Alternate Cuban Missile Crisis

[MinnesotaNationalist]

What if the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 had not been adverted? What if Soviet Ships carrying nuclear weapons tried to breach the Embargo Line? Would the world be destroyed in Nuclear war? Would Kennedy back down from the 'push here to destroy world' button?

[orvillethird]

I think that people would have backed down. That said, even if nuclear war occurred, there would be millions dead, but the world would still survive...even potentially the USA and USSR. (ICBMs did not exist. The USSR was unable to reach the US with much of its arsenal, while the sheer size of the USSR would make much of it survive.)

[MinnesotaNationalist]

Mar 25, 2016 0:00:57 GMT orvillethird said:

I think that people would have backed down. That said, even if nuclear war occurred, there would be millions dead, but the world would still survive...even potentially the USA and USSR. (ICBMs did not exist. The USSR was unable to reach the US with much of its arsenal, while the sheer size of the USSR would make much of it survive.)

I personally agree. I think if Khrushchev didn't back down, than Kennedy would have. Neither of them are stupid, rash, or stubborn enough to start a nuclear war

[Epic History]

I did some research into this awhile back, and basic conclusion I got for sure was that the USSR would cease to exist and the US would get off almost entirely free. The USSR's subs were in port, what ICBMs they had were liquid fueled, and would take anywhere from around eight hours to something like a day or so to make ready (IIRC). Their bomber force, such as it was, was only two hundred planes that had limited abilities to hit the US and weren't even on high alert. The US, on the other hand, had at least 20-30 solid fuel missiles to use, which could be launched and strike targets within 30 minutes or so. SAC, while past its recent peak, had thousands of bombers ready to go as the main punch in addition to all the liquid fuel rockets. The USN also had several Polaris-equipped submarines ready at the time as well. It's been awhile since I reviewed SIOP 62 (Last time I checked, it's available online), but I seem to recall that the plan was to avoid dealing massive damage to the rest of WarPac, mainly limiting attacks to capitals or primarily Soviet troop concentrations based within the member states. I can't recall what would happen to China though, although I seem to recall one or both sides planned to do some strikes just as way to prevent Mao from exploiting the situation.

In short, expect the USSR to end up a wasteland while most of NATO gets hit hard. WarPac and the Anglo-French might actually end up the best in Eurasia. The US will probably lose a major city or two, like Seattle or so. Cuba gets wrecked, and probably invaded. Probably a stronger ANZ and South Africa ITTL too, thanks to European immigrants. 

[westvirginiarebel]

We had many more nukes than the Russians did. The "missile gap" fear on the American side was largely unfounded. They could have done serious damage to Berlin and West Germany but the West still prevails. Cuba almost certainly gets invaded and becomes an American territory. I don't think the US would want to destroy the Soviet Union outright as they would need somebody to negotiate with when the war was over and the sheer size of Russia would make occupation difficult.

[Krall]

Mar 25, 2016 5:44:26 GMT Epic History said:

I did some research into this awhile back, and basic conclusion I got for sure was that the USSR would cease to exist and the US would get off almost entirely free. The USSR's subs were in port, what ICBMs they had were liquid fueled, and would take anywhere from around eight hours to something like a day or so to make ready (IIRC). Their bomber force, such as it was, was only two hundred planes that had limited abilities to hit the US and weren't even on high alert. The US, on the other hand, had at least 20-30 solid fuel missiles to use, which could be launched and strike targets within 30 minutes or so. SAC, while past its recent peak, had thousands of bombers ready to go as the main punch in addition to all the liquid fuel rockets. The USN also had several Polaris-equipped submarines ready at the time as well. It's been awhile since I reviewed SIOP 62 (Last time I checked, it's available online), but I seem to recall that the plan was to avoid dealing massive damage to the rest of WarPac, mainly limiting attacks to capitals or primarily Soviet troop concentrations based within the member states. I can't recall what would happen to China though, although I seem to recall one or both sides planned to do some strikes just as way to prevent Mao from exploiting the situation.

