Hypothetical Cold War Scenario: Russia vs France

Master Zen · April 12, 2003, 21:12

Hola,

I was recalling a while ago a conversation I had with a friend who studied international relations about 5 years ago, it was basically a hypothetical cold war scenario and we were trying to guess what would be the response. It's really something I do not have an answer for so I would like to see what you guys have to say about it.

Year: say, mid 80s

Situation:
For whatever reason, a conventional war erupts between NATO forces and Warsaw Pact forces in central europe. NATO gets its butt kicked, Germany is overrun, US forces in theater are either wiped out or forced to retreat, nothing apparently can stop the Soviets from marching into France as the French 1st Army has also been destroyed.

Knowing that Europe has fallen the US has decided it will not risk an all-out nuclear exchange with the USSR. Neither side has used nukes so far. However, the only option for France now is its nuclear capability as there is no way it will hold against the Soviets.

So, what will France do? Will it risk national suicide while only hoping to cause less than total damage to the USSR? IIRC France had around 100 warheads, most on subs, nothing compared to what the USSR could unleash. What would the US do if France used nukes? Would it use them too? (again risking national destruction although assuring the destruction of the USSR).

Bascially the premise behind the US not using nukes from the start is that as long as the US itself is safe, it will not committ suicide for saving Europe even if they can destroy the USSR in the process.

What do you think?

BTW: this is an intelligent debate thread, in other words, right-wing French-bashers bugger off if you have nothing to contribute

Shi Huangdi · April 12, 2003, 21:14

"right-wing French-bashers bugger off if you have nothing to contribute "

Why, the French would surrender of course!

Drake Tungsten · April 12, 2003, 21:14

Quote:

So, what will France do?

France will surrender and collaborate with their new Soviet overlords. Duh...

Ming · April 12, 2003, 21:16

If history is any guide... The French would surrender faster than you could say "Hypothetical Cold War Scenario"

Master Zen · April 12, 2003, 21:21

So much for "intelligent debate"...

Master Zen · April 12, 2003, 21:23

BTW, I don't know why you blast France for surrendering. If Germany had invaded the US in may 1940, the US would have surrendered even quicker!

So, because you people have nothing intelligent to say, I'll rephrase the question:

If you were in charge of France, what would you do in that situation?

Drake Tungsten · April 12, 2003, 21:29

Quote:

If you were in charge of France, what would you do in that situation?

I'd surrender. What's the use in fighting if the French Army is the only force you have?

JCG · April 12, 2003, 21:30

I suppose they would try to delay the Soviets as much as possible by striking at their logistics (partisans et al) and burning time at the negotiations table...

...But France would finally have to surrender in the short term, at least until the U.S./NATO's remains manage to mount a conventional counterattack.

There's not much freedom of action in this scenario though....

Shi Huangdi · April 12, 2003, 21:36

"If you were in charge of France, what would you do in that situation?"

If I were in charge of France, I would be French, so I would eat cheese, drink wine, and surrender.

yavoon · April 12, 2003, 21:38

haha, I thot the scenario was wut would france do not wut would we do if we led france.

I doubt I would ever get elected to a french government position. I dont hate the required ppl.

but I imagine france would scream very loudly then surrender. as is my guess in the game of chicken that is nuclear warheads, russia has more kohones, and france would know this.

Master Zen · April 12, 2003, 21:39

So in other words, deterrence works TOO well!

So well, as that no country would actually risk national suicide even if it was getting skullf***ed conventionally. Nukes rule.

Master Zen · April 12, 2003, 21:42

Anyone here would like to point out what difference it would have made had Germany invaded the US in May 1940?

The US would have surrendered like cowards too... Texas rangers vs. Panzers

Drake Tungsten · April 12, 2003, 21:44

Quote:

The US would have surrendered like cowards too... Texas rangers vs. Panzers

Remember the Alamo!

Ming · April 12, 2003, 21:45

Hmmm... Japan tried to invade the US... and we kicked their ass all the way back across the Pacific.

So you comments that we would have surrendered are totally laughable... but then again, we've come to expect comments like that from you

Shi Huangdi · April 12, 2003, 21:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
Anyone here would like to point out what difference it would have made had Germany invaded the US in May 1940?

