Realism in Red Storm Rising regarding conventional war?

[Atlantic Friend]

A good example is the capture of the Spetsnaz operative in RSR, which gave NATO days to prepare for the Soviet offensive. Needless to say, that's awfully optimistic. As is the assertion that France would throw in their lot with NATO.

I wouldn't be so harsh about the capture of the key Spetsnaz. I mean, first, it's only a plot device setting the whole story in motion, and second, history abounds in examples of just the right man finding just the right plan which was lost by just the right enemy. Think of Lee's Lost order in the Civil War, the German patrol that was captured with detailed battle plans just before the battle of the Marne, or the German plane that was shot down in Belgium with two officers carrying the complete plans for Hitler's western offensive. Accidents like that DO happen a lot.

As for France throwing in its lot with NATO, I don't see how it could be any different. First, and even if France left NATO's integrated military command in 1966 to keep French nuclear Forces under French authority, it still is a member of the Alliance, and hence has the same obligations towards other members as, say, Great Britain. And a Soviet offensive in Germany would be a clear-cut case of how NATO solidarity has to come into play.

Second, France's economy hinges on trade with its Western European neighbors and with North America. Should the USSR have attacked West Germany then, or (much more implausibly) Russia attack Germany now, it's France major commercial, industrial, and political partner that would come under attack. I do think that would weigh much heavier than any promise that the Soviet/Russian armies would nicely stop at the Rhine and that it'd be the new era of Franco-Russian relationship. Sooner or later, and probably sooner - France's very sovereignty or way of life would be at stake.

From a strictly geopolitical point, France enjoys a position of certain influence in Europe because Europe is composed of countries which do not dwarf France in economical, demographical, or military terms. A neutral France living in a Soviet-dominated Europe with the Red Army at its gates would not enjoy the same prosperity, nor would it enjoy the same influence. Staying neutral means being disminished, siding with the USSR means being vassalized, siding with NATO offers the only hope that France's position will be preserved. IMHO, that too (if nothing else) would clearly push France to side clearly with NATO.

[Atlantic Friend]

As for the non-nuclear WWIII, I don't buy it either.

First it seems to me that unless Clancy weaseled some rationale to sidestep the nuclear issue, the story wouldn't have been very interesting. The conflict begins, and at some point, either side lose its nerves and used a nuclear weapon, and then both sides initiate extensive strategic strikes against each other. End of story. Would you buy a book like that ? I don't think I would - I don't care if the good guys win or lose, but I don't want to be cheated of a story because the world is reduced into a radioactive piece of rubble.

Second, I thought the Warsaw Pact battle plans that were published in the early 1990s showed that they planned to use tactical nukes from the get-go, to open breaches into the NATO lines immediately.

Still, Red Storm Rising remains one of the best WW3 books ever published. I read General Hackett's book and found it a tad boring, if certainly more objective than RSR. I also read Eric L. Harris "13th july 1999" (IIRC), which utterly bored me, and Ralph Peters' "the War in 2020" was almost put me to sleep. I much preferred "Red Tiger" by Harold Coyle (not 100% sure of the title here, a story about a US tank outfit in WW3).

[Quietscheentchen]

Second, France's economy hinges on trade with its Western European neighbors and with North America. Should the USSR have attacked West Germany then, or (much more implausibly) Russia attack Germany now, it's France major commercial, industrial, and political partner that would come under attack. I do think that would weigh much heavier than any promise that the Soviet/Russian armies would nicely stop at the Rhine and that it'd be the new era of Franco-Russian relationship. Sooner or later, and probably sooner - France's very sovereignty or way of life would be at stake.

i once heard that if the warsaw pact would have advanced to the rhine and crossed it, france would have used tactical nukes in this area to keep the wp-troops out of their "own garden". do you know something about that? i'm just curious since i live left of the rhine although i think that in this case little quietscheentchen would not be here anymore...

[CruddyLeper]

The problem with any Clancy novel is his lack of objectiveness.

