Challenge: Limited Nuclear Exchange(s)

With a POD no earlier than V-J Day, make it so at least one limited nuclear exchange (not a civilization-ender, but small-scale) has taken place. Bonus points for two, and mucho bonus points for three.

Some possibilities might be India-Pakistan, Israel and its neighbors, South Africa and its neighbors, or states that in OTL do not have nukes but in your ATL do.

Bombs away! :)
 
Soviets fail to understand Kissenger's reply

to hints at using nukes in Ussuri River crisis. "Surgical" strike against Lop Nor. Chinese attempt at retaliation using Dong Feng-2's against district HQ in Novosibirsk fails as one missile detonates in mountains west of Irkutsk and other basically falls apart. Crisis stabilizes due to Chinese weakness, tactical success for Soviets, and frantic US intervention promising assistance to both sides in clean-up and "peaceful nuclear programs."

Pandora's box opened:

against Vietnam, by US or China
Israel in 1973 war if butterflies reduce American assistance
if butterflies preserve Osirak reactor -- Iraq-Iran in the 80's
 
north and south korea.
South korea, secretly working on a bomb is highly alarmed by north korea threatening to use a nuke on them. But NK, not knowing SK has a bomb, is just doing so in jorder to blackmail the US for Oil.
They go so far to bring the rockets into place. In a panic reaction, SK uses her nuke first. Both capitals vanish from earthes ground, making Korea a sign.

A sign for peace!!!!!
Like the cold war was a stable time due everyone was frightened, the PKT, post korean time is a time of a little stagnation, but of peace!!!!
 
Oh, and Taiwan vs china!!
Taiwan, beeing beseiged by chinese troops starts to use its nukes. But they only do have 4 of them. So they manage to destroy shan-hai, peking and the great dam.
The chinese do not use a bomb on taiwan, for they do not want to destroy even more of china. The loss of 30 poeple is very hard for a lot of chinese individuals, but not for china as a hole.
 
Well......

MacArthur drops nukes against NK and PRC forces during the Korean war destroying Pyongyang and Harbin in the process esp. if things were going a wee bit worse Than in OTL.

Emboldened by the Soviet failure to follow up threats against U.S aggression in Asia, President MacArthur destroys Hanoi sixteen days into the Vietnam war ending the war in one brutal stroke.

1985 Soviet forces tired of naked American aggression pour into West Germany intent on liberating Europe from N.A.T.O influence. Despite U.S/U.K use of tactical nuclear weapons sheer weight of numbers favours the Soviet armies as they cross into the fulda gap. With America unwilling to seal its own fate by nuclear demise it is forced to concede defeat against Russia when 1st Guards army "liberates" West Germany.

1990 Germany reunified and an enthusiatic member of the Warsaw pact....
 
How bout India-Pakistan 1998 after the latter's testing of its 1st nuclear bomb ? Or if Islamic extremists in early 90s get hold of some of Kazakhstan's nuclear arsenal which they then use against Russia proper ? What about also a similar scenario with SA employing tactical nuclear wpns a la VORTEX against Communist enemies in Angola, Mozambique or Namibia ?
 
As mentioned, but I think it's probably the most realistic of the "limited exchange" the North Korean war goes nuclear. McArthur nukes the NK & China, so USSR nukes the UN forces in Korea in exchange.

Yom Kippur War goes nuclear after Isreal nukes the Syrian & Egyptian armies. USSR retaliates on Isreali units operating deep in Egyptian & Syrian territory (but not on Isreali territory).

An Indian-Pakistani exchange, but after the Indian Parliament is attacked on 13 December 2001, unlike Melvin's scenario. However, unlike my AH article, the exchange is limited.
 
