Russo-NATO War (Georgia Mix-Up)

[Tok'ra Operative]

Russo-NATO War is set in an alternate universe in which a severe communications mishap, a major misunderstanding along the chain of command, or even just sheer incompetence resulted in the Russian Federation mistakenly invading the U.S. State of Georgia instead of the former Soviet Republic of Georgia in August 2008.

Russo-NATO War (Georgia Mix-Up)

World War III or the Third World War, often abbreviated as WWIII or WW3, and also often called Russo-NATO War, CSTO-NATO War, Russo-American War, and Impossible War was a global war which was fought from 2008 to 2009. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Russian Federation were the...

althistory.fandom.com

 

[Publius]

I’m so glad they didn’t burn Atlanta, once is enough and we never hear the end of it.

 

[Publius]

I’m so glad they didn’t burn Atlanta, once is enough and we never hear the end of it.

I meant to say would never hear the end it.
It was tough medicine no doubt

 

[Tok'ra Operative]

I assume Defcon Warning System would go straight to DEFCON 3 at the start of the Russian invasion of the U.S. State of Georgia and Chesapeake Bay with alert status potentially going to DEFCON 2 or even 1 during the Battle of Washington, D.C.?

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

I assume Defcon Warning System would go straight to DEFCON 3 at the start of the Russian invasion of the U.S. State of Georgia and Chesapeake Bay with alert status potentially going to DEFCON 2 or even 1 during the Battle of Washington, D.C.?

Some would argue that a Russian invasion would actually lower the risk of a nuclear war. You don't nuke ground you want.

 

[Tok'ra Operative]

Some would argue that a Russian invasion would actually lower the risk of a nuclear war. You don't nuke ground you want.

So alert level only DEFCON 3? Now if Washington was actually taken then DEFCON 2 or 1 might be considered?

 

[Publius]

So alert level only DEFCON 3? Now if Washington was actually taken then DEFCON 2 or 1 might be considered?

No I’d miss the architecture and the history. But I just think I’d tell them good luck with that.

 

[REALHumanRights]

Some would argue that a Russian invasion would actually lower the risk of a nuclear war. You don't nuke ground you want.

Agree. The idea of a Russia conventionial force invasion of USA is military fiction. It does not/has not ever needed such tactics.
The argument that so many have made about the DEFCON value of Russia conventional military's effectiveness misses the main point.
Levels of threats are not really based Russia conventional forces per se (never a knockout), but their nuclear weapons.
It was the potential of Russia/USSR conventional forces in a conflict that could escalate into global/nuclear war, which was the real threat issue.
If Russia did not have a masive nuclear arsenal, the situation would be totally different.
And there have been horrific conventional wars by non-nuclear powers that are routinely ignored.

But flip the coin, and look at it from their other perspective. If USA was having American cities bombed by a nation armed by Russia/USSR (deserved or not), that would be resulting in a nuclear response. We expect that should not happen from Russia because (a) they deserve it; (b) they are weak. But we wouldn't tolerate it for one second.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

If the Russian's managed to get a landing party on US shores, I'd eat my own:
- Hat
- Shoes
- Gloves
- Trousers
Ah yes they're going to use the... Admiral Kuznetsov!

 

[DEFCON Warning System]

If the Russian's managed to get a landing party on US shores

Ever see the made-for-television movie World War III with Rock Hudson as the President? Good movie. Soviets enter through Alaska.

 

[Friendly Engineer]

Ever see the made-for-television movie World War III with Rock Hudson as the President? Good movie. Soviets enter through Alaska.

I'll put it on my "to-watch" list. Thanks.

 

[Dr Arthur]

If the Russian's managed to get a landing party on US shores, I'd eat my own:
- Hat
- Shoes
- Gloves
- Trousers
Ah yes they're going to use the... Admiral Kuznetsov!

Yes that is so they could not steal them and take them back to Russia which seems to be a common occurrence.

 

[willrod1989]

Ever see the made-for-television movie World War III with Rock Hudson as the President? Good movie. Soviets enter through Alaska.

I was about to say, Alaska would be the only conceivable point of invasion, but that would be spotted months in advance. Russia's infrastructure is terrible, and they would have to rely on transporting all of their military equipment and personnel to Vladivostok (probably over the Trans-Siberian Railway).

