How Would A World War 3 Have Influenced Technological Development?

[Dayton3]

First of all

NO NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST!!!

How would science and technology have developed if the U.S./NATO had fought and defeated the Soviet Union in a classic, mostly nonnuclear Tom Clancy "Red Storm Rising/Sir John Hacket "Third World War" type of conflict in the 1989-1991 time frame?

Assume mostly conventional and chemical weapons used in Western Europe and on the Korean Peninsula.

Maybe a couple of nuclear weapons used (as they were in "The Third World War" against Birmingham England and Minsk).

Assume a death toll anywhere from 500,000 to 2,500,000 give or take with a total war duration of 3-6 weeks.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

I would imagine that a lot of the technology we have right now might have been developed back then instead. I don't see how much else might be different.

 

[Dayton3]

I was thinking something along these lines.

If there were a couple of nuclear weapons used (one delivered by ICBM in the U.K.) then vast amounts of consumer electronics of that era might be fried.

It might advance computer technology in the long run considerably.

Plus, with proven hostility by the Soviets (I assume that after such a largely conventional war that they would be left with their ICBM force) it might spark the U.S. and Europeans to race to deploy a massive space based ICBM defense system.

Such a need would jumpstart the search for reliable, cheaper access to LEO.

 

[USS KG5]

If it had happened in that period then Europe would only now be getting over it, the area around Birmingham (if we are talking Hackett's book) would be a wasteland, and the UK would still be a total disaster, even with US aid the UK would barley be back on it's feet.

Technology overall would probably actually be a bit behind where it is now. Most technological development (in computing, telecommunications, medicine) has been a result of a commercial imperative. I cant see for an instant why a nuclear exhange would in any way advance computer technology. The secret to resisting EMP already exists (a big lead box or other shielding) my ipod doesnt have it because in a war the last thing on my mind will be the survival of my ipod.

A war lasting 3-6 weeks would not see the development of many penicillins or cavity magnetrons as military by-products, and the recovery would doubtless be a difficult period for Western Europe. If there were also some form of conflict in the far east in Korea for example, or China and Japan got involved, then this would affect things even more.

If anything I'd expect to see a benefit in new construction techniques for re-housing the homesless, and advances in food production. Maybe you would see some improvements in medicine as war's old buddy disease moves in, but mostly all you would get is lots of dead people.

 

[PurpleBuddha]

... with a total war duration of 3-6 weeks.

Do you think such a war would have only lasted 3-6 weeks?

 

[Neopeius]

... with a total war duration of 3-6 weeks.

Do you think such a war would have only lasted 3-6 weeks?

Such a war wouldn't have happened.

By the early 50s, the Soviets were at such a nuclear disadvantage that the best they could do was erect a credible deterrent. No Soviet leader would have started a war (and in fact, when the chips were down, none did).

An accidental nuclear war is something else. The best chance for that would have been in September/October of 1983. If that goes off, it's pretty much good bye humanity.

As much fun as it is to play NATO vs. Warsaw Pact scenarios, the fact is that the West hyperinflated Soviet capabilities. One Soviet colonel confided in a friend of mine that the Soviets had three weeks of logistics. Not much is going to get done in that time.

 

[Dayton3]

... with a total war duration of 3-6 weeks.

Do you think such a war would have only lasted 3-6 weeks?

Neither side had the munitions, fuel and other resources for any kind of long lasting conventional conflict.

Most Soviet planning estimates that have been revealed were that they had to finish up operations against European NATO in 7-10 days or it was all down hill for them there.

 

[Garrovick]

... with a total war duration of 3-6 weeks.

Do you think such a war would have only lasted 3-6 weeks?

There was a book written in the 1970s by retired Russian and U.S Generals figuring that base on tactics in place then that the War would last 30 days before both sides run out out advanced weapons. In week four, Russian air bursted a nuke over Birmingham England. with a retaliatory strike by the U.S., France and the U.K. following.

A couple of days after that the war ended.

The days of WWI and WWII are long gone.

 

[Dayton3]

... with a total war duration of 3-6 weeks.

Do you think such a war would have only lasted 3-6 weeks?

There was a book written in the 1970s by retired Russian and U.S Generals figuring that base on tactics in place then that the War would last 30 days before both sides run out out advanced weapons. In week four, Russian air bursted a nuke over Birmingham England. with a retaliatory strike by the U.S., France and the U.K. following.

A couple of days after that the war ended.

The days of WWI and WWII are long gone.

That was British general Sir John Hackett's two books

"The Third World War: August 1985" & "The Third World War: The Untold Story".

