destruction doesn't have to be complete but just do enough. As to Keflavik, while it is a good airbase for use, Soviet combat aircraft - MiGs and Sukhois - generally had terrible range... okay maybe not the MiG-25 or Su-27, but the rest did. Taking it as an airbase is a lot of wasted effort when it could be hit with HE and gas weapons.

[gillan1220]

Fulda Gap - Operations. This was where the largest tank battle would have occurred in a hypothetical scenario of a Third World War. It would have made Kursk look like kindergarten.

[James G]

Aug 30, 2020 12:00:16 GMT gillan1220 said:

Fulda Gap - Operations. This was where the largest tank battle would have occurred in a hypothetical scenario of a Third World War. It would have made Kursk look like kindergarten.

Right where that ruler covers is the Kinzig River valley. That was 'Route 1' from the IGB to Frankfurt. The second best route would be to follow Highway-4 and loop around then come down between the Vogel and Taunus... that is if an attack plan was to go towards Frankfurt and everything of seemingly much value around it.

[gillan1220]

Aug 30, 2020 12:06:19 GMT James G said:

Aug 30, 2020 12:00:16 GMT gillan1220 said:

Fulda Gap - Operations. This was where the largest tank battle would have occurred in a hypothetical scenario of a Third World War. It would have made Kursk look like kindergarten.

Right where that ruler covers is the Kinzig River valley. That was 'Route 1' from the IGB to Frankfurt. The second best route would be to follow Highway-4 and loop around then come down between the Vogel and Taunus... that is if an attack plan was to go towards Frankfurt and everything of seemingly much value around it.

Those forests would have provided advantage to the defenders in this case. 

[James G]

Aug 30, 2020 13:51:08 GMT gillan1220 said:

Aug 30, 2020 12:06:19 GMT James G said:

Right where that ruler covers is the Kinzig River valley. That was 'Route 1' from the IGB to Frankfurt. The second best route would be to follow Highway-4 and loop around then come down between the Vogel and Taunus... that is if an attack plan was to go towards Frankfurt and everything of seemingly much value around it.

Those forests would have provided advantage to the defenders in this case. 

Hell yeah. Ambush sally points and cover in retreat. Observers for long range artillery and spotters for air strikes would find good cover too. 

[gillan1220]

Aug 30, 2020 14:28:22 GMT James G said:

Aug 30, 2020 13:51:08 GMT gillan1220 said:

Those forests would have provided advantage to the defenders in this case. 

Hell yeah. Ambush sally points and cover in retreat. Observers for long range artillery and spotters for air strikes would find good cover too. 

I wonder how the M2 Bradleys and the M1 Abrams would have fared here. Those were made for combat in Germany. Sure they are cream of the cake, but the Soviet numbers would balance that.

[gillan1220]

The following would also be targeted by the Soviets

[gillan1220]

[gillan1220]

On August 1, 2013, Elizabeth II's speech to the United Kingdom in an event of a World War III was declassified.

[stevep]

Oct 11, 2020 3:57:38 GMT gillan1220 said:

On August 1, 2013, Elizabeth II's speech to the United Kingdom in an event of a World War III was declassified.

  Interesting thanks.  I can see Thatcher being willing to sacrifice parts of Kent and Essex to protect the city of London and also the idea of using the army to move coal in a miner's strike.  Fortunately neither of those came to pass, as even more fortunately did a nuclear exchange.

[gillan1220]

Oct 11, 2020 11:27:53 GMT stevep said:

Oct 11, 2020 3:57:38 GMT gillan1220 said:

On August 1, 2013, Elizabeth II's speech to the United Kingdom in an event of a World War III was declassified.

  Interesting thanks.  I can see Thatcher being willing to sacrifice parts of Kent and Essex to protect the city of London and also the idea of using the army to move coal in a miner's strike.  Fortunately neither of those came to pass, as even more fortunately did a nuclear exchange.