All other seaports out of Russia go through NATO controlled areas. However, with climate change opening up access to the Arctic, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to imagine the Russians invading along the North Slope of Alaska. Nevertheless, it would be a major slog to reach our population core, which is easily defended.

The United States is powerful because our geography protects us from invasion. Russia is a basket case because their geography sucks.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

Some would argue that a Russian invasion would actually lower the risk of a nuclear war. You don't nuke ground you want.

In less the mentality is "if I can't have it nobody can."

 

[Publius]

If USA was having American cities bombed by a nation armed by Russia/USSR (deserved or not), that would be resulting in a nuclear response. We expect that should not happen from Russia because (a) they deserve it; (b) they are weak. But we wouldn't tolerate it for one second

That is a hypothetical that your can only speculate at. You can postulate that it might be the likely result. But it is an over generalization that is too broad and vague. All of your post are oriented to the default that nuclear escalation is the obvious conclusion of a scenario.
All of the conflicts involving proxy states and nuclear powers for the last 3/4 of a century show no indication either side pushing for nuclear escalation. Except with Korea when MacArthur suggested it and Truman relieved him of command.
Is it possible yes but it is not a by historical lessons a foregone conclusion. It just isn’t

 

[Tok'ra Operative]

Ever see the made-for-television movie World War III with Rock Hudson as the President? Good movie. Soviets enter through Alaska.

Actually that movie sort of played a role in my writing of another timeline involving a limited war between the United States and the Commonwealth of Independent States only months after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Arctic War of 1992 (Kildin Island Escalation)

The Arctic War of 1992, aka Russo-American War and unofficially World War III, was a limited war fought between the Commonwealth of Independent States (former Soviet Union) and the United States of America from 11 February to 10 April 1992. With NATO remaining neutral due to the conflict...

althistory.fandom.com

 

[Tok'ra Operative]

I have begun expanding on the conflict. Instead of lasting three weeks, the fighting lasts over a year with the Russians taking a significant portion of the American Deep South. NATO on the other hand still stops Russia's European offensives and even invades Russia and Belarus to force Russia to withdraw from the States. It is still a work-in-progress.

Haven't decided yet however I am considering including a nuclear escalation in my timeline starting off with the Russians using tactical nuclear weapons to stop NATO invasion forces leading to NATO responding in kind. There might be a limited strategic nuclear exchange with range of destruction comparable with Jericho. In any case the conflict in this scenario ends in a strategic stalemate with both sides gaining and losing territory based on where the front lines were.

 

[Tok'ra Operative]

Once the United States drove out the Russians, a more realistic outcome would've seen the Third World War ending in an armistice followed by a low-level state of war to this day instead of NATO trying to invade Russia outright? I decided against a limited nuclear exchange since both sides would've lost control very quickly.

 

[Yingyang]

Once the United States drove out the Russians, a more realistic outcome would've seen the Third World War ending in an armistice followed by a low-level state of war to this day instead of NATO trying to invade Russia outright? I decided against a limited nuclear exchange since both sides would've lost control very quickly.

Limited nuclear exchange
Sounds like stuff dreams are made of. I simply couldn't imagine a Limited nuclear exchange at all. Especially between Russia and the West. And Especially between America and Russia.

 

[Tok'ra Operative]

Limited nuclear exchange
Sounds like stuff dreams are made of. I simply couldn't imagine a Limited nuclear exchange at all. Especially between Russia and the West. And Especially between America and Russia.

Yeah currently I have NATO taking over Russia however I originally had a Korean War-type armistice in place with my main reason for switching to the invasion scenario being how far and rapidly Wagner advanced towards Moscow in their failed rebellion in real-life. Another factor to a total NATO victory was the fact Russia lost an enormous portion of its military in it's ill-fated attack on the United States as well as increased separatist sentiment among the various republics in Russia. However not sure this would be any better. Closest to nuclear escalation my timeline got in current edition was Putin ordering tactical nuclear weapons release only to be killed when a German helicopter blew up his vehicle during the Battle of Moscow before he could send the launch codes.