Clancy is the type of flag-waving romantic patriot that can never see the 'good guys' beaten in the large picture. Wether the magic frisbee, or the magic darkstar, or the two uber cia agents, some magic man or missle will ALWAYS find the fuel dump, ammo dump, keys to the aircraft carrier, or the soviet launching the missle at the last second.

Clancy does have some great research/background information, etc, but i certainly hope no generals use his works of fiction as tactical manuals.

I read a work of his, SSN. All about Cheyenne in a conflict with China. Sort of like the book of the game.

The actual book is pap, BUT, the interview at the end was most illuminating... Clancy strongly hinting that he is losing friends in the US Navy by his continual carping about "improvements" to USN, for example the slow pace of promotion to Captain in comparison to RN.

No wonder that nowadays he just farms out his name to any old mush. Stick Tom Clancy on the cover, it will sell, even if he's never even read it, let alone written it.

He's not a blood n guts sort of author. He's a techno freak. Bit like me really (obviously, he has a lot more cash). Similar sort of mind.

[Hellfish]

Still, Red Storm Rising remains one of the best WW3 books ever published. I read General Hackett's book and found it a tad boring, if certainly more objective than RSR. I also read Eric L. Harris "13th july 1999" (IIRC), which utterly bored me, and Ralph Peters' "the War in 2020" was almost put me to sleep. I much preferred "Red Tiger" by Harold Coyle (not 100% sure of the title here, a story about a US tank outfit in WW3).

See, I read Eric L. Harry's book (called Arc Light here) and thought it was the best piece of war fiction I've ever read. But yes, I found Hackett's book utterly boring as well, despite the heaps of praise thrown at it. Maybe it's just that his style didn't resonate with me.

Another book I enjoyed very much (and can't for the life of me remember the title or author) was a book about a hypothetical wargame after the collapse of the Soviet Union, where Gorbachev and the old Soviets play out WWIII against Bush the First and the various NATO chiefs from '91. I liked it because it covered nearly every theater of war other than central Germany - Norway, the Balkans, Libya, a lot of the naval war, etc.

Oh, and the Harold Coyle book was Team Yankee, a good book too (I have the graphic novel version of it buried in a box somewhere).

[Lokos]

Accidents like that DO happen a lot.

Sure, they happen. However, this pivotal event deciding, in the most basic sense, the entire course of the war should - perhaps - set alarm bells ringing. The point was that in Clancy's books the 'good guys' will always get this kind of break. I say this is somewhat unrealistic. I don't see how that's disputable.

Second, France's economy hinges on trade with its Western European neighbors and with North America. Should the USSR have attacked West Germany then, or (much more implausibly) Russia attack Germany now, it's France major commercial, industrial, and political partner that would come under attack. I do think that would weigh much heavier than any promise that the Soviet/Russian armies would nicely stop at the Rhine and that it'd be the new era of Franco-Russian relationship. Sooner or later, and probably sooner - France's very sovereignty or way of life would be at stake.

In truth, France's involvement in a hypothetical Third World War would most certainly entail a contemporary view and assessment of the potential consequences of joining in the struggle. For French politicians, I suspect, the 'treacherous neutrality' option would be more attractive than the one in which French national territories and French port cities (especially) become targets of nuclear strike packages. The second the war goes nuclear, these sorts of considerations become paramount. You yourself admit that the nuclear option would likely have been exercised early and often by both sides. If the Soviet Union promised that French neutrality would be respected, are you in the position to absolutely and without reservation claim that the French government would still resolutely throw their lot in with NATO?

Lastly, I said the belief in French involvement was 'optimistic', not 'without basis'. Of course there is a reasonable chance the French would join in.

From a strictly geopolitical point, France enjoys a position of certain influence in Europe because Europe is composed of countries which do not dwarf France in economical, demographical, or military terms. A neutral France living in a Soviet-dominated Europe with the Red Army at its gates would not enjoy the same prosperity, nor would it enjoy the same influence. Staying neutral means being disminished, siding with the USSR means being vassalized, siding with NATO offers the only hope that France's position will be preserved. IMHO, that too (if nothing else) would clearly push France to side clearly with NATO.