At the time this was released publicly, I remember I was first year college and tensions with the U.S.-Russia were increasing because of the Syrian Civil War. Three weeks later, the chemical attacks occurred and the U.S. was about to unilaterally engage Syrian Arab Republic forces. I remember cautiously following the news while seeing the eery parallel to 1983.

[gillan1220]

I was going into a conversation with a veteran of the Philippine Army turned international relations specialist. Our topic was about a nuclear war in the 1980s and why the neutrals would not be spared. He states that the general strategy of a nuclear war was that neutrals don't get-off as spared because both sides would target them to prevent the other from getting it's resources.

So here's deeper reason why neutral countries or countries not-generally involved would get targeted

• Austria - Generally Western-leaning. Military is capable of defensively fighting both JNA and Warsaw Pact forces. It is also a vital route in the Alps.
• Finland - A Western-leaning nation the borders the Soviet Union even though not a member of NATO. Hosts a strong anti-Soviet sentiment since the Winter War. The Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 aimed to deter Western or Allied powers from using Finnish territory to attack the USSR. Plus, the country hosts a lot of seaports and airports that could be used by both sides. This would ensure it would be targeted by both the USA and the USSR (i.e. "If we can't have it, you can't have it either.")
• India - A member of the Non-Aligned Movement and is generally Soviet-leaning. The fact that it borders China and is nuclear armed would mean the Chinese would fire nukes at them especially border disputes from 1962 and 1975.
• Ireland - Neutral but Western-leaning. The country could provide refuge from NATO ships and planes with the amount of airports and seaports it has. The Soviets would want the IRA to destabilize the region once Dublin and Belfast is gone.
• Mexico - While the military is weak and could not project power beyond its shores, it has close relationship with the United States. Mexico's airports and seaports could be used for American air and naval units to regroup. Juicy targets for Soviet submarines. 
• Panama - A small country that has a small military (Panamanian Defense Forces) but hosts the strategically-important Panama Canal which can be used by the U.S. Navy to go from the Pacific and the Atlantic or vice-versa real quick. The destruction of the Panama Canal would ensure the Allies would take more time if needed to cross from both oceans. At the time in 1980s has two U.S. military bases including Howard Air Force base (the largest USAF presence in Central America) and the U.S. Army base of Fort Clayton near the Canal. 
• Singapore - One would not expect a small island nation to be targeted by Soviet submarines. Singapore is Western-leaning economic hub located in one the strategic waters of Asia known as the Straits of Malacca. The narrow straits would definitely be a great place for area-to-area denial for the Allies against Soviet subs. Paya Lebar Air Base is used by U.S. and Allied aircraft to transit in the region while Changi Airport is actually big enough for B-52s and C-5s to land on. Singapore's ports are vital for shipping in the region as it is the main source of income for the country. Lastly, the shipyards at Sembawang has a 100,000t DWT dock that could support something as large as the U.S. Navy's Forrestal-class, Midway-class, Enterprise-class, Kitty Hawk-class, and Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.
• Sweden - Like Finland, it is generally Western-leaning and has close ties with its Western-leaning Scandinavian neighbors despite being neutral. Sweden's ports and airports can be used by both sides so it is no doubt going to be targeted by both sides in the event either side gets closer.
• Switzerland - Armed neutrality would not save Switzerland this time like it did in the past two world wars. Despite being neutral, Switzerland is a Western-leaning, resource-rich country in which its armed forces can fight a defensive war in the mountains. It is also home to international organization. Zurich and Geneva would take a nuke for sure.
• Vatican City - Unfortunately located in Rome. When Rome is gone, the Vatican dies with it.
• Yugoslavia - A non-aligned communist country with a strong military capable of defending from both sides. The country is a gateway to the East and West. Take out Belgrade and the entire country erupts into anarchy due to ethnic differences.

[stevep]

Oct 17, 2020 5:58:42 GMT gillan1220 said:

I was going into a conversation with a veteran of the Philippine Army turned international relations specialist. Our topic was about a nuclear war in the 1980s and why the neutrals would not be spared. He states that the general strategy of a nuclear war was that neutrals don't get-off as spared because both sides would target them to prevent the other from getting it's resources.

