Russo-NATO War (Georgia Mix-Up)

Experiment632

Well-known member
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.

 

Experiment632

Well-known member
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

Director
Staff member
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.
 

REALHumanRights

Power Poster
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

DEFCON Staff
Staff member
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! :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
 

Dr Arthur

Active member
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! :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:
Yes that is so they could not steal them and take them back to Russia which seems to be a common occurrence. 😂;):cool:
 

willrod1989

Well-known member
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.
 

Seriously

Well-known member
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
 

Experiment632

Well-known member
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.

 
Top