Definitely one side of the rationalist assessment of the situation. But one must take into account the difference between survival in a geo-strategic political (state) sense, and an absolute (physical survival) sense. I have my doubts that anyone would willingly subject themselves to nuclear bombardment for the sake of preserving a political status quo. The Soviet Union wasn't, when it began falling apart and losing (letting go of) its buffer states, and I cannot bring myself to believe that France would, either.

Lokos

[Hellfish]

The point was that in Clancy's books the 'good guys' will always get this kind of break. I say this is somewhat unrealistic. I don't see how that's disputable.

No doubt about that whatsoever. That's why I stopped reading all Clancy books - Jack Ryan was the do-gooder superman than saves the world dozens of times. That just doesn't interest me. I give him a break on RSR, though, because it was co-written with Larry Bond who, until recently, I was very much a fan of.

[Atlantic Friend]

See, I read Eric L. Harry's book (called Arc Light here) and thought it was the best piece of war fiction I've ever read.

Really ? Dang, maybe I should try to read it again. Or read it in the original version.

But yes, I found Hackett's book utterly boring as well, despite the heaps of praise thrown at it. Maybe it's just that his style didn't resonate with me.

I think I really didn't like it because he presented the book as some mix between a novel (something he really wasn't good at writing) and a study (whose premises were sometimes a bit bizarre, like when he assumes that South Africa and Western-friendly forces in Africa would have a field day destroying Soviet-backed regimes).

Another book I enjoyed very much (and can't for the life of me remember the title or author) was a book about a hypothetical wargame after the collapse of the Soviet Union, where Gorbachev and the old Soviets play out WWIII against Bush the First and the various NATO chiefs from '91. I liked it because it covered nearly every theater of war other than central Germany - Norway, the Balkans, Libya, a lot of the naval war, etc.

That reminds me of a series of wargames - i think by GDW - that covered every front of a potential WW3.

Oh, and the Harold Coyle book was Team Yankee, a good book too (I have the graphic novel version of it buried in a box somewhere).

Team Yankee, of course ! Where on Earth did I get this "Red Tiger", I sure don't know . I liked Harold Coyle's book, particularly "Trial by Fire" about a Mexican-US war. And there was an interesting novel about nukes in south africa, something titled "the Iron Gates".

Speaking of South African nukes, that reminds me I forgot Larry Bond in our little list of authors. I liked "Red Phoenix", but "Vortex" and "Cauldron" really put me off his work for good.

[Hellfish]

I liked Red Phoenix and Vortex is another of my favorite books (it introduced me to the SADF and Africa - I was 13 or 14 when I first read it), but Cauldron was pretty lame and his latest books are awful as well.

Do you remember the name of the wargames? I used to play Twilight 2000 when I was a kid, but that was an RPG that covered the war. Great stuff with a lot of well researched materiel. Wish someone would make a (new) computer game for it.

[Atlantic Friend]

Sure, they happen. However, this pivotal event deciding, in the most basic sense, the entire course of the war should - perhaps - set alarm bells ringing. The point was that in Clancy's books the 'good guys' will always get this kind of break. I say this is somewhat unrealistic. I don't see how that's disputable.

I know - that's why I grew tired of his work after "Without Remorse", even though there are lots of moments I like in his later novels (exception : "The Bear and the Dragon" I found badly written and downright insulting for Russians who are depicted to be unable to fight a war UNLESS they trained with US forces first).

What also put me off was his growing tendency to quickly evacuate non-American actors. They get a few paragraphs showing whether they follow (yay!) or oppose (boo !) Washington, and then hey presto it's down to the US forces vs the Evil Scheming Leader du jour.

In truth, France's involvement in a hypothetical Third World War would most certainly entail a contemporary view and assessment of the potential consequences of joining in the struggle. For French politicians, I suspect, the 'treacherous neutrality' option would be more attractive than the one in which French national territories and French port cities (especially) become targets of nuclear strike packages.

But being neutral also means both sides may want to strike your facilities so as to deny them to the enemy. In short, it would put France either in a situation to be attacked with Allies, or to be attacked without. Put it like that, the choice is easy to make.

