99 Red Balloons

For those of us who grew up during the Cold War, we were well aware of what would probably happen if the US and the Soviets went to war. Within a few hours everything would go to Hell (almost literally). What fascinates me is what would have happened if the Cold War had become a hot one using conventional weapons and leaving the nukes hidden away. Many films and books have presented various scenarios, most of which I find highly unlikely. What I'd really like to know is how the government thought this might happen, how they trained for it, and what plans, procedures and such existed for it. Obviously the Powers that be thought a conventional war was at least a possibility, otherwise they wouldn't rationally have spent the hundreds of trillions of dollars on forty years of military build-up. So far the first bit of info I've come across is "Dropshot", the war plan originally conceived in 1949.

This essay by John Reilly explores the US plan for World War III (Dropshot) circa 1957. In the age before ICBMs became the main strategic weapon, it was still seemingly possible for a U.S./ Soviet war to be fought conventionally. The plan was for an initally defensive war against an aggressive Russia that was actively seeking expansion and eventually some sort of global domination. This alternative history explores how this might have happened under the right conditions. Reilly makes some interesting political and economic points along the way.

"There is a good argument to be made that the United States took as little hurt from the Cold War as it did because the president during the 1950s was that logistics expert, Dwight David Eisenhower. . . Using his own good judgment to gauge just what the Soviets could or would do, he starved the U.S. military during the 1950s to let give the consumer economy room to breathe." Compare this to the 1990s of the Clinton administration, where the military was starved, but the economy did quite well.

Reilly contemplates what would have happened if Eisenhower had been replaced by Adlai Stevenson. His ambition to destroy the communist bloc was similar to Reagan's, although his timing would have been wrong. It wasn't until the 1980s, when the Soviet's finally "exhausted the growth capacity of the command economy," that the opportunity to pressure the Soviets farther finally occurred. In my opinion, Reagan's administration may not have been clever enough to know with certainty that they could break the Soviets by outspending them militarily. Reagan played a dangerous game of brinkmanship, such as the deployment of the Pershing II missiles. If they were confident of economic victory, these aggressive stances seem unnecessary. I think Reagan got lucky. He took a big gamble that could have got us all killed, but was fortunate enough to find success.

Also in Reilly's scenario, Stalin stays in power. If Stalin had lived longer, past 1953, he may have planned to fight a decisive war. If Stevenson backed up his own idealism by sending forces to Europe, Stalin very well could have countered by launching his offensive. Thirty million Americans would be needed for service, and unlike World War II, this one would be devastating for the American economy. The U.S. would have been forced to become a command-economy state.

The plan was for NATO to hold the front, until the American forces could arrive, which could be a year. IT suggest that the Soviets could very well advance past Germany, and the UK would probably not be held.The second phase would be an offensive to occupy Russia. Dropshot notes that invasion from the Far East or the Middle East would be impractical, and only an offensive straight in from Europe would work.

Finally, the aftermath of a successful war would have had terrible effects on the world economy, although it may have been less damaging than World War II. Russia might have been able to transition to a market economy with less resistance. In America, collectivism and Socialism might have become instituted as the command economy which helped win the war would be viewed as superior to the market economy. The social revolution of the 1960s would not occur, and presumably the pessimism of the 40s and 50s would be reinforced, with the continuing view that the world is a dangerous place. Positively, The arms race would never have occured, and the threat of nuclear annihilation would be gone.

But, would the outcome have really been so positive? I certainly don't think a communist victory would be a good thing. However, An American victory might have had its downsides as well. The US would have global domination of the advanced world, and without any opposition would be free to do anything it wishes. This unhindered power may have been too much to contain, and would probably be used on scale far exceeding what we have seen in the 21st Century, where the US has done things that would have previously been unthinkable, both constitutionally and morally, due to the possibility of destroying the integrity of our 200 year history. [1] In the 80s miniseries Amerika, the Soviets achieved global victory, and the conditions under their rule, however intolerable, were unescapable "There was nowhere else to go." A post-World War III Socialist America could have utopian possibilities, [2] but it would also have the potential to become a tyrannical, dystopian police state. Having two equally-matched superpowers during the Cold War meant there was a Yin/Yang balance, and there were possibilities to choose from, depending on what type of system your allegiences might fall.


Geek edits:
[1] example: Star Wars - Palpatine and the fall of the senate
[2] example: Star Trek (although despite the superficial utopian Socialism, ST could be viewed as a communist society , see this article for explanation.