"Revealed: NATO's Cold War Nuclear Battle Plan Would ..." Topic
10 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Modern Media Message Board Back to the Cold War (1946-1989) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Showcase ArticleI promised to show pictures of the AK47 army that I'm painting - here are the regular forces.
Featured Workbench ArticleWith clean lines and not a lot of clutter, Minidragon says these figures are a painter's dream!
Featured Profile Article
Current Poll
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 09 Sep 2015 10:52 p.m. PST |
…Have Killed Millions. "Throughout the Cold War, the prospect of nuclear war hung over Europe like a recurring nightmare. But in the early years of the Atomic Age, most people only dimly understood the consequences of tactical nuclear war. It wasn't until nearly a decade into the superpower contest that Europe's nightmare gained a vivid, terrifying clarity. That clarity came from Carte Blanche, NATO's first major exercise to simulate what a nuclear exchange with the Soviets on the continent would look like. When officials finally tallied the numbers, the theoretical war's toll on Germany included 1.7 million dead and 3.5 million wounded — killing more people in a matter of hours than strategic bombing had taken during the entirety of World War II. The results of exercise shocked and horrified citizens in NATO countries, especially in West Germany — ground zero for any war with the Soviets, and alarmed their leadership. For years afterward, Carte Blanche shaped attitudes toward nuclear weapons and their role in defense of Europe…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Legion 4 | 10 Sep 2015 7:16 a.m. PST |
With anyone or many dropping Nucs, it would be nothing short of a miracle if millions were not killed. If not in the initial bombings, but by all the fallout. Thank the Gods this never happened ! I think some don't understand why many are so afraid of radical islamists, getting nucs. If anyone doubts that UBL wouldn't have used a nuc on NY, etc. … If he could have got a hold of one … does not understand where these radical fanatics jihadi types are coming from. Another reason why the concern about Persian nucs. Their Great Leader threaten Israel again just yesterday. And hatred for the US continues unabated. So let's hope a Nuc scenario never happens in the Mid East[or anywhere !]. And if there is any doubt Daesh won't use a nuc if they had one, somewhere. Again, you don't understand the level of fanatical religious inspired actions these radical islamists will take. "Pray for Peace but Prepare of War" … |
John Treadaway | 10 Sep 2015 7:23 a.m. PST |
An interesting find and an intriguing read. Not sure I agree with some of the comments, vis: "But a grasp of weapons' specific impact—especially that of smaller, tactical nukes—was more elusive.That was especially true for America's NATO allies, which lacked both nuclear weapons of their own…" My emphasis. Britain had been a nuclear equipped power at the point of the military exercise mentioned (Carte Blanche 1955) for three years. That's probably why the Brits played the Soviets in the exercise. John T |
Tango01 | 10 Sep 2015 10:06 a.m. PST |
Glad you enjoyed the reading John! (smile) Amicalement Armand |
Mako11 | 10 Sep 2015 12:01 p.m. PST |
Those casualty numbers appear to me to be far too low. |
retzlaffmd | 10 Sep 2015 6:07 p.m. PST |
Mako, you've got to remember that it was 1955, when the yields of any given weapon was much smaller and they didn't yet understand the effects of the fallout on long-term survival. Also, the population numbers in the "affected areas" was nowhere near todays population numbers. Today the casualty projections would probably be 5-10 times what it was in 1955… |
capt jimmi | 10 Sep 2015 7:27 p.m. PST |
There are two excellent reads on this from the UK perspective ; link and link …both of which make for jaw dropping reading …the casualties from primary events and secondary effects would have been more than catastrophic. The rationale behind the policy / planning was bordering on sociopathic. illustration of the maxim; "war doesn't decide who's right …only who's left " |
Mako11 | 10 Sep 2015 8:23 p.m. PST |
Population numbers I agree were smaller. Some of the yields though were quite large, especially the Soviet ones, since they didn't know how to dial them back, and wanted/needed larger ones to make up for CEP errors. |
dsfrank | 10 Sep 2015 11:41 p.m. PST |
My understanding is that France was more than happy to use its nuclear arsenal to stop the red horde of Soviets once they crossed into West Germany & well before they reached France. This plan didn't sit well with their NATO ally – the potentially irradiated Bundesrupublik of Germany. The other NATO allies with troops in West Germany – primarily the British & US weren't too keen on France nuking their battle positions early to stop the Soviets east of the Rhine river either. The solution – France left NATO – rational being, we can all play nice & be friendly & stuff but when push comes to shove – we alone will decide where & when we nuke the Russian hordes – ya'll can sucked it Germany & the rest of NATO |
Legion 4 | 11 Sep 2015 7:11 a.m. PST |
Germany would rapidly have been turned into a no man's land buffer zone. And they knew it … |
|