The most probable scenarios at this moment in time would involve Pakistan/India or Israel/Arab states. The first one is an obvious one. No need to describe it. As for the second, let’s say that Iran obtains nuclear weapons through their so-called “peaceful†nuclear research and with the help of already nuclear Pakistan. At the same time Israeli general elections put on power a coalition of the right and extreme right. Israel decides to forget the peace accords, reoccupies the already freed Palestinian territories, annexes the Gollan Heights and proclaim all of Palestine as part of the Great Israel. Immediately Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine react mobilizing troops to the Israeli frontiers and the Palestinian insurgents start an onslaught of terrorist attacks. The situation turns to the worst to Israel when even the US (now under a Democratic President) decides to widraw their military and economic support to Israel unless they turn back on their policies. Feeling more confident with the American position, the Arab states declare war on Israel and this time they launch a simultaneous attack on all fronts. As a reaction Israel nukes Damascus and Cairo, threatening to do the same to the capitals of Lebanon and Jordan should they not backdown. For a few days there is confusion, as the Israeli military recovers the little lost ground and enter their enemy territories, occupying the Sinai Peninsula, the Southern half of Lebanon and preparing to cross into Jordan. At this time Iran declares war on Israel, and nukes Tel Aviv with their air force, as retaliation for the nuclear bombing of Damascus and Cairo. The Israeli reaction of swift and deadly, they launch twenty nukes (targeting major cities and military installations) on Iran, both using missiles and plane carried bombs, practically wiping out Iran from the face of the world.
 
Ruis,

That's a good scenario, though I think you'd need more than twenty nukes to wipe out Iran. And the Iranians might have more bombs in the pipeline to throw at Israeli targets if Israel launches a counter-strike of that size.

Does the right-wing gov't of Israel come into power as a reaction to the testing of an Iranian nuke? I could imagine a pacifistic Labor administration being utterly discredited by an Iranian nuke test.

Thing is, if Cairo and Damascus are taken out by nukes, I'd expect a massive retaliatory chemo-bio attack from at least Syria, and possibly Egypt. That'll give the Israelis some problem, though chemo-bio weapons aren't as devastating as nukes.
 

Kadyet

Banned
October 27, 1962: While enforcing the blockade (quarantine) of Cuba, an American destroyer USS Beale drops depth charges on a Soviet sub, B59. The submarine had permission to launch its nuclear torpedoes with three officers concurring. Thinking a war had started (after all, there were depth charges going off right next to his sub), the captain calls a conference with the other two officers needed for launch. ITTL, Vasili Alexandrovich Arkhipov agrees rather than saying no. The 14 US ships are sunk, along with the sub.

President Kennedy goes along with the military's proposals, and limited nuclear war begins with Soviet Russia, along with a conventional invasion of Cuba. SAC bombers destroy Soviet ICBMs in their silos as well as a few Soviet air bases (there weren't many ICBMs at the time, and SAC was confident they could get them). F-106 and CF-101 fighters with Genie missiles successfully prevent Soviet bombers from reaching American soil by detonating nuclear blasts in the middle of their formations. President Kennedy warns Khrushchev that any attempt to move into Western Europe would result in the war becoming a strategic nuclear war. A coup in Moscow makes certain that Khrushchev doesn't attack Europe.

October 30: The pope takes a break from the Second Vatican Council to negotiate a peace between the Soviet Union and the United States.
 
Matt Quinn said:
Ruis,

That's a good scenario, though I think you'd need more than twenty nukes to wipe out Iran. And the Iranians might have more bombs in the pipeline to throw at Israeli targets if Israel launches a counter-strike of that size.

Does the right-wing gov't of Israel come into power as a reaction to the testing of an Iranian nuke? I could imagine a pacifistic Labor administration being utterly discredited by an Iranian nuke test.

Thing is, if Cairo and Damascus are taken out by nukes, I'd expect a massive retaliatory chemo-bio attack from at least Syria, and possibly Egypt. That'll give the Israelis some problem, though chemo-bio weapons aren't as devastating as nukes.


Hi Matt,

Well, that scenario was kind of a "on the knee job". I made it up in about ten minutes. The idea of a Limited Nuclear Exchange caught my attention and I immdeatly thought of the Meadle East. A for your remarks, let's see if I can come up with some logical answers:

1 - A biochemichal retaliation by both Syria and Egypt might not happen it the heads of government and military leaderships were caught in the nuking of their capitals. If that happened I believe those countries would pretty much descend into caos. At least during the first weeks. Remember that due to their political regimes they have a very rigid and centralized chain of command. Both politically as militarily. Also, I think they wouldn't expect an Israeli reaction of that magnitude. At least not in the first few days of the conflict.