The second the war goes nuclear, these sorts of considerations become paramount. You yourself admit that the nuclear option would likely have been exercised early and often by both sides.

More exactly, what I meant is that 1) a nuclear power whose core interests are directly threatened will probably use its nuclear power to deny victory to its enemy, and 2) that we discovered the Warsaw Pact was planning to use tactical nuke immediately, to favor breakthroughs its conventional forces might explot. The NATO doctrine would have been more defensive - as in using the same tactical nukes to weaken enemy concentrations, but yes, in the end both sides would push the little red button at their disposal.

If the Soviet Union promised that French neutrality would be respected, are you in the position to absolutely and without reservation claim that the French government would still resolutely throw their lot in with NATO?

I am not, of course. JUst are you are in no position to absolutely and without reservation claim that the Soviet government would make such an offer in good faith, planning no further action against France.

And that's why I tend to think that a French government wouldn't have much choice. Soviet/Russian domination in Europe means that France's major partners are gone, that France's influence becomes next to nonexistent, and that France's security is clearly in danger.

It's like that :

On the one side, the Soviet/Russian government has nothing it can give France but a dubious promise to respect France's borders. On the other side, NATO already considers French borders to be non-negotiable. Advantage : NATO.

One the one side, and regardless of Russian promises, a Soviet/Russian domination over Europe spells the end of the French economy. On the other side, a NATO victory means a maintained access to European markets and a continuous trade with other NATO members who are also France' s closest trade partners (and EU members). dvantage : NATO.

On the one side, and regardless of Russian promises, a Soviet/Russian domination over Europe means a "Finlandized" France, which becomes more pliant to further Russian demands because its forces are less relevant than they were before the Russian conquest of Europe - and no allies this time. On the other side, going with NATO means fighting with Allies, with the prospect of maintaining France's security and geopolitical position in Europe and on the international stage. Advantage : NATO.

What would be the advantage for France to stay put ? What can Russia/the USSR give to France, in that hypothetical scenario, that France doesn't already have or cannot get cheaper (in terms of long-term consequences) through NATO ?

Lastly, I said the belief in French involvement was 'optimistic', not 'without basis'. Of course there is a reasonable chance the French would join in.

Exactly the word I would choose : joining it the fight alongside the rest of the NATO alliance would be reasonable - that's what reason would command to do. And that's also what France's 1949 signature at the bottom of the NATO Charter commands to do, of course.

Definitely one side of the rationalist assessment of the situation. But one must take into account the difference between survival in a geo-strategic political (state) sense, and an absolute (physical survival) sense.

Of course, you can have a classic blackmail, something like "stay put and I don't incinerate 5 million Parisians with nuclear fire". It might work - after all, it appeals to emotion, not to rationality. But as anyone can immediately mull, then what is to prevent further blackmails ? As in most criminal cases, the best way is to cooperate with the police, not with the blackmailers.

I have my doubts that anyone would willingly subject themselves to nuclear bombardment for the sake of preserving a political status quo. The Soviet Union wasn't, when it began falling apart and losing (letting go of) its buffer states, and I cannot bring myself to believe that France would, either.

Why not ? Certainly the prospect of a nuclear war is horrible, but if one side finds it palatable enough to initiate a nuclear blackmail and accept nuclear detsruction, shouldn't we suppose the other side will accept the risk too ? If the French President, in a moment of madness, sent the Russian president the following message "Access my demands or ten Russian cities will be incinerated", would Russia roll over ? I doubt it. So why would France, or any other nation ?

[Atlantic Friend]

I liked Red Phoenix and Vortex is another of my favorite books (it introduced me to the SADF and Africa - I was 13 or 14 when I first read it), but Cauldron was pretty lame and his latest books are awful as well.

I liked the part of the SADF in Vortex, but I was put off by the Afrikaner-speaking = bad, English-speaking = good logic of the book. Cauldron was a big disappointment. When I bought it I was thinking "Cool;, we get to be the Villains !", but the story was downright awful.