In short, expect the USSR to end up a wasteland while most of NATO gets hit hard. WarPac and the Anglo-French might actually end up the best in Eurasia. The US will probably lose a major city or two, like Seattle or so. Cuba gets wrecked, and probably invaded. Probably a stronger ANZ and South Africa ITTL too, thanks to European immigrants. 

So if the Soviets push their luck, they're going to find out that the USA made its own luck... in industrial quantities. And strapped it on top of rocket engines.

Is this the SIOP-62 thing you mentioned? Seems to be a pretty good rundown of the US and USSR's nuclear forces at the time, and the numbers fit with what you said (the USSR having only 200 bombers, 78 sub-launched missiles, and 10-25 ICBMs). From what I can tell it looks like the R-16/SS-7 Saddler was the only Soviet ICBM deployed at that point - I'm not sure how accurate the Wikipedia article is, but it states that they could take anywhere from 1 to 3 hours to reach launch readiness, not including 20 minutes wind-up time for their gyroscopes, which is far from the 8 to 24 hours you state, but I doubt that'd make much difference considering the USA's Jupiter missiles stationed in Italy and Turkey (which were the main reason the USSR wanted to place missiles so close to the USA in the first place) could be launched within 15 minutes!

I dunno if Australia, New Zealnd, and South Africa would be better off in absolute terms compared to OTL, but they'd definitely be better off in relative terms, considering one of the world's two competing superpowers and the traditionally most powerful and influential continent in the world just got a liberal sprinkling of nuclear explosions. I dunno if they'd get a lot of European migrants though - British immigrants certainly would move to the remains of the British Empire and the Commonwealth since migrating there would be easier, though notably South Africa had left the Commonwealth by that point.


Another Cuban Missile Crisis scenario that might be interesting (though perhaps less likely) is what if the USA backed down? Certainly it'd heighten the tension of the Cold War, with both the USA and USSR having short range nuclear missiles within striking distance of each other. Perhaps the Multilateral Force would be created, and there'd be more military co-operation and integration between NATO states? The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty might not go ahead either, as the US might want to distribute its nuclear missile technology to its European allies so they can better defend themselves (it certainly looks like Italy wanted nuclear missiles, since they refitted a cruiser to fire Polaris missiles and developed their own intermediate range ballistic missile once the US didn't go ahead with the MLF).

[Epic History]

Apr 17, 2016 23:08:25 GMT Krall said:

So if the Soviets push their luck, they're going to find out that the USA made its own luck... in industrial quantities. And strapped it on top of rocket engines.

Basically, and the Soviets realized this. The entire Cuban ordeal was them attempting to find some counter to make up for their then lack of parity with the US; the "Missile Gap" thing during the 1960 election was baseless campaign rhetoric (And it infuriated Ike to no end, as an aside).

Is this the SIOP-62 thing you mentioned? Seems to be a pretty good rundown of the US and USSR's nuclear forces at the time, and the numbers fit with what you said (the USSR having only 200 bombers, 78 sub-launched missiles, and 10-25 ICBMs). From what I can tell it looks like the R-16/SS-7 Saddler was the only Soviet ICBM deployed at that point - I'm not sure how accurate the Wikipedia article is, but it states that they could take anywhere from 1 to 3 hours to reach launch readiness, not including 20 minutes wind-up time for their gyroscopes, which is far from the 8 to 24 hours you state, but I doubt that'd make much difference considering the USA's Jupiter missiles stationed in Italy and Turkey (which were the main reason the USSR wanted to place missiles so close to the USA in the first place) could be launched within 15 minutes!

Pretty much, although having done some more research SIOP-63 may have been in effect at the time (I'm not for sure). Even if it was, the only difference was a "Hold" Option on blasting the Chi-Coms IIRC. With regards to their bombers and Subs, its only important to note that the former were not even on alert and the latter were all in port during the Crisis. Presuming a start date of October 27th, they're almost mission kill when the nukes start flying. If any survive the US strikes, ADC and the USN will mop up most of the stragglers. ADC drills with B-36s (So I assume this was even before the DEW line was added, increasing US capabilities) showed an inability for mass penetrations much further South than the Minnesota-Iowa border for example.