2 - As for the iranians, I was counting on them having a limited just obtained nuclear arsenal. That would account fo the lack of retaliation after the Israeli counter-strike. As for the devastation, I think that twenty nukes simultanously blasted into a territory the size of Iran would be enought to destroy their communications, industrial and economic infrastructure.

3 - As for a right wing extremist government in power in Israel, that is perhaps, and unfortunattly, the most probable thing to happen of the scenario. In the last few days Likud and Labour have setting up a "national union" government in order to allow the Israeli prime minister to go ahead with his proposed "peace plan", including removing the jewish colonists from some of the palestinian territories. Imagine that the colonists resist by force, clashing with the army, resulting in deaths and wounded. I don't think the government would be able to stay in power for much long. Then in the following elections the people turn to the right wing extremist looking for security in their day-today lives. The palestinan terrorists are the biggest allies of the israeli righ.wing extremists.
 
Ruis,

Your first two points make sense, though I still think more than twenty nukes are needed. Iran is pretty big, and the mountains will contain a lot of the fallout.

Thing is, if the settler wackos resist Israeli military attempts to yank them, wouldn't it make the Israeli Right look bad? You know, resistance to "democratic authority" and all that.

Now, if there is a large attack by the bitter-ender Palestinian groups (the ones that will never accept the existence of Israel in any form) like Hamas AFTER concessions are made, that'll galvanize the Right, as it will show the futility of negotiations.

Kaydet,

Good scenario. An accidental beginning like that would probably mean that the Soviets would be caught off-guard. However, I still think the Soviets would do more damage; the SAC could be over-confident in their estimates of their own power.
 

Kadyet

Banned
Good scenario. An accidental beginning like that would probably mean that the Soviets would be caught off-guard. However, I still think the Soviets would do more damage; the SAC could be over-confident in their estimates of their own power.

True, but I think it is probable that SAC could have gotten the ICBMs (I just threw in the airbases since I thought more than just the silo bombers would get through). The Tu-95 wouldn't have done too well imho against a forewarned air defense, especially with nuclear missiles directed towards it.
 
Kadyet said:
True, but I think it is probable that SAC could have gotten the ICBMs (I just threw in the airbases since I thought more than just the silo bombers would get through). The Tu-95 wouldn't have done too well imho against a forewarned air defense, especially with nuclear missiles directed towards it.


Just a note here about USSR rocket forces in 1962. According to the Natural Resources Defence Council the Soviets in 1962 had 36 ICBMs. But that's not their strength (relative to 1962). That's in their SLBM. They had 72 SLBMs.

Overall, the Soviets had about enough to destroy the top 20 American cities along with several important military bases. And that's not counting the IRBMs in Cuba. So add in at least another 5 - 10 targets destroyed in America.
 

Kadyet

Banned
DMA said:
Just a note here about USSR rocket forces in 1962. According to the Natural Resources Defence Council the Soviets in 1962 had 36 ICBMs. But that's not their strength (relative to 1962). That's in their SLBM. They had 72 SLBMs.

True, but we had subs tailing them and they didn't have much range, only 600 km. Plus, about a third of the missiles (based on tests) could be expected to not sucessfully launch.

Overall, the Soviets had about enough to destroy the top 20 American cities along with several important military bases. And that's not counting the IRBMs in Cuba. So add in at least another 5 - 10 targets destroyed in America.

The IRBMs in Cuba did not have authorization to launch even if there was a full scale invasion of Cuba. They also would have been a prime target and most would have been destroyed, with the few that we didn't know about being destroyed as they were spotted by the strike packages.
 
Kadyet said:
True, but we had subs tailing them and they didn't have much range, only 600 km. Plus, about a third of the missiles (based on tests) could be expected to not sucessfully launch.


THE USN couldn't been tailing all of them. As it was, one Soviet SSK turned up unexpectantly, as you've mentioned, which could have started off the entire war. So I have very little faith in the USN knowing where any of the SLBM boats were.

