Matrix Games Forums

A question for history and alternate history buffs out there...

A lot of discussions of a possible NATO-Soviet confrontation assume that the Soviets would use chemical weapons and NATO would respond with tactical nuclear strikes.

What if NATO didn't do this but, instead, just used its own chemical weapons? "Sauce for the gander" logic. This is horrifying, but less horrifying than using nuclear weapons. It would also remove most of the advantage that Soviets had gained from using chemical weapons (yes, they had trained with them, but they would now have to deal with our chemical attacks.)

In effect, rather than escalate to nuclear weapons, NATO chooses to simply level the playing field. To use a poker metaphor, they don't "see and raise," but simply "see and call."

My own speculation...this avoid nuclear escalation. The Soviets did not want to be the ones to use nuclear weapons first and as long as NATO does not use them, it would be hard for them to justify it. In addition, the chemical attacks would actually taper off as the tactical advantages of using them diminished. After a week or so, the war would continue, but almost exclusively with conventional weapons and limited or no further use of chemical weapons.

Any thoughts on this? How plausible is this?

Being an Ex Coldwarrior stationed in Germany, my opinion from what I experienced is as follows: Chem weapons would have hammered us.
Yes we trained for chemical environment but the training was not very realistic. Granted I was in a signal unit which really didn't train for combat the loss rate in my unit would have probably exceeded 85%.
Our MOPP suited were outdated and as I said our training was unrealistic. Now on the other hand if we had known chemical attack was coming troops would have more time to get properly "suited-up", surprised attack would have been devastating.

The reason the soviets did not want to use first strike tactical weapons was because there was no need. In excercises we were the first to resort to tactical weapons. The sheer mass of force the soviets could put into the field was difficult to combat and indeed to have a chance at stopping the inertia , tactical weapons needed to be used when mass was concentrated fairly early on in any conflict. So first use of Soviet chemical weapons as was expected made the political decision to retaliate an easier one than to give first release. The degradation in capability a chemical battleground would play more into the strengths of soviets rather than Nato. Perhaps if there was some sort of slow escalation that allowed Nato forces a decent chance of disrupting soviet build up without resorting to Tactical weapons then perhaps some limited use of chemical weapons would not see retaliation. remember also Nato did not have masses of chemical stockpiles.

I'm not sure that a NATO retaliation in chemicals would really level the playing field.

Even during WWI gas, (as with Chemicals), were only really useful as a first (surprise) strike. Once the other side has their chemical protection on an SOP's in place then gas or chemicals are of limited effect.

The Soviets would have launched chemical attacks with their troops already fully kitted out in anti-chemical suites to allow them to advance into the areas their weapon just struck.
That would greatly shield them against a "like for like" retaliation.

One thing you might want to keep in mind while discussing this is that Soviet doctrine did not segregate conventional-chemical-biological-nuclear weapons into nice neat piles like Western/NATO countries think.  For the Soviet/Warsaw Pact, it was more along the lines of conventional, and conventional plus everything else.  I doubt that the Soviets contemplating using chemical weapons without all the other nasty weapons included.  Hence, the NATO response to "chemical" attack took this into account -- once the first WMD was detected, it was Goodnight Irene, and the whole spigot was opened.
 
Regards,
Feltan

From my experience wearing mopp gear I am not sure the WWI thinking is still appropriate. Sure you can be wearing mopp and thus avoid the initial damage of the attack, but you also have to decon all that gear and yourself before EATING, and you have some likely broken drink tube for drinking.

So a prolonged bombardment can hamper the enemy for a long period of time. I tend to think of Mopp Gear as being good for life extension after an event, letting you finish the mission, but I'm not sure many would actually make it out alive. Even if you were given heads up notice.