So here's deeper reason why neutral countries or countries not-generally involved would get targeted

• Austria - Generally Western-leaning. Military is capable of defensively fighting both JNA and Warsaw Pact forces. It is also a vital route in the Alps.
• Finland - A Western-leaning nation the borders the Soviet Union even though not a member of NATO. Hosts a strong anti-Soviet sentiment since the Winter War. The Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 aimed to deter Western or Allied powers from using Finnish territory to attack the USSR. Plus, the country hosts a lot of seaports and airports that could be used by both sides. This would ensure it would be targeted by both the USA and the USSR (i.e. "If we can't have it, you can't have it either.")
• India - A member of the Non-Aligned Movement and is generally Soviet-leaning. The fact that it borders China and is nuclear armed would mean the Chinese would fire nukes at them especially border disputes from 1962 and 1975.
• Ireland - Neutral but Western-leaning. The country could provide refuge from NATO ships and planes with the amount of airports and seaports it has. The Soviets would want the IRA to destabilize the region once Dublin and Belfast is gone.
• Mexico - While the military is weak and could not project power beyond its shores, it has close relationship with the United States. Mexico's airports and seaports could be used for American air and naval units to regroup. Juicy targets for Soviet submarines. 
• Panama - A small country that has a small military (Panamanian Defense Forces) but hosts the strategically-important Panama Canal which can be used by the U.S. Navy to go from the Pacific and the Atlantic or vice-versa real quick. The destruction of the Panama Canal would ensure the Allies would take more time if needed to cross from both oceans. At the time in 1980s has two U.S. military bases including Howard Air Force base (the largest USAF presence in Central America) and the U.S. Army base of Fort Clayton near the Canal. 
• Singapore - One would not expect a small island nation to be targeted by Soviet submarines. Singapore is Western-leaning economic hub located in one the strategic waters of Asia known as the Straits of Malacca. The narrow straits would definitely be a great place for area-to-area denial for the Allies against Soviet subs. Paya Lebar Air Base is used by U.S. and Allied aircraft to transit in the region while Changi Airport is actually big enough for B-52s and C-5s to land on. Singapore's ports are vital for shipping in the region as it is the main source of income for the country. Lastly, the shipyards at Sembawang has a 100,000t DWT dock that could support something as large as the U.S. Navy's Forrestal-class, Midway-class, Enterprise-class, Kitty Hawk-class, and Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.
• Sweden - Like Finland, it is generally Western-leaning and has close ties with its Western-leaning Scandinavian neighbors despite being neutral. Sweden's ports and airports can be used by both sides so it is no doubt going to be targeted by both sides in the event either side gets closer.
• Switzerland - Armed neutrality would not save Switzerland this time like it did in the past two world wars. Despite being neutral, Switzerland is a Western-leaning, resource-rich country in which its armed forces can fight a defensive war in the mountains. It is also home to international organization. Zurich and Geneva would take a nuke for sure.
• Vatican City - Unfortunately located in Rome. When Rome is gone, the Vatican dies with it.
• Yugoslavia - A non-aligned communist country with a strong military capable of defending from both sides. The country is a gateway to the East and West. Take out Belgrade and the entire country erupts into anarchy due to ethnic differences.

  gillan1220,

  Interesting.  Not sure about the west nuking Finland, other than possibly tactical nukes for Soviet forces occupying or moving through them.  Mind you with a general nuclear war which sees most weapons used I suspect Finland wouldn't notice much difference from a full scale nuclear attack on it. 

  Switzerland isn't really that resource rich I think but does have a lot of wealth and given that the Alps might provide some protection against some of the worst fall-out its likely to get hit simply to prevent it being a source of reconstruction post-war.  [Assuming there is a post-war, which could be doubtful for much of the northern hemisphere.

  Not certain if even the surviving IRA would have that many nutters and psychos eager to cause more death and destruction assuming Belfast and Dublin have been hit - probably also Londonderry and some more targets in the south.

