What would survive a nuked 1960's America?

[Fooldartz]

The setup is this-JFK survives the assassination attempt in Texas, but Jackie Kennedy dies instead. The Soviet Union, thinking him weak and deciding to take advantage of the situation, sends new nukes to Cuba, causing a second Cuban Missile Crisis. After weeks of deliberation, an angry JFK decides to put a stop to this once and for all, and launches nuclear warheads at Cuba and the Soviet Union. My question is this-What would survive? With the advantage of surprise, what portions of the United States would survive the resultant war?

[RamscoopRaider]

Ignoring the great implausibility of the setup

The US loses 10-50 cities and some military installations, less than 25 million dead, the USSR dies as a nation

[Polish Eagle]

Originally Posted by Fooldartz

The setup is this-JFK survives the assassination attempt in Texas, but Jackie Kennedy dies instead. The Soviet Union, thinking him weak and deciding to take advantage of the situation, sends new nukes to Cuba, causing a second Cuban Missile Crisis. After weeks of deliberation, an angry JFK decides to put a stop to this once and for all, and launches nuclear warheads at Cuba and the Soviet Union. My question is this-What would survive? With the advantage of surprise, what portions of the United States would survive the resultant war?

Nikita Kruschev: "Their President is now emotionally wounded, furious, and potentially very mentally unstable! Now is the perfect time to stick our necks out for Castro again!"

JFK: "I'm so angry about my wife being shot that I'm going to launch a nuclear first strike! You heard me, General! Fire the missiles!"

It's highly unlikely. Assuming it happens, though, then it's as RamscoopRaider said. Soviet missiles were few, and with bad guidance. Many would probably be lost on launch, and more will just miss their targets. Soviet air power is unlikely to do damage to the US. The American B-52s, OTOH, can completely overrun Soviet air defenses and pummel any target worth hitting. Cuba is hardly worth mentioning in this situation.

[Michel Van]

Ignoring the great implausibility of the setup

it depends were in 1960's the US get nuke.

1961 the Berlin wall crisis turn nuclear, 4 city is hit by ICBM or bomber
1962 the Cuba crisis goes nuclear, a hand full of major US city are destroyed.
1967 6-day war turns nuclear, east coast wipe out.

lucky Fooldartz din't put this in 1970s or 1980s, there would not much left of USA USSR and rest of the world...

[Emperor Norton I]

Addition:
1969 - The Sino-Soviet border conflict goes red hot, with nuclear exchange between China and Russia. The United States ties itself to the threat of retribution should the sides use nuclear weapons, which is intended as a deterrent, but since nuclear exchange has started between Russia and China, America is forced to act in nuclear exchange as well (and thus also becomes a target).

[LostCosmonaut]

Originally Posted by Emperor Norton I

Addition:
1969 - The Sino-Soviet border conflict goes red hot, with nuclear exchange between China and Russia. The United States ties itself to the threat of retribution should the sides use nuclear weapons, which is intended as a deterrent, but since nuclear exchange has started between Russia and China, America is forced to act in nuclear exchange as well (and thus also becomes a target).

I don't think the US would get involved in a China-USSR nuclear exchange. Assuming nothing gets launched at them, the American's could come out of that conflict well ahead of anyone else.

[basileus]

Originally Posted by Emperor Norton I

Addition:
1969 - The Sino-Soviet border conflict goes red hot, with nuclear exchange between China and Russia. The United States ties itself to the threat of retribution should the sides use nuclear weapons, which is intended as a deterrent, but since nuclear exchange has started between Russia and China, America is forced to act in nuclear exchange as well (and thus also becomes a target).

I do think that in this scenario (i.e. Chinese-Soviet conflict) the Russkies wouldn't launch any missile, not to provoke a US nuclear alert and thus call nukocide on their own fatherland. They'd only use bomber-delivered weapons again main known airfields and military-related production areas, and tactical weapons on short-range missiles or fighterbombers tro wipe away concentration of troops. All the while keeping the red line with Washington open and connected.
Ah, and they'd use nukes only AFTER the Chinese use one. Not before.

[Emperor Norton I]

Originally Posted by LostCosmonaut

I don't think the US would get involved in a China-USSR nuclear exchange. Assuming nothing gets launched at them, the American's could come out of that conflict well ahead of anyone else.

I don't think it would be out of bounds for the US to get itself in a fix by, out of fear of the effects of a nuclear Sino-Soviet war, saying it would not permit it and react in kind. That all depending on the existing climate leading to that. It doesn't need to be Nixon and the late 60s as they were; you can tweak the environment, and play with the trend of the Chinese and Soviets becoming adversarial.

[TRH]

Originally Posted by Emperor Norton I

I don't think it would be out of bounds for the US to get itself in a fix by, out of fear of the effects of a nuclear Sino-Soviet war, saying it would not permit it and react in kind. That all depending on the existing climate leading to that. It doesn't need to be Nixon and the late 60s as they were; you can tweak the environment, and play with the trend of the Chinese and Soviets becoming adversarial.

If the Sino-Soviet conflict goes nuclear, it'll do so quickly. Probably too quickly for the Americans to make any big announcements, and certainly too quickly for them to expect said announcements to make any difference, in which case it would make no sense to jump into the war. Also, I'm still missing what this addition contributes to the OP, they don't seem especially related.

