andree@uokvax.UUCP (12/04/83)
#N:uokvax:5000032:000:523 uokvax!andree Dec 1 21:44:00 1983 A comment on TDA - I believe they actually got what being in some (not all) US-allied city during WW III (US+ vs USSR+) right. The only major blunder (politically, not technically) was giving the impression that that was the result of a nuke exchange that comprised a noticable percentage (more than 1) of the missiles on either side. For an alternative (and somewhat more rational) of what WW III could be like, see `The Third World War, August 1985' by General Sir John Hackett et. al., published by Macmillan. <mike
wjr@rayssd.UUCP (12/13/83)
The "Third World War" is fairly decent reading material. However, the author is being a little subjective when he describes this war in terms of "limited" nuclear warfare. If we do end up in a nuclear war...is it his hope that this action is limited (in terms of nuclear weapons) or that he doesn't want to face the potential for an "all out nuclear war"??
rigney@uokvax.UUCP (12/19/83)
#R:rayssd:-31000:uokvax:5000043:000:1254 uokvax!rigney Dec 16 16:54:00 1983 Is this a question, or statement, or argument, or what? In THE THIRD WORLD WAR:AUGUST 1985 (which I assume is what you're talking about), Nato has improved its conventional forces a great deal, and is barely able to hold the Soviet attack. The Soviets bog down, and decide to apply pressure by obliterating Birmingham with a 1-megaton missile, with advance notification so NATO won't think it's the beginning of a general attack. The U.S. and Great Britain promptly respond with 4 missiles on Minsk, and the Soviet Union backs off rapidly. The pressures of the war and the attack eventually lead to the Soviet Union's collapse, with widespread uprisings and riots. In the follow-up book, THE THIRD WORLD WAR: THE UNTOLD STORY, we see the viewpoint of the Soviet Politburo as they decide whether to use nuclear weapons at the start of the invasion, and if so how many and on whom. They decide that they must either strike with everything, or nothing. Fear of American retaliation leads them to choose to fight without nukes. The point is raised again two weeks into the war, when things are not looking as well as hoped; the attack on Birmingham is chosen to test the will of NATO. Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!rigney