I Love Alternate History Theories
I don't know if anyone would care, but I got sort of carried away and ended up "writing" some weird alternate history..... things. Basically, what happens is that the Chinese do really well in Korea over 1950-1 and Truman reluctantly authorises MacArthur to nuke some stuff. Then the UNC (United Nations Command)wins the war by the end of 1952 but Stalin gets super paranoid and the "bomber gap" turns into an actual arms race. The rest of the 50s I ended up calling the "DEFCON Decade" because the whole time is just political move and countermove like in real life, but both sides are so heavily armed that nuclear war actually is a very real possibility - and nearly happens when Yugoslavia leaves the Warsaw Pact in 1958 (although the DEFCON system was invented in 1959). Finally, in either 1961 or 1962 (I have two events that could cause an issue: the Berlin Crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis, but I'm not sure which would work better, and they're explained below) crazy shit happens (differing depending on the year), and a small scale nuclear war breaks out and Europe is engulfed not in nuclear flame but in blood and burning, twisted metal as the USSR and NATO go to war.
I should point out here that the reason a small scale nuclear war breaks out and not an earth-annihilating one is for two reasons: both sides had developed strategies for taking out enemy nuclear bombers and anti-missile guided technology was being worked on, and secondly (and most importantly), at the Vienna Summit between President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev signed a treaty called the "Mutual Self Defence/Retaliation Treaty" which basically stated that if a nuclear weapon was used by one side against the other - and only then - the other would have the 'right of reply' to use one of their own against the initial aggressor, and if either side used more than that, then they both agreed to nuclear annihilation. It's essentially a ratified Mutually Assured Destruction, but neither could use more than the other had. Invading the enemy's home nation - but not their allies - would also trigger the MAD clause.
The 'tipping point' that I mentioned in either 1961 or 1962 isn't exactly new: in 1961, the Berlin Crisis turns to war after General Clay pushes for the Berlin Wall to be torn down and sends a tank mounted with a bulldozer to ram through it. A soviet tank opens fire on the bulldozer under orders to fire "if the threat of enemy assault becomes imminent" and non-nuclear war breaks out; otherwise, the B-59 submarine is nearly hit by a practice depth charge trying to run the US blockade of Cuba, firing their nuclear torpedo. The US retaliates with one of their own against Cuba, hitting Havana and killing Soviet personnel, triggering an "Ultimatum of War" which Kennedy rejects and Europe is attacked.
Either could work, I guess. But I'm guessing that nobody has actually read this far; I'm surprised I even got to this point myself. If anyone did read it, please provide feedback. Or just say "no". Either works, really.
I should point out here that the reason a small scale nuclear war breaks out and not an earth-annihilating one is for two reasons: both sides had developed strategies for taking out enemy nuclear bombers and anti-missile guided technology was being worked on, and secondly (and most importantly), at the Vienna Summit between President Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev signed a treaty called the "Mutual Self Defence/Retaliation Treaty" which basically stated that if a nuclear weapon was used by one side against the other - and only then - the other would have the 'right of reply' to use one of their own against the initial aggressor, and if either side used more than that, then they both agreed to nuclear annihilation. It's essentially a ratified Mutually Assured Destruction, but neither could use more than the other had. Invading the enemy's home nation - but not their allies - would also trigger the MAD clause.
The 'tipping point' that I mentioned in either 1961 or 1962 isn't exactly new: in 1961, the Berlin Crisis turns to war after General Clay pushes for the Berlin Wall to be torn down and sends a tank mounted with a bulldozer to ram through it. A soviet tank opens fire on the bulldozer under orders to fire "if the threat of enemy assault becomes imminent" and non-nuclear war breaks out; otherwise, the B-59 submarine is nearly hit by a practice depth charge trying to run the US blockade of Cuba, firing their nuclear torpedo. The US retaliates with one of their own against Cuba, hitting Havana and killing Soviet personnel, triggering an "Ultimatum of War" which Kennedy rejects and Europe is attacked.
Either could work, I guess. But I'm guessing that nobody has actually read this far; I'm surprised I even got to this point myself. If anyone did read it, please provide feedback. Or just say "no". Either works, really.
