If no nukes, how likely is WW3?

[The_Persian_Cat]

Hey all,
So, "Mutually-Assured Destruction" is generally held up as the main thing which kept the Cold War "cold." However, without nuclear (or other WMD) deterrence, how likely would total war between the superpowers be after World War II?

Now, I don't think war would break out immediately, despite the more bullish factions within either camp. The USSR was exhausted and needed to rebuild, most of Europe was totally destroyed, and the US wouldn't be able to conduct a total war against the USSR alone. But perhaps in a few years, things would change? If there's no MAD, then maybe the Korean War becomes the catalyst for an all-out world war? Or by the 1960s -- when a lot of Europe had rebuilt, and the USSR had established itself as a superpower -- something like the Vietnam War or an American invasion of Cuba?

 

[Reflection]

AlternateHistoryHub has a video with this very premise. As he puts it:

"Mutually Assured Destruction created rules that everybody had to play by. Remove the nukes, you remove the rules. All your left with is two of the world's biggest powers, who hate each other, and their most recent war ended in a victory. How do you think this will end?"

In other words... Yes. The answer is Yes.

 

[Michel Van]

A realistic non nuclear WW3 ?

There several political crisis in 1950s or 1960s that let direct to conventional world War.
mostly about West Berlin
Like the soviet occupy/blockade West Berlin because USA invade Kuba and NATO try to liberate
or the construction of Berlin Wall in 1961.

 

[The_Persian_Cat]

AlternateHistoryHub has a video with this very premise. As he puts it:

"Mutually Assured Destruction created rules that everybody had to play by. Remove the nukes, you remove the rules. All your left with is two of the world's biggest powers, who hate each other, and their most recent war ended in a victory. How do you think this will end?"

In other words... Yes. The answer is Yes.

Yeah, this is fair. I guess the question isn't so much "If a world war would happen," but "when" and "how"

 

[EWHM]

Without nukes, the US probably won't demilitarize to the extent it did after WW2. It'll likely have to spend a larger fraction of GDP on it. My guess is the US will probably not let Cuba or any of South/Central America go communist, maybe not even socialist. That larger army will have a political momentum of its own. If I had to guess, I'd predict a big war in Europe, with Germany as the front line in the mid 60s, probably opening with squashing West Berlin.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

I think the most likely trigger would either be the Hungarian uprising or the troubles that led to building the Berlin Wall. Hungary would be very close to when the British estimated the maximum risk of war would be.

 

[oberdada]

It doesn't make much of a difference.

Superpowers usually don't pick serious fights with eachother.

 

[Monk78]

It doesn't make much of a difference.

Superpowers usually don't pick serious fights with eachother.

Hold my rakija … gravilo princip

 

[Monk78]

What would make sense for Soviets ? I say they don’t wait till 1960

 

[The_Persian_Cat]

Superpowers usually don't pick serious fights with eachother.

European empires have attempted to construct a perfect "balance of power" that would deter war since, like, 1648. Since then, the War of the Spanish Succession, the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, and World War II all happened, just to name a few. No peace between hostile powers can last forever, no matter how costly war may be, unless war means MAD (and even then, that's not a guarantee -- just look at India and Pakistan).

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

Last time this came up, Calbear thought we'd see a world war every 15-30 years iirc if we never invented any showstopping weapons like nukes.

 

[Lalli]

It doesn't make much of a difference.

Superpowers usually don't pick serious fights with eachother.

What then several wars since rise of humanity were if not wars between great powers (if you meant that instead actual super powers, what term shouldn't use really lightly).

WW3 didn't occur due nuclear weapons. But since no threat of them, occuring of WW3 would be pretty possible, altough not certain since that would be really costly for both sides.

 

[Mikhail Gorbachev]

WW3 is a 99% guarantee. Maybe a WW4 and 5, too.

 

[Torlek]

With no nukes you have to finish WWII first, so in addition to a divided Germany you also have a Soviet beachhead somewhere in Japan, probably a wholly Soviet Korea, deeper Soviet inroads in China and an American public and military utterly exhausted with war after having to grind through Japan. If Mao can drag Stalin along to lean on Chiang then your flashpoint is probably going to be China and fighting in Japan may not even be over.

 

[Lalli]

WW3 is a 99% guarantee. Maybe a WW4 and 5, too.

WW3 is indeed possible but not sure about that there would be endless numbers of world wars between great powers. We actually saw pretty peaceful era in Europe between 1871 - 1914 (43 years) and that could had lasted bit longer if not assassination of Franz Ferdinand/some diplomatic solution for July Crisis. And last Europe-wide war was Napoleonic Wars which ended 100 years before WW1.

 

[DJ03]

Last time this came up, Calbear thought we'd see a world war every 15-30 years iirc if we never invented any showstopping weapons like nukes.

based on what?

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

I think the most likely trigger would either be the Hungarian uprising or the troubles that led to building the Berlin Wall. Hungary would be very close to when the British estimated the maximum risk of war would be.

No nukes and that would make a reasonable flashpoint. Or even the East German riots/sort of uprising in 1953.

In each case the Soviets would blame Western interference for the uprising (possibly correctly ITTL) and likely counter by occupying West Berlin.

We can all take it from there.

 

[Pangur]

As sure as the sun rises in the east on planet

 

[Lalli]

based on what?

Yeah. I don't really see there being world war between every 20 year. Europe has enjoyed relatively peaceful era beside some local wars between 1815 - 1915 so not impossible that there would be another such era. And even WW2 wasn't completely unavoidable but ratherly pretty easy to do. Even WW3 could be too avoidable even without nukes but probably not easy.

 

[TDM]

It doesn't make much of a difference.

Superpowers usually don't pick serious fights with eachother.

They can do if they think they are each an existential threat to the other and they need to secure their interests. and anywhere were the two side butt up against each other either directly or directly through allies is going to be potential flash point.

Another real issue is the lines are already pretty much globally drawn and there's not even really going to be much jockeying for alliance and allies (maybe India)