In both, the war begins on August 4th, 1985 and ends on August 23rd, 1985.

The small exchange of nuclear warheads (and ICBM warhead on Birmingham, four SLBM warheads on Minsk) occurs on August 21st IIRC.

But,

some well done later books suggest a longer conflict.

"The War That Never Was" by Michael Palmer takes place in the 1988-1990 time frame and suggests a completely conventional war lasting 50 days. It was based on a war game conducted in the early 1990s with former Soviet and U.S. officers playing the roles they would've played in such a war and making the decisions they would have made.

IIRC, it was conducted at Norfolk.

Apparently, both NATO and the Warsaw Pact built up their supplies of munitions considerably in the late 1980s.

Another book "Air Battle Central Europe" by NATO air expert Alfred Price indicates that after about 7 days, both NATO & the Warsaw Pact would be running way short of air deliverable munitions and the pace of combat would slow dramatically.

There are a thousand variables to consider.

Would NATO respond immediately with a massive airstrike against WP formations as has been suggested, or as Alfred Price suggests, would most strike aircraft be armed for air to air combat and sent up to help intercept the massive early WP strikes in order to protect NATO bases and facilities?

 

[trilbymonkey]

the area around Birmingham (if we are talking Hackett's book) would be a wasteland,

So nothing would change... (I've been to Birmingham, I'm allowed to say that.)

 

[USS KG5]

the area around Birmingham (if we are talking Hackett's book) would be a wasteland,

So nothing would change... (I've been to Birmingham, I'm allowed to say that.)

Classic nuclear war humour.

Other classic uses of this joke - Manchester, Glasgow, South London, Leeds...

 

[Dayton3]

In my nuclear war scenario, the Soviets followup the Birmingham attack with four SLBMs against Norfolk, Virginia.

The U.S. responds with four SRAMs fired from a B-1B Lancer against Volgagrad.

Then Gorbachev overthrows Romanov and his cronies in the Kremlin and decides to make peace.

But in order to show the U.S.S.R. still has teeth, he orders an ICBM attack against the damaged U.S.S. Kitty Hawk in the Pacific Ocean.

The U.S. responds basically in kind by using a nuclear tipped air launched cruise missile fired from a B-52 to destroy a Soviet naval base on the Kamchatka peninsula.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Interesting topic. Just one question since I've not read the books: why Birmingham?

 

[Silversmok3]

To directly answer the quiry,technology would have been retarded signifigantly.

If WW3 was a classic nuclear exchange ,meaning United States and Russia trade nukes, technology would be literally destroyed,with the construction of new tech hampered bt two thingsne,lack of any tools left to make the tools needed to make microchips,draw blueprints,etc.Two,any tech like iPhones,huge subwoofers,voice command cars,etc wouldn't exist as the existing tech development would be used to create rebuilding tools,not so much advanced products for sale.The reason the US recovered after WWII so fast was due to the mainland not being bombed back to the stone age,as Britian ,Japan,and mainland Europe was.

 

[Neopeius]

In my nuclear war scenario, the Soviets followup the Birmingham attack with four SLBMs against Norfolk, Virginia.

The U.S. responds with four SRAMs fired from a B-1B Lancer against Volgagrad.

Then Gorbachev overthrows Romanov and his cronies in the Kremlin and decides to make peace.

But in order to show the U.S.S.R. still has teeth, he orders an ICBM attack against the damaged U.S.S. Kitty Hawk in the Pacific Ocean.

The U.S. responds basically in kind by using a nuclear tipped air launched cruise missile fired from a B-52 to destroy a Soviet naval base on the Kamchatka peninsula.

Hey, whatever gets you through the cold nights.

 

[Dayton3]

Interesting topic. Just one question since I've not read the books: why Birmingham?

The U.S. president, British prime ministers, and other western leaders were meeting in London to decide what to do about Europe once the Soviet invasion was beat back.

the Soviets destroyed Birmingham because it was close enough to give a clear warning to the summit meeting in London without actually harming them.

The Soviets issued a warning roughly five minutes before the ICBM launch to indicate that this was in no way the beginning of a general nuclear exchange.

 

[TheMasterOfOrion]

... with a total war duration of 3-6 weeks.

Do you think such a war would have only lasted 3-6 weeks?

He probably saw it as fact in some movie or video game, I've been in Dayton3's military threads before. Many of them are borderline trolling

Assume a death toll anywhere from 500,000.....

