A Decade after Red Storm Rising?

[gtrof]

Thinking about doing this as a TL. What happens following the end of the Third World War in Tom Clancy's Red Storm Rising? For those not quite familiar with it, the book has a conventional WWIII between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. The war ends in a ceasefire with NATO having the upperhand. The USSR and Warsaw Pact have not collapsed at the end of the book.

I see three things happening within the first five years, the ending of the Warsaw Pact and collapse of the Communist puppet regimes. The USSR is intact more or less. The Persian Gulf war happens in some form. China preys on Soviet weakness in the Far East. NATO is reformatted with some states added and others kicked out.

Nuclear arsenals are reduced between the super-powers but new states acquire them in the Middle East and Africa.

 

[joyceman]

Cant imagine NATO would want to keep Greece and Turkey after they used the Russian maskirovka as an excuse to not fullfill treaty obligations.

Some other thoughts:

How bad would German reconstruction be?

Which direction would Sergetov and Alexandrov move the USSR?

Would the apparent defeat of soviet arms lead to a break up?

Would the destruction of numerous nuclear powered ships and boats in the Atlantic cause issues, I really dont know what would happen to a reactor on a sunk ship/sub.

Its doubtfull there would be any push towards disarmament or any "peace dividend" like we had in otl. What implications does that have for the US economy in the 90s?

Assuming that the US can present solid evidence that the eventual soviet goal was the middle east, what implications does that have for the area? Would local regimes be more willing to partner with the US?

 

[gtrof]

Cant imagine NATO would want to keep Greece and Turkey after they used the Russian maskirovka as an excuse to not fullfill treaty obligations.

Turkey didn't bow out cause of the Maskirovka IIRC. More that they were pretty isolated and attacking Russia or Eastern Europe on their own would be bad for the Turks.

How bad would German reconstruction be?

I actually imagine their is more damage to W. Germany than the GDR. While NATO would have hit the East German military bases and highways, their cities and towns avoided destruction. With the damage to the FRG it might make reunification a bit more even. I'd expect a lot money and resources to be spent since the Warsaw Pact advance got as far as the river Weser (nearly half of the FRG there).

Which direction would Sergetov and Alexandrov move the USSR?

Sergetov probably proceeded along limited reforms. Their coup stressed that they were seeking to restore the Soviet state. Plus with the damage to the Soviet economy economic reforms are necessary.

Would the apparent defeat of soviet arms lead to a break up?

I'd assume the Warsaw Pact breaks up at the very least. The USSR itself is also quite possible, however if Sergetov makes enough change he might be able to hold on to some of the USSR states.

Would the destruction of numerous nuclear powered ships and boats in the Atlantic cause issues, I really dont know what would happen to a reactor on a sunk ship/sub.

The only specific one mentioned in the story was the Soviet SSN sunk near the Andera Doria. However much of sinkings occurred in the deep North Atlantic. Except for the Kirov and SSNs, I don't think too many other nuclear powered ships were lost.

Its doubtfull there would be any push towards disarmament or any "peace dividend" like we had in otl. What implications does that have for the US economy in the 90s?

There would be a little though. After all the Cold War is over, Americans (especially those on the Left) are going to demand reductions in the armed forces. Maybe not as a large as OTL but they will still happened. Unless China becomes a greater threat than OTL I can't imagine the US Armed Forces being kept at Cold War levels.

Assuming that the US can present solid evidence that the eventual soviet goal was the middle east, what implications does that have for the area? Would local regimes be more willing to partner with the US?

I doubt it changes things much. Nations that already dislike the USSR are still going to. Plus those same nations already don't like the USA. Besides following the war the USSR has no means to threaten the Middle East anymore. Probably there would be just as large or larger arms buying by the Middle Eastern states. An easy way to make some quick cash for the Russians is to sell off their remaining T-80s, MiGs, and weapons they can no longer afford to operate.

 

[DD951]

The only specific one mentioned in the story was the Soviet SSN sunk near the Andera Doria. However much of sinkings occurred in the deep North Atlantic. Except for the Kirov and SSNs, I don't think too many other nuclear powered ships were lost.

Off the top of my head, there were actually quite a few nuclear subs lost in the war, in addition to the Victor III sunk near the Doria.

Pharris was involved in the sinkings of a November & a Charlie-II both in the mid-Atlantic.

The British frigate captain mentioned that HMS Diomede sank an Echo-II somewhere in the North Atlantic in a conversation with Ed Morris. A number of Soviet subs were sunk trying to go after the amphib group that retook Iceland, some pretty close inshore, including a Victor, a Papa, and an Oscar.

In the briefing for Operation Doolittle, it's mentioned that HMS Trafalgar was sunk by a mine in a shallow part of the Barents or Norwegian Sea.

In the running battle that the attempt of the US subs that launched the TLAM strike to flee the area resulted in, several Soviet subs were sunk, apparently including a Victor-III or two. Finally, in the penultimate sub battle, an Alfa as well as Boston & Providence are all lost.

Although nothing more specific about nuclear sub losses is mentioned, in the Soviet leadership scenes, it's mentioned that Soviet sub losses are very high. Nothing else is mentioned about NATO sub losses.

Nothing's mentioned about any US nuclear carriers or cruisers being sunk.

These subs certainly would be an ongoing environmental concern. So far, there hasn't been any leakage from the reactor vessels of Thresher or Scorpion, both of which have been on the bottom for over 40 years. Less is known about the reactors of Soviet subs that sank OTL, or those that the Soviets and post-1991 Russians simply dumped in the Barents Sea a hundred miles or so off Murmansk, including the scuttling of several boats that became damaged and contaminated beyond repair as the result of reactor accidents, in contravention of international treaties.

In the RSR TL, the Victor sunk next to the Doria would be a major concern, as the depth charges that sank it caused a reactor accident- some sort of uncontrolled event, and its implied that the explosions may have breached the containment vessel.

AFAIK, the Bellona Foundation might have more info on these subs and the dangers they could pose. (OTL, not in the RSR TL), as IIRC, the subs & reactors dumped at sea by the Soviet & Russian Northern Fleet is one of their ongoing projects.

 

[Lalli]

Warsav Pact surely collapse after war. And maybe USSR too.

What do you think, fire Greece from Nato? How other Nato countries regard about Greece because it didn't help its allies?

Unification of Germany is propably much later.

What kind of future Iceland has after war?

 

[gtrof]

snip.

I did mention the SSNs, nuclear submarines. I don't know enough about the environmental, engineering background to comment. I would think though that the ones sunk in deep water are less of a concern than those sunk closer to shore like the Victor by the Doria.