Do you remember the name of the wargames? I used to play Twilight 2000 when I was a kid, but that was an RPG that covered the war. Great stuff with a lot of well researched materiel. Wish someone would make a (new) computer game for it.

Heck, I owned both edition of Twilight 2000. I loved the atmosphere of the 1st edition scenario booklets but the second edition system was so much smoother.

As for the wargames, no, I can't remember. They had one for Northern Germany and Denmark, one for Scandinavia, one for Central Germany, one for Southern Germany and Italy... I'll look it up somewhere.

These wargames - along with Mark Herman's at Victory Games (like Flashpoint : Golan), Gulf Strike or The Korean War) and of course World in Flames - really were great tools to learn history in the making.

[Lokos]

What also put me off was his growing tendency to evacuate non-American actors. They get a few paragraphs showing whether they follow or oppose Washington, and then hey presto it's down to the US forces vs the Evil Scheming Leader du jour.

He's just a crap author. I don't like his one dimensional characters and his cookie cutter wars, either. *shrug*

But being neutral also means both sides may want to strike your facilities so as to deny them to the enemy. In short, it would put France either in a situation to be attacked with Allies, or to be attacked without.

Perhaps. Or perhaps the Soviets would go out of their way to avoid directly antagonizing France. Much like Italy. A sort of 'Leave them alone and see what they do' attitude. If we accept that the resulting situation would be the one you postulate (attacked with Allies vs attacked without), then one must ask the question of timing.

In 1939 the Soviet Union's leadership saw the writing on the wall re: Germany. It still chose to reach an accomodation with such a terrible foe in the hopes of buying more time to prepare for the looming conflict. This went so far that Stalin was desperately ordering the Western Military District to avoid engaging the invading Germans for fear of 'provoking them'. It sounds absurd, but immediate concerns of survival often preclude rational analysis of long term prospectives.

More exactly, what I meant is that 1) a nuclear power whose core interests are directly threatened will probably use its nuclear power to deny victory to its enemy, and 2) that we discovered the Warsaw Pact was planning to use tactical nuke immediately, to favor breakthroughs its conventional forces might explot. The NATO doctrine would have been more defensive - as in using the same tactical nukes to weaken enemy concentrations, but yes, in the end both sides would push the little red button at their disposal.

The French government of the time would have likely reached the same conclusion. Nuclear war is a zero-sum game - and as soon as it becomes apparent that one belligerent is ready to use any sort of nuclear weapon, they all become terrifyingly real military options. For NATO's part, as far as I am aware, they had a first strike policy for most of the Cold War.

Are you in a position to absolutely and without reservationx claim that the Soviet government would make such an offer in good faith, planning no further action against France ? No, of course, neither of us could do such a thing. And that's why I tend to think that a French government wouldn't have much choice. Soviet/Russian domination in Europe means that France's major partners are gone, that France's influence becomes next to nonexistent, and that France's security is clearly in danger.

In the book, the SU's government has an obvious preference for a neutral France. I speak of that context, rather than its real-life alter ego. In a universe wherein the government of the SU would clearly prefer a neutral France, I believe such guarantees would be made. Though, like you say, I cannot claim this absolutely nor without reservation.

What would be the advantage for France to stay put ?

Not being drawn into a nuclear war?

Exactly the word I would choose : joining it the fight alongside the rest of the NATO alliance would be reasonable - that's what reason would command to do.

We use different definitions of 'reasonable', then, heh. Mine is more along the lines of 'France could - within reason - affect such a stance'.

Of course, you can have a classic blackmail, something like "stay put and I don't incinerate 5 million Parisians with nuclear fire". It might work - after all, it appeals to emotion, not to rationality. But as anyone can immediately mull, then what is to prevent further blackmails ? As in most criminal cases, the best way is to cooperate with the police, not with the blackmailers.

