Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

what if the Cuban Missile Crisis got violent?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Either Cuba or some of the southern US States may have been wiped out, Or just lead to somthing like the Grenada Campaign.

    Comment


    • #32
      and most of us would not be here to post

      Comment


      • #33
        Had the Cuban missile crisis gone hot, most likely due to a US decision or miscalculation to do so, the Soviets would have initially been in deep trouble.

        First, the Soviets lacked any credible strategic bomber force at the time. They had a relative handful of Tu 95 and Tu 4 bombers that might be able to launch a one-way strike on the US.
        They, like the US lacked an operational ICBM. But, the US already had deployed squadrons of Thor and Jupiter IRBM missiles to England, Italy and, Turkey (these precipitated the missile crisis and were deployed against the advice of the military by JFK) that would have oblitherated much of Western Russia in an initial strike.
        In the short run, Russia would have succumb to a nuclear holocaust that they had little means to retaliate from.
        Western Europe would have suffered a similar fate simply through the Soviet's desire to do something in retaliation.
        The US might have had a few nuclear strikes but nothing compared to what was thrown on the Soviets.
        Kruschiev realized the reality of the situation. That is why he backed down in the end. He knew a nuclear war was not a winning proposition for the Soviet Union at the time.
        In the long run, the Soviets would have lost but at great cost to the West and in particular Europe. Europe most likely would have kicked the US out of their nations simply to avoid any possibility of a repeat in the future.
        All in all, if the Cuban missile crisis went hot (and at several points it nearly did mostly due to US stupidity) the world would have suffered greatly for nothing.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          Had the Cuban missile crisis gone hot, most likely due to a US decision or miscalculation to do so, the Soviets would have initially been in deep trouble.

          First, the Soviets lacked any credible strategic bomber force at the time. They had a relative handful of Tu 95 and Tu 4 bombers that might be able to launch a one-way strike on the US.
          They, like the US lacked an operational ICBM.
          Really? During the Cuban missile crisis the U.S. had 142 Atlas and 62 Titan I ICBMs, mostly in hardened underground silos. With a roughly 4 megaton warhead each that comes to about 800 megatons, hardly insignificant.

          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          But, the US already had deployed squadrons of Thor and Jupiter IRBM missiles to England, Italy and, Turkey
          Yes a total of 105 missiles, each with a 1.4 megaton warhead. I would have been more worried about our “nonexistent” ICBM force personally.

          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          (these precipitated the missile crisis and were deployed against the advice of the military by JFK)
          I didn’t know JFK was president in 1958 when we started to deploy them. Thought that was Eisenhower.

          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          that would have oblitherated much of Western Russia in an initial strike.
          In the short run, Russia would have succumb to a nuclear holocaust that they had little means to retaliate from.
          Western Europe would have suffered a similar fate simply through the Soviet's desire to do something in retaliation.
          The US might have had a few nuclear strikes but nothing compared to what was thrown on the Soviets.
          Kruschiev realized the reality of the situation. That is why he backed down in the end. He knew a nuclear war was not a winning proposition for the Soviet Union at the time.
          In the long run, the Soviets would have lost but at great cost to the West and in particular Europe. Europe most likely would have kicked the US out of their nations simply to avoid any possibility of a repeat in the future.
          All in all, if the Cuban missile crisis went hot (and at several points it nearly did mostly due to US stupidity) the world would have suffered greatly for nothing.

          If you are going to bad mouth the U.S. at least get your facts straight. Otherwise you just come across as another whiny brat.
          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedy. -- Ernest Benn

          Comment


          • #35
            I would have just had my 3rd birthday when, !pfhut!

            Paul
            Last edited by Dibble201Bty; 16 Dec 08, 20:19.
            ‘Tis said his form is tiny, yet
            All human ills he can subdue,
            Or with a bauble or medal
            Can win mans heart for you;
            And many a blessing know to stew
            To make a megloamaniac bright;
            Give honour to the dainty Corse,
            The Pixie is a little shite.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by The Black Baron View Post
              Either way, it wouldn't help the relationship between the US and the USSR
              Yeah. I don't think there would be any "detente."
              "Profanity is but a linguistic crutch for illiterate motherbleepers"

              Comment


              • #37
                Read a report in the late 1960s (1967 through 1969) of a study on the effects of all out nuclear war between the US and USSR...based on what was known about each abilities...the conclusion was the US back to the early 1900s in population and infrastructure...the USSR pushed back to around the 1500s. Sorry I cannot cite the source better.

