ITT: Alternate WW3 scenarios

Apartheid South Africa goes apeshit and nukes itself so the blacks can't have it

File: berlin border.jpg (240KB, 1024x784px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 1024x784px

-Berlin blockade of 1948 (would be unilateral)
-Berlin crisis of 1961 (famous standoff between American/Soviet tanks at Checkpoint Charlie)
-1967, if Israelis don't strike first and lose to much ground (not plausible)
-1973 Yom Kippur, most plausible of all, Israel was shitting itself, and the backing was very strong on both sides

>>3100659
>Or what about the time India and Pakistan detonated nukes at around the same time, maybe it could have lead to full scale war?

If India and Pakistan nuked each other the rest of the world would watch the show.

March 2, 1969. Soviet and Chinese troops begin shooting at one another on Zhenbao Island, located in the Ussuri River. The Soviet Union seriously considered going full nuclear. A Soviet diplomat began asking US State Department officials what the American response would be to a Soviet attack against China. This was actually a big part of the reason why Nixon moved quickly to normalize relations with China, and why Mao was so eager to do the same with the US.

This might not have resulted in WW3, exactly, but the death toll would have dwarfed WW2. Imagine a full-scaled Soviet nuclear strike on China.

>>3102727
>the USSR didn't end the disgusting taint on the world that is the Chinese

This was the Soviet's biggest failing, I think.

>>3100659
Oh and you forgot Able Archer

>>3100659
War breaking out during the missile crisis would have easily resulted in an American victory.

>>3102727
That's very interesting, never heard about post WW2 border conflict between Russia and China. I wonder why it hasn't degenerated even more, maybe it wouldn't have led to WW3 but it would be a serious conflict nonetheless, with a chinese victory

>>3105285
>I wonder why it hasn't degenerated even more, maybe it wouldn't have led to WW3 but it would be a serious conflict nonetheless, with a chinese victory
>chinese victory

Lol, not in 1969. Or even 2009 for that matter.

>>3103804
This is a good one, Able Archer is probably the closest we've come since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

>>3104810
"Easily"....we still would have lost several cities.

>>3100659

How could Chernobyl lead to an armed response? NATO were not short of reasons to invade and dismantle the USSR but did not have the military might to overwhelm the country. Chernobyl would not have upset that military balance and as such wouldn't have led to an armed response.

It's likely soldiers would have to be deployed in NATO countries but as part of a disaster response. The USSR would likely be under pressure to allow technical assistance from NATO states working through the UN but there is literally no scenario where Chernobyl would lead to an armed response.

>>3106256

I actually think the Norwegian Rocket incident was closer. You had a scared shitless Yeltsin being handed the Russian nuclear football.

Although it seems ridiculous to us in the West that a nuclear war could break out 4 years after the Cold War, the Russians have a deep seated (and deserved) history of paranoia. Russia expects its enemies to take advantage when it;s at it's weakest.

Russia was an absolute mess in the 1990s and the launch profile of the rocket were assumed to be an attempted EMP attack as a precursor to a wider nuclear/conventional strike by NATO to get rid of Russia as a military power once and for all.

>>3100659

The US probably came closer than most realise to nuking Baghdad in 1991. George Bush threatened to do this if Saddam used his chemical weapons against coalition troops in Saudi Arabia. Given how unhinged the Iraqi dictator was, and that he had used Chemical weapons against his own people and extensively in the Iran-Iraq war, it wouldn't have been out of the blue.

Had such weapons killed a large amount of US soldiers, Bush would have been forced to use some form of nuclear weapons against Saddam's Iraq to back up the threat, or risk such "red lines" not being taken seriously in future.

In reality, Saddam took the hint and didn't use these weapons (although there are plenty of reports that Iraqi commanders may have used them sparingly at times, none are confirmed). He instead began firing Scud Missiles at Israel in order to try and splinter the Arab alliance forming against him. Very interesting bit of history.

>>3100659
>>3106470
>1995 Norwegian rocket incident
Fucking what? I never heard of this, I'll check it out.

>>3106498
It's really too bad we didn't. The 2003 Iraq war, ISIS, all of that shit could have been prevented.

>>3106509

There is an argument for instigating regime change in 1991, but a few factors stopped it.

This was the first military action since the Korean War that had explicit backing of the UN. With the Cold War winding down the US wanted the UN to start to take a bigger role in international affairs and especially resolving conflicts.

The UN remit was simple. Expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait and restore Kuwaits government. There was nothing in the resolutions passed that called for the dismantling of the Iraqi government.

Had the US gone ahead and done this anyway they would likely have lost the backing of the allied Arab states, and the friendly relationship being built with the USSR as it declined into nothing would have been at risk. Russia and China learnt this lesson over Libya in 2011, it would have been worse for the world if the UN was discredited as a US puppet in 1991.

It's also not clear it would have worked. 2003 was definitely a worse time to go for a half assed regime change but 1991 might not have been better. Iraq is an inherently unstable country with lots of competing factions. A forced transition to democracy would probably never have worked and the region could well still be a mess.