As for the SS-7, I can't recall where I read that estimate but I do agree it does seem off. I think it may have been figuring in receiving clear confirmation from Moscow, due to how tight the Soviets were keeping their nukes during the Crisis. It's also important to note how their CEP is over a mile, which can make a BIG difference when trying to hit a city or even more critically, a military facility. One thing the Soviets do get lucky on is that the US can only launch around 130 ICBMs and SLBMs immediately (20 Minutemen from the Dakotas and around 112 Polaris from seven USN subs), so Kennedy may just get in touch with the Reds after the first strike and call a truce before it gets any worse....for them. US Atlas and Titan missiles take about as long as their Soviet counterparts to get ready, and it would take a few hours for the mass of SAC to slam into them as well. If the Soviets don't agree to a truce however, another 150 (or so) missiles and over 1,400 bombers will turn their portion of Eurasia into radioactive glass craters. So tl; dr US vs USSR in 1962 is essentially MORE DAKKA mixed with Team America theme song. 

I dunno if Australia, New Zealnd, and South Africa would be better off in absolute terms compared to OTL, but they'd definitely be better off in relative terms, considering one of the world's two competing superpowers and the traditionally most powerful and influential continent in the world just got a liberal sprinkling of nuclear explosions. I dunno if they'd get a lot of European migrants though - British immigrants certainly would move to the remains of the British Empire and the Commonwealth since migrating there would be easier, though notably South Africa had left the Commonwealth by that point.

I foresee a lot of Europeans immigrating to escape the almost certain destruction to occur during such a conflict, and it's also important to note how soon this would come after the last World War. I could see quite a few Euros deciding to get out before another conflagration occurs 20 years down the road (As they would see it, ~1920, ~1940, and ~1960). They would bring with them considerable talents due to being educated and maybe having a bit of salvaged wealth too. South Africa especially would benefit, and maybe even become white majority for a time too. 

Another Cuban Missile Crisis scenario that might be interesting (though perhaps less likely) is what if the USA backed down? Certainly it'd heighten the tension of the Cold War, with both the USA and USSR having short range nuclear missiles within striking distance of each other. Perhaps the Multilateral Force would be created, and there'd be more military co-operation and integration between NATO states? The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty might not go ahead either, as the US might want to distribute its nuclear missile technology to its European allies so they can better defend themselves (it certainly looks like Italy wanted nuclear missiles, since they refitted a cruiser to fire Polaris missiles and developed their own intermediate range ballistic missile once the US didn't go ahead with the MLF).

If you mean back down in terms of letting Soviet missiles remain in Cuba, domestically and strategically it would be impossible for Kennedy to do such a thing. If you mean backdown in terms of what I said earlier in that he halts bombings after the USSR takes its ~130 cans of instant sunshine, then yeah it is certainly possible. I could see Kennedy ordering strategic strikes only on Cuba and the USSR, while tac nukes get tossed around by both sides along with NATO-WarPac lines. In the aftermath WarPac would collapse, a Second Marshall plan for Europe would be needed, and the US gets a glow in the dark Cuba as compensation. If the Reds get really lucky, we may lose a city or two, but they better hope not because then Kennedy would be very unlikely to hold back. 

[MinnesotaNationalist]

Apr 18, 2016 4:42:48 GMT Epic History said:

Apr 17, 2016 23:08:25 GMT Krall said:

So if the Soviets push their luck, they're going to find out that the USA made its own luck... in industrial quantities. And strapped it on top of rocket engines.

Basically, and the Soviets realized this. The entire Cuban ordeal was them attempting to find some counter to make up for their then lack of parity with the US; the "Missile Gap" thing during the 1960 election was baseless campaign rhetoric (And it infuriated Ike to no end, as an aside).