I disagree on the error rate. At the FAS website on the SS-N-4 they state that: Altogether 15 out of 19 launches were successfully carried out at the training site and 11 out 13 on submarines. Note the highlighed part.

Nevertheless, even allowing for a 50% overall misfire rate (for whatever reason, from sinking to a malfunction), that still means 36 SLBMs get to their targets. Add in say again 50% of the ICBMs & that's a further 18 targets hit. That's 54 cities &/or important bases destroyed. And I haven't included the IRBMs from Cuba yet.

There are also the overseas US installations to consider, which would come under Soviet bomber attack. So expect locations in Japan, Philippines & probably Alaska to be nuked as well. Maybe even Pearl Harbor.


Kadyet said:
The IRBMs in Cuba did not have authorization to launch even if there was a full scale invasion of Cuba. They also would have been a prime target and most would have been destroyed, with the few that we didn't know about being destroyed as they were spotted by the strike packages.


The authorisation business has a big question mark over it. We know, by the end of the Cuban Crisis, that they had been readied for firing. In other words, they probably would be fired in a short amount of time & I have little faith in the fact that the local Soviet commander wouldn't have fired them regardless of authorisation.

Likewise you didn't mention the battlefield nukes that were in Cuba as well to repel the invasion. As far as I'm aware, there's no question over authoriation as it was given.

Now you say most of the IRBMs will be destroyed in the air strikes. I agree, hence I said there would be 5 - 10 launched at targets in America (this number was reluctantly admitted by the US military at the time). Overall America gets hit by around 60 nukes.
 
DMA, it all depends on the US plan of attack. For instance, if the US assumes and accepts that the war is going to go nuclear, and that the prime concern is to limit damage to the US, why, then act appropriately.

Several US spy planes drop nukes, wiping out the IRBMs completely, probably most of the 'tactical nukes' as well.

Question: If it isn't hitting Central Europe, is it still a tactical nuke?

The US Navy goes after the SLBMs. How many subs carrying the missles were there back then? Not too many, given multiple missles per sub. So the US subs and ASW start searching and can probably destroy most easily enough. Some are not in range, then the misfire/error issue, and be aware that a serious mishap with this type of sub will destroy most of the other missles, if not the submarine itself.

No, the subs would not have been a major issue. The question would be the ICBMs, which may have been relatively few(and is it 36 weapons or 36 missles CARRYING more weapons?) and which needed to be refueled, but could the US get to them in time? Given massed Soviet air power and no fighters to support our bombers(also somewhat limited in number), I wouldn't be so certain.
 
Grimm Reaper said:
DMA, it all depends on the US plan of attack. For instance, if the US assumes and accepts that the war is going to go nuclear, and that the prime concern is to limit damage to the US, why, then act appropriately.


Well I can only judge by the OTL plans that were presented to JFK. And therer was no talk about using nukes in Cuba in the air strikes. So it's safe to presume that, except in an ASBs AH, the USA won't consider using nukes until after they're attacked as per JFK's speach on the matter.


Grimm Reaper said:
Several US spy planes drop nukes, wiping out the IRBMs completely, probably most of the 'tactical nukes' as well.


LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'd like to see a U2 do that. Thanks Grimm, I needed a good laugh :D


Grimm Reaper said:
Question: If it isn't hitting Central Europe, is it still a tactical nuke?


Of course it is. A tactical nuke means exactly that - tactical - regardless of the geographic location.


Grimm Reaper said:
The US Navy goes after the SLBMs. How many subs carrying the missles were there back then? Not too many, given multiple missles per sub. So the US subs and ASW start searching and can probably destroy most easily enough. Some are not in range, then the misfire/error issue, and be aware that a serious mishap with this type of sub will destroy most of the other missles, if not the submarine itself.


Well there's not much use looking for the Soviet SLBM boats after they've fired their missiles. And considering a large chunck of the USN fleet is blockading Cuba, & getting ready for the invasion, it makes large scale ASW operations very difficult. Now there were 24 Soviet SLBM boat in 1962. Will some be sunk before they launch? I'd say so. Did missfires on the two subs in question destroy the subs themselves? No. Havign said that, I already calculated a 50% error rating into the Soviet numbers. I'd say that's a fair estimate meaning 36 SLBMs hit America.


