No Nuclear Weapons = World War 3?

[Clinton Huxley]

Supposing nuclear weapons had not been invented and World War II had ended with an opposed invasion of Japan by US-led forces and supposing that the post-war world had still developed into a stand-off between two super-powers and their respective hangers-on, would World War 3 have occured or would the two sides respective conventional arsenals been enough to secure the peace?

[Rum]

I think it is likely that the Berlin Crisis of 48/49 would have developed into a Soviets vs NATO (which was also formed in 49) conventional war. Arguably it was only the nuclear weapons factor which stopped it. Moscow as by all accounts very close to attempting to taking West Berlin or sealing it off, which would have effectively been an act of war.

[FBM]

I'm guessing, and I stress 'guessing,' what WWIII would have happened. And by this time, maybe WWIV.

[Clinton Huxley]

WWXXII is the one you want to watch out for, the Empire of Lichenstein vs the United States of Guernsey.

[FBM]

WWXXII is the one you want to watch out for, the Empire of Lichenstein vs the United States of Guernsey.

By that point, I think it will be more like the Empire of Lichens.

[Clinton Huxley]

WWXXII is the one you want to watch out for, the Empire of Lichenstein vs the United States of Guernsey.

By that point, I think it will be more like the Empire of Lichens.

I, for one, welcome our fungo-bacterial overlords

[FBM]

WWXXII is the one you want to watch out for, the Empire of Lichenstein vs the United States of Guernsey.

By that point, I think it will be more like the Empire of Lichens.

I, for one, welcome our fungo-bacterial overlords

Slime mold wins with a last-minute goal.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have no doubts that there would have been another major land war by now, maybe more.

[klr]

... and I suspect that chemical weapons would have been used in quantity, unlike as with WW II, when countries were scared to use them for fear of retaliation in kind.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

... and I suspect that chemical weapons would have been used in quantity, unlike as with WW II, when countries were scared to use them for fear of retaliation in kind.

Why would that change?

[klr]

... and I suspect that chemical weapons would have been used in quantity, unlike as with WW II, when countries were scared to use them for fear of retaliation in kind.

Why would that change?

It very nearly did in WW II.

Anyway, someone would try and use them in a "limited" context for tactical advantage, hoping that this would either go unnoticed, or even be ignored. But chances are, it would eventually escalate. It would be much easier to "progress" from the likes of flame throwers, defoliant, etc. to something like nerve gas, than from conventional explosives to nuclear weapons. After all, we know that chemical and biological weapons were used by the Japanese in Manchuria, doubtless in the knowledge that they could "get away with it". Ditto Saddam against the Kurds, and right now in Syria.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

... and I suspect that chemical weapons would have been used in quantity, unlike as with WW II, when countries were scared to use them for fear of retaliation in kind.

Why would that change?

It very nearly did in WW II.

Anyway, someone would try and use them in a "limited" context for tactical advantage, hoping that this would either go unnoticed, or even be ignored. But chances are, it would eventually escalate. It would be much easier to "progress" from the likes of flame throwers, defoliant, etc. to something like nerve gas, than from conventional explosives to nuclear weapons. After all, we know that chemical and biological weapons were used by the Japanese in Manchuria, doubtless in the knowledge that they could "get away with it". Ditto Saddam against the Kurds, and right now in Syria.

Marshall has the okay to use chemical weapons during Operation Olympic. But there was little chance the Japanese would retaliate against us outside of Japan. Whether George Catlett Marshall would have used them is crystal balling.

[Audley Strange]

WWW3 started in 1945. It's stage was in many countries and some of them were more affected than others. That war was the war between communist/socialists and capitalists/plutocrats. It sort of petered out when one side collapsed economically but it was only about a decade before WWW4 started up which seems to be everyone against crazy Islamist fuckpigs.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

WWW3 started in 1945. It's stage was in many countries and some of them were more affected than others. That war was the war between communist/socialists and capitalists/plutocrats. It sort of petered out when one side collapsed economically but it was only about a decade before WWW4 started up which seems to be everyone against crazy Islamist fuckpigs.

War-by-proxy shouldn't be dignified with a "WW", IMNSHO.

[Audley Strange]

Well was it really by proxy? Both sides seem to be pretty set on fucking up countries in their claimed domain which seemed to be edging towards their opponents ideology all across the globe and while often clandestine actors were used, the money and permission still came from governments. I see no difference between paying hired killers to kill or rounding up gullible citizens en masse to do the same thing.

Is it because it wasn't basically an open war of attrition in Europe that it's worth discounting do you think?