Is this the SIOP-62 thing you mentioned? Seems to be a pretty good rundown of the US and USSR's nuclear forces at the time, and the numbers fit with what you said (the USSR having only 200 bombers, 78 sub-launched missiles, and 10-25 ICBMs). From what I can tell it looks like the R-16/SS-7 Saddler was the only Soviet ICBM deployed at that point - I'm not sure how accurate the Wikipedia article is, but it states that they could take anywhere from 1 to 3 hours to reach launch readiness, not including 20 minutes wind-up time for their gyroscopes, which is far from the 8 to 24 hours you state, but I doubt that'd make much difference considering the USA's Jupiter missiles stationed in Italy and Turkey (which were the main reason the USSR wanted to place missiles so close to the USA in the first place) could be launched within 15 minutes!

Pretty much, although having done some more research SIOP-63 may have been in effect at the time (I'm not for sure). Even if it was, the only difference was a "Hold" Option on blasting the Chi-Coms IIRC. With regards to their bombers and Subs, its only important to note that the former were not even on alert and the latter were all in port during the Crisis. Presuming a start date of October 27th, they're almost mission kill when the nukes start flying. If any survive the US strikes, ADC and the USN will mop up most of the stragglers. ADC drills with B-36s (So I assume this was even before the DEW line was added, increasing US capabilities) showed an inability for mass penetrations much further South than the Minnesota-Iowa border for example.

As for the SS-7, I can't recall where I read that estimate but I do agree it does seem off. I think it may have been figuring in receiving clear confirmation from Moscow, due to how tight the Soviets were keeping their nukes during the Crisis. It's also important to note how their CEP is over a mile, which can make a BIG difference when trying to hit a city or even more critically, a military facility. One thing the Soviets do get lucky on is that the US can only launch around 130 ICBMs and SLBMs immediately (20 Minutemen from the Dakotas and around 112 Polaris from seven USN subs), so Kennedy may just get in touch with the Reds after the first strike and call a truce before it gets any worse....for them. US Atlas and Titan missiles take about as long as their Soviet counterparts to get ready, and it would take a few hours for the mass of SAC to slam into them as well. If the Soviets don't agree to a truce however, another 150 (or so) missiles and over 1,400 bombers will turn their portion of Eurasia into radioactive glass craters. So tl; dr US vs USSR in 1962 is essentially MORE DAKKA mixed with Team America theme song. 

I dunno if Australia, New Zealnd, and South Africa would be better off in absolute terms compared to OTL, but they'd definitely be better off in relative terms, considering one of the world's two competing superpowers and the traditionally most powerful and influential continent in the world just got a liberal sprinkling of nuclear explosions. I dunno if they'd get a lot of European migrants though - British immigrants certainly would move to the remains of the British Empire and the Commonwealth since migrating there would be easier, though notably South Africa had left the Commonwealth by that point.

I foresee a lot of Europeans immigrating to escape the almost certain destruction to occur during such a conflict, and it's also important to note how soon this would come after the last World War. I could see quite a few Euros deciding to get out before another conflagration occurs 20 years down the road (As they would see it, ~1920, ~1940, and ~1960). They would bring with them considerable talents due to being educated and maybe having a bit of salvaged wealth too. South Africa especially would benefit, and maybe even become white majority for a time too. 

Another Cuban Missile Crisis scenario that might be interesting (though perhaps less likely) is what if the USA backed down? Certainly it'd heighten the tension of the Cold War, with both the USA and USSR having short range nuclear missiles within striking distance of each other. Perhaps the Multilateral Force would be created, and there'd be more military co-operation and integration between NATO states? The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty might not go ahead either, as the US might want to distribute its nuclear missile technology to its European allies so they can better defend themselves (it certainly looks like Italy wanted nuclear missiles, since they refitted a cruiser to fire Polaris missiles and developed their own intermediate range ballistic missile once the US didn't go ahead with the MLF).

