WW3?

This is coolbert:

Here is an interesting question that in probability cannot be answered in a definitive way. But probably can be answered with a good degree of confidence. If the atomic bomb did not exist, would there have been a Third World War [WW3]??

My intuitive response to this question is that YES, WW3 would have occurred if it were not for the existence of atomic weaponry.

What I have in mind here is a conventional war, non-nuclear, between the massed forces of the west [NATO/Free World/Allies], led by the U.S., and the communist forces [Warsaw Pact/China/North Korea/Cuba] led by the Soviet Union. Primarily war between what were called the world's superpowers [U.S. and the Soviet Union].

Now, from time to time, hot wars did break out in the period following the Second World War [WW2]. The wars between the communist forces in Korea and Vietnam and the U.S. are obvious. But these were not global conflicts. Were regional conflicts with limited means and intentions on the part of the combatants. What I have in mind is a global conflict, fought on all continents and oceans. Apocalyptic war between ideological foes.

And both sides, the "free world" and the communist, did provide mirror images of each other, each seeing themselves as the best hope for the future of mankind, a hope based upon again, mirror image ideologies of one another.

And both sides did possess considerable and potent conventional arms at their disposal to fight WW3. Conventional weaponry and manpower, that if employed by both sides, would of itself just have inflicted the most terrible damage. The communists possessed just massive ground forces backed up with lavish amounts of tanks, artillery, etc. The equipment for fighting and winning a ground war. The "free world" possessed a more balanced military, of ground, naval, and air forces, also of considerable strength.

And of course, both sides possessed with atomic weaponry the ability to destroy the populaces of their potential opposition many times. It was often speculated that a global thermonuclear war would have destroyed mankind and much of life on the planet period!

There were a number of flash points where war between the world's superpowers could have broken out. Of course the Cuban Missile crisis is an obvious point. A number of times war could have broken out over Berlin. It was not for a lack of points of conflict and contention that war did not break out.

But no global war between the super-powers occurred. The feared WW3 did not happen. Why? It should be obvious that the consequences of a war which would in all probability include the use of nuclear weaponry is the reason why? Trying to limit such a WW3 to not include atomic weapons was just not feasible. The fear was that even if atomic weapons were not used from the onset, unforeseen events might lead to the use of atomic weaponry, and a potential uncontrollable exchange of nukes. With disastrous results for everyone. The Cold War adversaries realized early that confrontations had to be reasonable, managed, and controlled. NO war happened because of the fear of the consequences of the use of nukes. Period.

A most interesting series on PBS a few years ago seems to bear this out! This series was entitled "Messengers From Moscow".

The various persons being interviewed on camera were advisors and speech writers for the various communist leaders during the Cold War. They gave their recollections of what occurred during this period.

One man, a speech writer for N. S. Khrushchev, recounted a trip that the Soviet leader made to China to visit for high level talks with Chairman Mao. While relaxing in a swimming pool together, Mao was reported to have asked Nikita Sergeyevich: "Why don't you just destroy the capitalists? Use atomic weapons against them." At which point Nikita is said to have hesitated and then after a long pause, retorted, "well, you would have to consider the consequences of such a war!" To which Mao replied, "consequences? What consequences?"

This exchange between the two leaders of the communist world leads me to believe that N.S. had indeed thought out the consequences of a war with the "free world", while Mao had not. [Mao is also reputed to have said at some point. "Go ahead and kill 300 million of us [Chinese]. There will still be 300 million left!"].

I guess the analogy of the two super-powers during the Cold War as being like two men locked in a dark basement with gasoline filling the floor up to their knees is correct. Who wants to the first to light a match to see what will happen??

coolbert.