First of all that's bunk, you clearly have no idea of the power of these weapons
the death toll, it's going to be waaaay higher
500,000 died in Hiroshima/Nagasaki first from getting burnt to a crisp and years later from cancers etc The bomb used on Hiroshima was about 15 kt, the ones used today are about 15 MegaTonnes (THOUSANDS OF TIMES MORE POWERFUL)

If it had happened in that period then Europe would only now be getting over it, the area around Birmingham (if we are talking Hackett's book) would be a wasteland, and the UK would still be a total disaster, even with US aid the UK would barley be back on it's feet.

What really helped the US during WW2 was the only real direct hit the US suffered was Pearl. Sure it was bad, you had most of the Naval might destroyed by the Japanese sneak attack and Hitler in a second wave of sneakiness had subs blasting US shipping on the East Coast. Pearl was bad, but at no other time was the United States directly attacked. This advantage allowed the US to preserve its economy and manufacturing base, post WW2 the US had the advantage of not having its cities destroyed and it had a head start as the world economy recovered. A global nuclear war would be totally different. I don't know what kind of Reganesque Starwars fantasy Dayton3 follows, those shields don't really work and the US is going to be hit even if we spend a quadrillion on this starwars system missiles will get through. I debated this kind of junk psuedo science on ICBMs and shields with him about a 6 weeks ago, many of Daytons posts have no resemblace to reality. He also made silly political claims like Bush was 100 times the stronger Commander in Chief than Reagan or Clinton, since Raygun was chicken after he never nuked the Lebanese and Clinton killed 500 troops enforcing the no fly zone in Iraq!? Yes what a dick saying 500 US servicemen killed themselves by friendly fire. He has yet to apologize for this insulting post!!

PS Tom Clancy is not an expert of the US military, I know freshmen who have better knowledge than him. I will admit Clancy's books are entertaining, he might be ridiculous when it comes to the military but does write good fiction

 

[Dayton3]

He also made silly political claims like Bush was 100 times the stronger Commander in Chief than Reagan or Clinton, since Raygun was chicken after he never nuked the Lebanese and Clinton killed 500 troops enforcing the no fly zone in Iraq!? Yes what a dick saying 500 US servicemen killed themselves by friendly fire. He has yet to apologize for this insulting post!!

Really?

Post a link to where I said any of those things.

Not possible because I never said any of those.

 

[Dayton3]

By the way, barely 200,000 people died as a direct or indirect result of the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And if TMOO has bothered to read my opening post, he would note that I specifically said

NO NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST.

Basically a conventional conflict. Perhaps with a few nuclear strikes at the end.

And while one might insult Tom Clancy all they want (even though his The Hunt For Red October is required reading at the Naval Academy), I've never heard any similar insult aimed at Sir John Hackett or Michael Palmer.

 

[TheMasterOfOrion]

By the way, barely 200,000 people died as a direct or indirect result of the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There is a lot of politics behind a number like that, while I believe nuking Hiroshima was wrong
but it was something that needed to be done and probably saved many lives. Maybe it saved 600,000 or a million or two million? the war would have dragged and it was used to save American lives and Japanese lives.
What happened after WW2 is these cities were left with many 'Hibakusha'. Atomic people who were messed up after the war but the Japan government acted like cheap skate scrooges. They refused to certify many or give them medical benefit. It's not too unlike how in the West we sent soliders off to the Nevada sands to watch the mushroom clouds and the US government refuses to call them atomic veterans because its going to get a huge medicare bill if they do.

Post a link to where I said any of those things.

Dayton3 at your best

"Wars are the punctuation marks of history"

Finally,

They are exciting.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=74916
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=54603

Clinton and Roddenberry each had lying and cheating in common

I read once in an old Navy magazine from years ago that the U.S. and U.S.S.R. actually had an "unofficial" agreement that if nuclear weapons were used by either side against naval targets that the other side would not respond with nuclear attacks on land.

Taking the U.S. to war on false pretenses is not a criminal act.

Not that they did so mind you.

Besides, between 1991 and 2003, the U.S. lost from 400-600 servicemen during the "containment" of Iraq.

ColGrn, Australis
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=78413
"I'd HATE to think that you'd just pulled that out of your ass"
" If there's a question that will force D3 to answer in a way that doesn't conform to his worldview, it'll be ignored."

BTW your opinions are often incoherent
but one thing you frequently claim Bush Jnr was better than his Father HW Bush and better than JFK

NO NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST.

Birmingham has a population 1 million, the greater urban area 3 million that's already more than half the number of Jews exterminated during WW2. How is Nuking Birmingham and cities like Minsk, Norfolk, Virginia not a nuclear holocaust?