If you mean back down in terms of letting Soviet missiles remain in Cuba, domestically and strategically it would be impossible for Kennedy to do such a thing. If you mean backdown in terms of what I said earlier in that he halts bombings after the USSR takes its ~130 cans of instant sunshine, then yeah it is certainly possible. I could see Kennedy ordering strategic strikes only on Cuba and the USSR, while tac nukes get tossed around by both sides along with NATO-WarPac lines. In the aftermath WarPac would collapse, a Second Marshall plan for Europe would be needed, and the US gets a glow in the dark Cuba as compensation. If the Reds get really lucky, we may lose a city or two, but they better hope not because then Kennedy would be very unlikely to hold back. 

Well, let us remember that Kennedy didn't realize how few and how relatively nonthreatening Soviet nukes were. Had the Soviets called Kennedy's bluff, he would have forced down 2 scenarios: Nuclear war (which he'd think would have essentially seen as an honorable suicide on the national scale, at least until Soviet Nukes only blow up one or two cities that really matter), or be forced to back down, and I do believe, had the Soviets called Kennedy's bluff, this would have been the result

[Epic History]

Apr 18, 2016 5:33:02 GMT MinnesotaNationalist said:

Apr 18, 2016 4:42:48 GMT Epic History said:

Basically, and the Soviets realized this. The entire Cuban ordeal was them attempting to find some counter to make up for their then lack of parity with the US; the "Missile Gap" thing during the 1960 election was baseless campaign rhetoric (And it infuriated Ike to no end, as an aside).

Pretty much, although having done some more research SIOP-63 may have been in effect at the time (I'm not for sure). Even if it was, the only difference was a "Hold" Option on blasting the Chi-Coms IIRC. With regards to their bombers and Subs, its only important to note that the former were not even on alert and the latter were all in port during the Crisis. Presuming a start date of October 27th, they're almost mission kill when the nukes start flying. If any survive the US strikes, ADC and the USN will mop up most of the stragglers. ADC drills with B-36s (So I assume this was even before the DEW line was added, increasing US capabilities) showed an inability for mass penetrations much further South than the Minnesota-Iowa border for example.

As for the SS-7, I can't recall where I read that estimate but I do agree it does seem off. I think it may have been figuring in receiving clear confirmation from Moscow, due to how tight the Soviets were keeping their nukes during the Crisis. It's also important to note how their CEP is over a mile, which can make a BIG difference when trying to hit a city or even more critically, a military facility. One thing the Soviets do get lucky on is that the US can only launch around 130 ICBMs and SLBMs immediately (20 Minutemen from the Dakotas and around 112 Polaris from seven USN subs), so Kennedy may just get in touch with the Reds after the first strike and call a truce before it gets any worse....for them. US Atlas and Titan missiles take about as long as their Soviet counterparts to get ready, and it would take a few hours for the mass of SAC to slam into them as well. If the Soviets don't agree to a truce however, another 150 (or so) missiles and over 1,400 bombers will turn their portion of Eurasia into radioactive glass craters. So tl; dr US vs USSR in 1962 is essentially MORE DAKKA mixed with Team America theme song. 

I foresee a lot of Europeans immigrating to escape the almost certain destruction to occur during such a conflict, and it's also important to note how soon this would come after the last World War. I could see quite a few Euros deciding to get out before another conflagration occurs 20 years down the road (As they would see it, ~1920, ~1940, and ~1960). They would bring with them considerable talents due to being educated and maybe having a bit of salvaged wealth too. South Africa especially would benefit, and maybe even become white majority for a time too. 

If you mean back down in terms of letting Soviet missiles remain in Cuba, domestically and strategically it would be impossible for Kennedy to do such a thing. If you mean backdown in terms of what I said earlier in that he halts bombings after the USSR takes its ~130 cans of instant sunshine, then yeah it is certainly possible. I could see Kennedy ordering strategic strikes only on Cuba and the USSR, while tac nukes get tossed around by both sides along with NATO-WarPac lines. In the aftermath WarPac would collapse, a Second Marshall plan for Europe would be needed, and the US gets a glow in the dark Cuba as compensation. If the Reds get really lucky, we may lose a city or two, but they better hope not because then Kennedy would be very unlikely to hold back. 