You place much emphasis on the rational analysis of the situation by individuals with long term mindsets who cannot be assailed through appeals to their emotional selves. I place it, rather, on the psychological reaction to immediate danger on the part of the human psyche. I offer one scenario (government position) in which France adopts a policy of neutrality:

'NATO and the USSR will weaken each other so utterly through nuclear warfare of increasing intensity that no side will emerge victorious - but France might be spared from nuclear destruction if we remain neutral.'

but if one side finds it palatable enough to initiate a nuclear blackmail and accept nuclear detsruction, shouldn't we suppose the other side will accept the risk too ?

Not if one side is already engaging in nuclear destruction and the other is not being subjected to it directly. As would be the case, in this hypothetical. Since nuclear warfare is a zero-sum proposition, as has been stated. And certainly not if the 'blackmail' consists of 'Stay neutral or willingly subject yourself to nuclear fire'.

Lokos

[Hellfish]

I liked the part of the SADF in Vortex, but I was put off by the Afrikaner-speaking = bad, English-speaking = good logic of the book. Cauldron was a big disappointment. When I bought it I was thinking "Cool;, we get to be the Villains !", but the story was downright awful.

Hm. Never thought of Vortex that way. There were a lot of Afrikaners in the 20th Cape Rifles (the unit that mutinied). Plus, the part with the Rangers dropping on Pelindaba or the fight at Walvis Bay were all pretty cool.

Heck, I owned both edition of Twilight 2000. I loved the atmosphere of the 1st edition scenario booklets but the second edition system was so much smoother.

As for the wargames, no, I can't remember. They had one for Northern Germany and Denmark, one for Scandinavia, one for Central Germany, one for Southern Germany and Italy... I'll look it up somewhere.

I'd be interested to find out what they are. I still have a couple of my old Twilight 2000 vehicle guides somewhere, the first edition NATO and second editions of the US and Soviets. IIRC I might also have a version of the tactical wargame (not RPG) set in the TW2000 universe somewhere too. I think it was called Twilight Battles?

I never did understand why the French, Belgians, Dutch and Italians all turned against NATO.

[Hellfish]

The French government of the time would have likely reached the same conclusion. Nuclear war is a zero-sum game - and as soon as it becomes apparent that one belligerent is ready to use any sort of nuclear weapon, they all become terrifyingly real military options. For NATO's part, as far as I am aware, they had a first strike policy for most of the Cold War.

Not saying you're wrong, but I've always, always, always been told that the US would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. It would ALWAYS be the Soviets using nukes against us first.

That said, I know now that I'm older and a lot of the secrets aren't so secret anymore, that the Soviets could have invaded conventionally at will at any point up to, say, '85 without running into effective NATO resistance. Up till '85 the Soviets had quantity and (material) quality over NATO at almost staggering levels. In such a situation I could see nukes being released by us.

[Atlantic Friend]

Hm. Never thought of Vortex that way. There were a lot of Afrikaners in the 20th Cape Rifles (the unit that mutinied). Plus, the part with the Rangers dropping on Pelindaba or the fight at Walvis Bay were all pretty cool.

I liked parts of the book, though. But it was the end of my Larry Bond honeymoon. And Cauldron was the divorce judgement.

I'd be interested to find out what they are. I still have a couple of my old Twilight 2000 vehicle guides somewhere, the first edition NATO and second editions of the US and Soviets. IIRC I might also have a version of the tactical wargame (not RPG) set in the TW2000 universe somewhere too. I think it was called Twilight Battles?

Twilight Battles ? I never heard of that one...*goes wide-eyed and starts planning to tack and buy the game*.

They had "Battlefield:Europe" and "Sands of War", which were OK as tactical wargames go. "B:E" had lots of unconventional scenarions, such as a Franco-Belgian war, which was cool.

I never did understand why the French, Belgians, Dutch and Italians all turned against NATO.

Apparently the GDW team, after having devised their "Traveller" space-opera RPG, decided to create something they called "the game" which was supposed to represent future history from 1980 to the far future. Each GDW designer ran a few countries, taking vital decisions, with games mechanics supposed to determine the effects in terms of military and economic power. They stopped the game around the year 2300 and used the background thus developed in their "Twilight:2000" and "Traveller:2300" games. So it's just that the guy who was running France (and maybe Italy and Belgium) decided to stay out of the war.