The US would have surrendered like cowards too... Texas rangers vs. Panzers

In terms of Western Hemisphere countries facing humiliating defeats, it is hard to beat Mexico's humiliation in the Mexican War.

Master Zen · April 12, 2003, 21:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Hmmm... Japan tried to invade the US... and we kicked their ass all the way back across the Pacific.

I was referring to a ground attack. If the US had been Germany's neighbor in may 1940 they wouldn't have lasted. In fact, same thing with Russia, it was space that saved them. If Russia, with its resources and army had been the size or depth of France they wouldn't have stood a chance.

Quote:

So you comments that we would have surrendered are totally laughable... but then again, we've come to expect comments like that from you

Yes, the US never surrenders, something in the US spirit makes them immune to ever falling as low as the French. Certainly.

This is what I get for starting a decent thread and having right-wingers show up blasting their nonsense. And you say you expect silly comments from me?

JCG · April 12, 2003, 21:54

And there's the little issue of getting those Panzers across the Atlantic intact though....

Master Zen · April 12, 2003, 21:55

BTW, Japan never tried to invade the US, I don't recall the Japanese landing in California or did I miss something?

DinoDoc · April 12, 2003, 22:00

Quote:

So, what will France do?

Nuke Moscow, of course. Why do you think de Gaulle developed France's independent nuke force in the first place?

Master Zen · April 12, 2003, 22:04

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Quote:

So, what will France do?

Nuke Moscow, of course. Why do you think de Gaulle developed France's independent nuke force in the first place?

Would nuking Moscow (and a couple of other cities) be sufficient compensation for the nation of France being wiped of the Earth? Russia would survive and rebuild, no such luck for France.

I honestly don't know what they would have done, that's why I posted this to see your responses.

The way I'm seeing it, when 1 country has nukes and the other doesn't, there is nothing preventing the nuke country to use it. If both have them then deterrence occurs. But one can threaten to nuke the other if he starts losing conventionally. But if this actually occured, would he have really done it? risk suicide for only token damage to the enemy? Really makes you think

DinoDoc · April 12, 2003, 22:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
Would nuking Moscow (and a couple of other cities) be sufficient compensation for the nation of France being wiped of the Earth?

The question you should be asking is if France is worth the hundreds of population, industrial, & military centers the Soviets would loose from the retaliatory strikes an assault of the type you describe would bring down on them frome the Force de Frappe.

Something I missed earlier:

Quote:

IIRC France had around 100 warheads, most on subs, nothing compared to what the USSR could unleash.

It is obvious that the megatonnes which we could employ do not match the numbers which America and Russia could unleash. But once a certain nuclear capacity is reached and in regard to our direct defense, the size of the respective arsenals does not have an absolute value. For since a man and a country can only die once, deterrence exists once one has the means to inflict mortal damage on a possible aggressor, the determination to use them and the confidence in one’s ultimate decision. - Charles de Gaulle

Master Zen · April 12, 2003, 22:28

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The question you should be asking is if France is worth the hundreds of population, industrial, & military centers the Soviets would loose from the retaliatory strikes an assault of the type you describe would bring down on them frome the Force de Frappe.

That is a very good point. That would, IMO be the argument for Russia not taking first use of nukes. But if France did attack, Russia would have been forced to respond.

Quote:

Something I missed earlier:

Quote:

IIRC France had around 100 warheads, most on subs, nothing compared to what the USSR could unleash.

It is obvious that the megatonnes which we could employ do not match the numbers which America and Russia could unleash. But once a certain nuclear capacity is reached and in regard to our direct defense, the size of the respective arsenals does not have an absolute value. For since a man and a country can only die once, deterrence exists once one has the means to inflict mortal damage on a possible aggressor, the determination to use them and the confidence in one’s ultimate decision. - Charles de Gaulle

100 nukes would not destroy the USSR in the same way as anything Russia could have done to France. Of course, one has to admit de Gaulle was charged with populsim in his rhetoric. Would 100 nukes be enough to inflict "mortal" damage on the USSR?

Anyway, assuming that 100 is enough, what then would force France to unleash this arsenal if the Soviets were close to invading them? To me there are two options 1) suicide 2) occupation, who knows for how long, but at least the possibility of the overall survival of the French people is somewhat assured.

DinoDoc · April 12, 2003, 22:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
That is a very good point. That would, IMO be the argument for Russia not taking first use of nukes.