  I notice you didn't include China and Japan in your list of neutrals.  Suspect Japan and S Korea would be included once the war went world-wide as they are clearly pro-western and anti-communist.  China might seek neutrality but if things went to hell the Soviets and possibly the US might want to make sure they don't come through in any position to dominate what's left of the world.

  Would expect also much of the mid-East to go up.  Suspect the Soviets would target Israel, Egypt and probably the Gulf oil centres other than Iraq and possibly Iran.  The latter might get hit by the US, who might also target Syria and Libya as Soviet aligned.  Iraq might escape or be hit by either/both super-powers with a few warheads.

  Steve

[gillan1220]

Oct 17, 2020 9:11:42 GMT stevep said:

Oct 17, 2020 5:58:42 GMT gillan1220 said:

I was going into a conversation with a veteran of the Philippine Army turned international relations specialist. Our topic was about a nuclear war in the 1980s and why the neutrals would not be spared. He states that the general strategy of a nuclear war was that neutrals don't get-off as spared because both sides would target them to prevent the other from getting it's resources.

So here's deeper reason why neutral countries or countries not-generally involved would get targeted

• Austria - Generally Western-leaning. Military is capable of defensively fighting both JNA and Warsaw Pact forces. It is also a vital route in the Alps.
• Finland - A Western-leaning nation the borders the Soviet Union even though not a member of NATO. Hosts a strong anti-Soviet sentiment since the Winter War. The Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 aimed to deter Western or Allied powers from using Finnish territory to attack the USSR. Plus, the country hosts a lot of seaports and airports that could be used by both sides. This would ensure it would be targeted by both the USA and the USSR (i.e. "If we can't have it, you can't have it either.")
• India - A member of the Non-Aligned Movement and is generally Soviet-leaning. The fact that it borders China and is nuclear armed would mean the Chinese would fire nukes at them especially border disputes from 1962 and 1975.
• Ireland - Neutral but Western-leaning. The country could provide refuge from NATO ships and planes with the amount of airports and seaports it has. The Soviets would want the IRA to destabilize the region once Dublin and Belfast is gone.
• Mexico - While the military is weak and could not project power beyond its shores, it has close relationship with the United States. Mexico's airports and seaports could be used for American air and naval units to regroup. Juicy targets for Soviet submarines. 
• Panama - A small country that has a small military (Panamanian Defense Forces) but hosts the strategically-important Panama Canal which can be used by the U.S. Navy to go from the Pacific and the Atlantic or vice-versa real quick. The destruction of the Panama Canal would ensure the Allies would take more time if needed to cross from both oceans. At the time in 1980s has two U.S. military bases including Howard Air Force base (the largest USAF presence in Central America) and the U.S. Army base of Fort Clayton near the Canal. 
• Singapore - One would not expect a small island nation to be targeted by Soviet submarines. Singapore is Western-leaning economic hub located in one the strategic waters of Asia known as the Straits of Malacca. The narrow straits would definitely be a great place for area-to-area denial for the Allies against Soviet subs. Paya Lebar Air Base is used by U.S. and Allied aircraft to transit in the region while Changi Airport is actually big enough for B-52s and C-5s to land on. Singapore's ports are vital for shipping in the region as it is the main source of income for the country. Lastly, the shipyards at Sembawang has a 100,000t DWT dock that could support something as large as the U.S. Navy's Forrestal-class, Midway-class, Enterprise-class, Kitty Hawk-class, and Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.
• Sweden - Like Finland, it is generally Western-leaning and has close ties with its Western-leaning Scandinavian neighbors despite being neutral. Sweden's ports and airports can be used by both sides so it is no doubt going to be targeted by both sides in the event either side gets closer.
• Switzerland - Armed neutrality would not save Switzerland this time like it did in the past two world wars. Despite being neutral, Switzerland is a Western-leaning, resource-rich country in which its armed forces can fight a defensive war in the mountains. It is also home to international organization. Zurich and Geneva would take a nuke for sure.
• Vatican City - Unfortunately located in Rome. When Rome is gone, the Vatican dies with it.
• Yugoslavia - A non-aligned communist country with a strong military capable of defending from both sides. The country is a gateway to the East and West. Take out Belgrade and the entire country erupts into anarchy due to ethnic differences.