                Comment


                • #38
                  The first move in this hypothetical war would have been US air strikes against targets in Cuba in preparation for an invasion. This was already planned, though I have never seen a target list. At that point the Russians would have to make a choice whether or not to retaliate. Despite being aware of US military superiority, I can't imagine that they would have done nothing while US ordnance was dropping on Cuba, killing their people, never mind their Cuban allies. Two options I've read about were attacks on the US missile bases in Turkey or the occupation of the western sectors of Berlin. Hard to say which would have been more provokative. Either way, US and allied personnel would have been killed. In spite of all this there might have been a slim chance to stop it all, since neither side truly wanted the confrontation. Once the bullits started flying it would be harder to stop, but not impossible. If it didn't stop, then Russia was going to get the worse of it I believe. In 1962 the US still had such an overwhelming lead in weapons capable of landing a nuclear bomb or warhead on the USSR, that it is hard to imagine the Russians prevailing. I believe they had two launch sites for missiles capable of reaching the US. Sites, that would likely have been struck early on. There were some submarines with ballistic missiles but these were relatively short range and had to be fired from the surface. The principal means for striking North America would have been the Tu-95 bomber but these would have to negotiate an extensive radar and interceptor network, not to mention Nike missile batteries. It is likely that some would inevitably get through, but the damage these would inflict would never equal what would happen in Russia. I don't believe it would have been the end of civilization as is often said. Russia and probably much of Europe would be wrecked of course but much of the world (the undeveloped part) would remain untouched.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Cyberknight View Post
                    I seem to remember that it was the decision by Reagan to reinvigorate the conventional military and intelligence assetts which made nuclear war less likely due to options other than a harsh diplomatic protest and a strategic nuclear strike practical and thus more likely.
                    Originally posted by Wikipedia
                    Because of the state of mind of the Soviet leadership in 1983, along with distressing intelligence reports, the Soviet leadership appeared seriously concerned there would eventually be a surprise nuclear missile attack by the United States. Bruce Blair, an expert on Cold War nuclear strategies, now president of the World Security Institute in Washington, D.C., says the U.S.–Soviet relationship "had deteriorated to the point where the Soviet Union as a system — not just the Kremlin, not just Andropov, not just the KGB — but as a system, was geared to expect an attack and to retaliate very quickly to it. It was on hair-trigger alert. It was very nervous and prone to mistakes and accidents... The false alarm that happened on Petrov’s watch could not have come at a more dangerous, intense phase in U.S.–Soviet relations." In an interview televised nationally in the United States, Blair said, "The Russians saw a U.S. government preparing for a first strike, headed by a President capable of ordering a first strike." Regarding the incident involving Petrov, he said, "I think that this is the closest we've come to accidental nuclear war."

                    Oleg D. Kalugin, a former KGB chief of foreign counterintelligence who knew Soviet leader Yuri Andropov well, says that Andropov's distrust of American leaders was profound. It is conceivable that if Petrov had declared the satellite warnings valid, such an erroneous report could have provoked the Soviet leadership into becoming bellicose. Says Kalugin, "The danger was in the Soviet leadership thinking, 'The Americans may attack, so we better attack first.'"
                    Reagan took us to the brink of war, but luck and skill helped keep it from going too far.

                    Although it seems like more of the former than anything.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Much has been written about Moscow's overreaction to a military exercise yet they did not strike. Clearly, while there may have been "signs" that NATO was preparing an attack, there were plenty of other signs that did not support that conclusion. In the end, they interpreted the intelligence correctly. Reagan had nothing to do with the fact that the Soviets viewed capitalist nations as the source of war and therefore as potential enemies. It may well turn out that his tough stance was just the push that brought the USSR crumbling down.

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X