It's an arguement for the USSR not attacking at all. The fear of US abandonment which was already high after the Suez Crisis, one of the reasons for the development of the Force de Frappe, was stoked by the switch in US policy to one of flexible response rather than the previous policy of massive retaliation.

Quote:

100 nukes

The most recent data I could find places the French arsenal at 500+.

Quote:

Of course, one has to admit de Gaulle was charged with populsim in his rhetoric.

He was basically saying that the number of nukes would suit the defensive needs of France and prevent aggressors from attacking.

GePap · April 12, 2003, 22:49

Well, my first response would be to say that this hypothetical could never occur, since the US would have used nukes to stemm any huge Soviet breakthroughs, and the Soviets also had lots of plans of their own to knock holes in NATO's forward defense with Nukes of their own. But If I buy the point of the scenerio, i would say that the French would seek a negotiated exit. After all, the US retreated and lost, the Brits probably just had the bulk of their army smashed as well, and the Italians and Spaniards dont really had much military might exctra to add ot the battle.

Master Zen · April 12, 2003, 23:04

DinoDoc:

You're probably right about the 500+, I don't have my cold war books on hand so no way of checking.

since this scenario "assumes" the war has already started (conventionally) I just wanted to see what you people though of possible nuclear options for France, although it is interesting to also see what would have been the USSR's options.

The idea of Flexible Response here fits in perfectly as the US, faced with a conventional threat would have responded conventionaly. I assumed that NATO ground forces have lost, and the only thing that remains is surrender (for France) or a nuclear war.

GePap:

That's what I think too, my conclusion therefore, is that the nuclear deterrence really doesn't help from saving you getting your butt kicked conventionally even if you have a sufficient arsenal to destroy your enemy (I'm still not 100% convinced though)

GePap · April 12, 2003, 23:10

The thing is MZ, that it would never get to the point of that hypothetical without a nuclear exchange already having occured.

Master Zen · April 12, 2003, 23:20

why not? if a war started conventionally and it never escalated it could have presumably stayed conventionally. Understanding this scenario is also understanding the whole concept of escalation. If one used tactical nukes the next step would have been strategic nukes but that was obvious to both sides so why would one have started in the first place?

Of course doctrine on both sides would have contemplated the use of these weapons but that is not saying that they would have used them.

Carver · April 12, 2003, 23:52

France would have to threaten to launch a massive nuclear volley. Without nukes, or without the willingness to use them, France would be overrun by the Soviets.

There is no reason for the Soviets to risk 75%+ destruction simply to conquer France. The Soviets will continue to conquer the rest of Europe and possibly elsewhere.

The French would then have to pursue a policy of Fortress France while the Soviets would persue a policy of gradual ideological and economic infiltration. A key pivot point would be France's relations with the US. Fortunately for the Soviets, French/US trade is limited to start with. The French would have to trade with the SU and eventually Frenchmen would have to move to SU territory looking for work.

There may eventually be enough Fenchmen living in the SU that France would nolonger be willing to nuke the Soviets, and kill all those French people. When the nuclear option begins to fade and the French begin to see greater incorporation with the SU as inevitable, the Soviets will win the cold war - introducing The French Autonomous S.S.R.

Master Zen · April 13, 2003, 00:07

I agree with your analysis, but I still doubt if France would have carried out the threat of a massive nuclear volley.

From the Soviet PoV they are risking say 75% destruction to conquer France

But France is risking 100% destruction with no other visible gain other than the post-mortem satisfaction of killing off 75% of the USSR.

Would it have been worth it?

Alvaro · April 13, 2003, 04:03

From what I know:

There are 2 systems in history that were constructed to counter ICBM threats.

One is the Israeli (although largely US funded) Hetz ("Arrow") and another is a USSR SA-8 based one.

Although the latter is not as modern as the (supposedly) great Hetz it was succesful in the 3 experiments my father, an AA missile battery commander in the Kiev voyeniy okrug (military region), has witnessed.

Who said that the USSR would not have intercepted the French ICBMs? Don't forget the distance issue too - by the time the french ICBM would get to Belorussia, Paris would be in ruins, the soviets can launch their nukes from mobile launchers, jets and submarines in their conquered part of Europe. De Gaulle would not have lived to see his missile hit.

edit: darned typos