  gillan1220 ,

  Interesting.  Not sure about the west nuking Finland, other than possibly tactical nukes for Soviet forces occupying or moving through them.  Mind you with a general nuclear war which sees most weapons used I suspect Finland wouldn't notice much difference from a full scale nuclear attack on it. 

  Switzerland isn't really that resource rich I think but does have a lot of wealth and given that the Alps might provide some protection against some of the worst fall-out its likely to get hit simply to prevent it being a source of reconstruction post-war.  [Assuming there is a post-war, which could be doubtful for much of the northern hemisphere.

  Not certain if even the surviving IRA would have that many nutters and psychos eager to cause more death and destruction assuming Belfast and Dublin have been hit - probably also Londonderry and some more targets in the south.

  I notice you didn't include China and Japan in your list of neutrals.  Suspect Japan and S Korea would be included once the war went world-wide as they are clearly pro-western and anti-communist.  China might seek neutrality but if things went to hell the Soviets and possibly the US might want to make sure they don't come through in any position to dominate what's left of the world.

  Would expect also much of the mid-East to go up.  Suspect the Soviets would target Israel, Egypt and probably the Gulf oil centres other than Iraq and possibly Iran.  The latter might get hit by the US, who might also target Syria and Libya as Soviet aligned.  Iraq might escape or be hit by either/both super-powers with a few warheads.

  Steve

1. For Finland, the West may not nuke it unless the Soviets already have a foothold in the area. As er the 1948 Treaty, the Soviets and the Finns are obliged to cooperate against "Western imperialism".

2. Switzerland would be hit because it is rich and would most likely lend to the West. The Soviets won't allow that if MAD is applied.

3. Ireland may even dissolve into chaos here knowing that without Dublin and refugees streaming from Belfast, the government would collapse.

4. I did not intend to include China, Japan, and South Korea because they are essentially not neutral. In this list, I only included those countries without U.S. and NATO bases. China may be a third player here, but in the 1980s China was essentially an "ally" of the United States and was a counterweight to the Soviet Union since 5 million PLA soldiers would definitely tip the balance in the Soviet Far East. Japan and South Korea would be targeted no-doubt because of their proximity to Vladivostok. The JSDF performs anti-submarine and area-denial patrols in the waters around the Sea of Japan and Pacific so taking out the ASW unit would benefit the Soviets. As for South Korea, we may see the Korean War reignite the moment hostilities begin. An interesting here would be Taiwan since an event of a nuclear war, the Second Artillery Corps would fire a warhead into Taipei to prevent the KMT from ever recovering or landing into Fujian. For sure, the U.S. would just let it be since China was the greater good in the containment of the Soviet Union.

5. I actually forgot to mention Iran. Thank you for pointing that out. Iran would be targeted as well since it is a thorn to both the USA and the USSR. The Soviets would no doubt target Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. Israel has a strong military, a nuclear arsenal, and is allied with the U.S. and is hostile to Syria, which is an ally of the Soviets. Israel's Jericho I missiles could reach at least Vologograd and some cities in the Asiatic side of the USSR. Jordan would probably suffer the same fate as Israel since the two are allies. For Egypt which was an ally of the USSR before, it would be critical for the Soviets to target the Suez Canal to deny access of Allied ships traveling into the Red Sea from the Med and vice versa. Now the U.S. would target Syria and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan which had a pro-Soviet government in Kabul at this point. Pakistan had no nukes in the 1980s but their continued support towards the Mujahideen would probably mean the Soviets would target Islamabad and Lahore, if not from the Indians themselves.

Edit:
I also forgot to include Albania in it. It would follow the same fate as Yugoslavia.