Well, let us remember that Kennedy didn't realize how few and how relatively nonthreatening Soviet nukes were. Had the Soviets called Kennedy's bluff, he would have forced down 2 scenarios: Nuclear war (which he'd think would have essentially seen as an honorable suicide on the national scale, at least until Soviet Nukes only blow up one or two cities that really matter), or be forced to back down, and I do believe, had the Soviets called Kennedy's bluff, this would have been the result

By most accounts, once he got elected Kennedy was quickly informed the Missile Gap was hogwash and given that he would be getting intel from KEYHOLD & TIROS, he would be completely aware of Soviet strength. Backing down over Soviet nukes practically right off the coast of Florida is simply politically unfeasible, as it shows him to be both weak on Communism and effectively nullifies the Monroe Doctrine (Throwing US allies and security into immense danger). Kennedy would know such a large defeat would cost him 1964, and I just can't see him backing down. Even assuming he does though, we're going to see a de facto military coup as the Generals were getting increasingly restless during the height of the crisis. Supposedly the Soviets were getting wind of that, and Kennedy used it as a bargaining chip. Lemay was quoted in the late 1950s as basically saying he would launch, with or without orders, if the situation demanded it. If the situation comes down to launch or Kennedy backing down, its very likely Lemay will make the decision for him by deploying SAC for the mother of all bombing runs in Eurasia. 

[MinnesotaNationalist]

Apr 19, 2016 2:26:14 GMT Epic History said:

Apr 18, 2016 5:33:02 GMT MinnesotaNationalist said:

Well, let us remember that Kennedy didn't realize how few and how relatively nonthreatening Soviet nukes were. Had the Soviets called Kennedy's bluff, he would have forced down 2 scenarios: Nuclear war (which he'd think would have essentially seen as an honorable suicide on the national scale, at least until Soviet Nukes only blow up one or two cities that really matter), or be forced to back down, and I do believe, had the Soviets called Kennedy's bluff, this would have been the result

By most accounts, once he got elected Kennedy was quickly informed the Missile Gap was hogwash and given that he would be getting intel from KEYHOLD & TIROS, he would be completely aware of Soviet strength. Backing down over Soviet nukes practically right off the coast of Florida is simply politically unfeasible, as it shows him to be both weak on Communism and effectively nullifies the Monroe Doctrine (Throwing US allies and security into immense danger). Kennedy would know such a large defeat would cost him 1964, and I just can't see him backing down. Even assuming he does though, we're going to see a de facto military coup as the Generals were getting increasingly restless during the height of the crisis. Supposedly the Soviets were getting wind of that, and Kennedy used it as a bargaining chip. Lemay was quoted in the late 1950s as basically saying he would launch, with or without orders, if the situation demanded it. If the situation comes down to launch or Kennedy backing down, its very likely Lemay will make the decision for him by deploying SAC for the mother of all bombing runs in Eurasia. 

Ah okay, if the Government did know that the Soviets were in fact far behind, I can understand not being to afraid (still brings up the question if the Soviets would be willing to risk it all and bomb a few American cities, to be destroyed themselves. They easily try to turn themselves into a martyr in that case, sacrificing themselves for the Communist cause, might even be able to convert some Americans in such a move. Probably would still end for the worst).

To be fair, the Monroe Doctrine was already nullified in OTL given that Cuba became an ally of Russia, even if they didn't get nukes.

I'm also not convinced it'd cost him 1964 would cost him the election, given there's still 2 years in between the crisis and the election. It'd certainly be hard, but it could be possibly to gather the right coalition to keep him in the office.

An even more intriguing scenario, Kennedy steps down, America turns into a Military Dictatorship (either Nukes the Soviets or the Soviets back down afterwards), I wonder how that'd play out, given the champion of democracy is no longer a democracy...