5 ms·
In the 1980s, I read a book ("The Third World War" by General Sir John Hackett, IIRC) that speculated on how a West vs Soviet war might unfold. Facing conventio
by DrScump 7y ago
In the 1980s, I read a book ("The Third World War" by General Sir John Hackett, IIRC) that speculated on how a West vs Soviet war might unfold. Facing conventional-forces defeat, the Soviets launch a single nuclear missile as a "warning shot" (vs. Manchester, IIRC). The Allies carefully choose a similar Soviet city in size and strategic importance (Kyev) and nuke it. The nuclear exchanges end there.
It's an interesting book, but it did not age well. His predictions about alliances and spheres of influence were way off (he expected Sadat's Egypt to be the Mideast's Soviet bastion and the Shah's Iran to be the Allies' counter, for example).
- anticodon 7y ago"Facing conventional forces defeat". How arrogant this sounds. West tried to occupy Russia all the time in the history. Napoleon and Hitler were predicting exactly the same: "conventional forces defeat and all Russians will happily surrender and march into gas chambers to democratize and free themselves" But so far this never happened and never in it's history USA attacked a strong opponent. Military success looting small and powerless third world countries like Iraq and Libya doesn't mean much. Note that invasions failed in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria. Even more: though Iran is a very lucrative target for looting (lots of oil and advantageous geographic location), US doesn't have the courage to invade and colonize it. Although Iran does not have nuclear weapons or any other kind of wmd.
- DrScump 7y agoDude. It's a novel. A 40-year-old novel.