[Riain]

Back when I studied this in Uni the USSR in late 1962 could only hit the US with about 340 warheads, and a US first strike would get 90% of those. 2 years later I imagine the balance would be more in the USSR's favour as they deployed their 1st generation of proper ICBMs, but still overwhelmingly in the US's favour.

[BlondieBC]

Originally Posted by Riain

Back when I studied this in Uni the USSR in late 1962 could only hit the US with about 340 warheads, and a US first strike would get 90% of those. 2 years later I imagine the balance would be more in the USSR's favour as they deployed their 1st generation of proper ICBMs, but still overwhelmingly in the US's favour.

The problem becomes if the USSR gets in the first strike.

[kessock]

Originally Posted by Riain

Back when I studied this in Uni the USSR in late 1962 could only hit the US with about 340 warheads, and a US first strike would get 90% of those. 2 years later I imagine the balance would be more in the USSR's favour as they deployed their 1st generation of proper ICBMs, but still overwhelmingly in the US's favour.

With a Soviet first strike the vast majority of those 340 would not reach North America being mostly on bombers. Only 2 launch pads for the SS-6 and around 25 SS-7 and most of the subs with a 300 mile range missile does not make for a stupendous surprising first strike. Add in that NORAD was actually fairly effective I would estimate that a Soviet first strike would put about 20% maximum on target. True; 60 or so nukes would wreck the country but the Soviets in return would be glassed.. and Europe not far behind.

[Riain]

I think it would be better than that as bombers would be targetting coastal cities without a long overland approach in the face of NORAD, but I do take your point.


When you look at the limited means the Soviet had of attacking targets deep in the interior of CONUS you see that 40 or so S/I/MRBMs based in Cuba upset the strategic balance quite drastically.

[jotabe1789]

This is short-term survival, right?

According to a 2006 study, a limited exchange of around 100 nuclear warheads of 15 KT each, in the subtropical region (India-Pakistan scenario) would cause a significant global "nuclear winter" for nearly a decade, and also a great depletion of ozone (both globally and in the "hole").

While a US-USSR in the 60s scenario has the "advantage" (for life) of not being in the subtropics areas (so soot cannot reach stratosphere so easily), i surely would have encompassed more than 100 heads of 15 KT each.

After a decade of global crop failure and massive loss of animal life due to no sunlight, followed by a few years of increased skin cancer while the ozone layer rebuilds, i don't think that anyone is safe. Even if all the nukes would fall on the USSR.

(The SciAm article popularizing those results: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pd...iAmJan2010.pdf)

[RamscoopRaider]

Originally Posted by jotabe1789

This is short-term survival, right?

According to a 2006 study, a limited exchange of around 100 nuclear warheads of 15 KT each, in the subtropical region (India-Pakistan scenario) would cause a significant global "nuclear winter" for nearly a decade, and also a great depletion of ozone (both globally and in the "hole").

While a US-USSR in the 60s scenario has the "advantage" (for life) of not being in the subtropics areas (so soot cannot reach stratosphere so easily), i surely would have encompassed more than 100 heads of 15 KT each.

After a decade of global crop failure and massive loss of animal life due to no sunlight, followed by a few years of increased skin cancer while the ozone layer rebuilds, i don't think that anyone is safe. Even if all the nukes would fall on the USSR.

(The SciAm article popularizing those results: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pd...iAmJan2010.pdf)

That study is probably bunk

The warheads listed add up to 1.5 MT

The US detonated a 10.4 MT in 1952, a 15MT in 1954 and the USSR a 57MT in 1961 and there was no noticeable effect on climate 0r the ozone layer

Never mind that in 1958 and 1962 there were over 100 atmospheric tests each with no observed effect on that level

So that study should be taken with a grain of salt

[Emperor Norton I]

Originally Posted by TRH

If the Sino-Soviet conflict goes nuclear, it'll do so quickly. Probably too quickly for the Americans to make any big announcements, and certainly too quickly for them to expect said announcements to make any difference, in which case it would make no sense to jump into the war. Also, I'm still missing what this addition contributes to the OP, they don't seem especially related.

It won't happen in a vacuum. It'll happen in a build up of tensions that will be clearly evident. The very nature of a war between Russia and China, two major, nuclear powers, will make nuclear exchange in that war something for the US to suspect as a possibility.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by RamscoopRaider

That study is probably bunk

The warheads listed add up to 1.5 MT

The US detonated a 10.4 MT in 1952, a 15MT in 1954 and the USSR a 57MT in 1961 and there was no noticeable effect on climate 0r the ozone layer

Never mind that in 1958 and 1962 there were over 100 atmospheric tests each with no observed effect on that level

So that study should be taken with a grain of salt

Yes; I do find it hilarious how scaremongering over radiation and nuclear winter is almost always completely ignorant of the level of nuclear testing in the past.

As for this thread itself, this map of potential nuclear targets in the US may be useful:

[RamscoopRaider]

Interesting

In this case I would say 1 in 10 of the purple triangles (flip a coin which ones) get hit

[Andrew T]

Beaumont, Texas is a nuclear target???

[Asnys]

Originally Posted by Andrew T

Beaumont, Texas is a nuclear target???

Wiki says it's the fourth busiest port in the country, so it's a logical choice.