Grimm Reaper said:
No, the subs would not have been a major issue. The question would be the ICBMs, which may have been relatively few(and is it 36 weapons or 36 missles CARRYING more weapons?) and which needed to be refueled, but could the US get to them in time? Given massed Soviet air power and no fighters to support our bombers(also somewhat limited in number), I wouldn't be so certain.


Well I tend to disagree. 36 SLBM warheads will hit America whilst I estimate only 18 ICBMs will hit. Now the Soviet ICBMs at the time were mostly the SS-7. Again, according to the FAS website on the SS-7 it had a single warhead in the 3-6 Mt range. That'd make a mess of NYC.

I would imagine, should it come to such business of fueling, given the dates that JFK had announced etc beforehand, the entire Soviet nuclear force would be fuelled & ready to be lunched within a few minutes. They'd be fired long before the USA could do anything about them.
 
DMA, sorry, my dry wit failed me. It's an old and grim( :D ) joke from the 1960s and 1970s, that a tactical nuclear weapon is defined as a nuke hitting Germany.

I do agree, most of the ICBMs would certainly be ready to be LUNCHED on a relatively short period of notification.

Uh, that means the Soviets had a total of 24 ballistic missle subs and 72 SLBMs? 3 per submarine? Hmmm, something doesn't seem right about that.
Of course, given the Soviet navy's operational pattern for such subs, the chances are that at least 2/3s won't be available. Of course, the realization that the Soviet fleet is undergoing a massive change in years of patterns of behavior will certainly get attention. Actually, I was suggesting that the US would begin to aggressively tail such subs PRIOR to the strike in Cuba. These subs did not have a very good record of being undetected.

Ironic, isn't it? If the Air Force had given JFK what he asked for, a plan to hit the nukes in Cuba, and not the plan for a total strike, he probably would have gone to war.
 
Grimm Reaper said:
DMA, sorry, my dry wit failed me. It's an old and grim( :D ) joke from the 1960s and 1970s, that a tactical nuclear weapon is defined as a nuke hitting Germany.


lol. Fair enough. Things like that are one of the Cold War jokes we missed out on downunder ;)


Grimm Reaper said:
I do agree, most of the ICBMs would certainly be ready to be LUNCHED on a relatively short period of notification.


Well again I've given a 50% misfire error for whatever reason. Initially the Soviets start with 36 ICBMs. That drops to 18 hits.


Grimm Reaper said:
Uh, that means the Soviets had a total of 24 ballistic missle subs and 72 SLBMs? 3 per submarine? Hmmm, something doesn't seem right about that.


Yes, that's right, 3 missiles per boat. We're talking the Golf I / II, & Hotel classes. (see links)



Grimm Reaper said:
Of course, given the Soviet navy's operational pattern for such subs, the chances are that at least 2/3s won't be available. Of course, the realization that the Soviet fleet is undergoing a massive change in years of patterns of behavior will certainly get attention. Actually, I was suggesting that the US would begin to aggressively tail such subs PRIOR to the strike in Cuba. These subs did not have a very good record of being undetected.


Soviet downtime wouldn't surprise me during peacetime. Completely different story come a threat of war of course. So expect much of the Soviet SLBM fleet to be operational, regardless how efficient their mission status actually is. If the USN tried to tail the Soviet boats, well they didn't do a great job of it. Afterall a Soviet SSK managed to turn up unexpected at the blockade line! That doesn't say much for USN ASW operations if you want my opinion. But again, note that I am saying the Soviets only get a 50% success ratio. I think that's a fair estimate.


Grimm Reaper said:
Ironic, isn't it? If the Air Force had given JFK what he asked for, a plan to hit the nukes in Cuba, and not the plan for a total strike, he probably would have gone to war.


Maybe, maybe not. That was JFKs problem all along. The USAF couldn't, regardless of their plans, guarantee 100% success. And I don't think, even using nukes, they could have done it. Furthermore, JFK would have completely rejected any plan which involved nuking Cuba anyway.
 
Top