Soviet nuclear strike against China 1969

Metalicon

I find it really strange that the majority of the news reports about this are coming from the UK and not from the US. If this is true: Nixon, you've got some brass balls.

Also makes a statement against disarmament.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
It is true. The Soviets quietly informed the Americans that there was "very likely" that a nuclear war may start between the USSR and China (which the former would have won hands down). The USA didn't really reply, just sort of nodded and took the heads-up.

Then Nixon started opening up relations with China and became their best friend against the Soviets, effectively duping the Soviets.
 

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan

I wonder how large a nuclear strike this would have been? I don't think a full-blown kill-all-the-Chinese strike out have been necessary, since Chinese nuclear capabilities were not that large in 1969. A few precision strikes out have taken out key communications points as well as the most of the Chinese nuclear capabilities. That said, China would be well and truly fucked after this strike, and I could see the Soviet Union creating Northern Chinese puppet states. I also think that no matter what the provocation--even if they were already in a conventional war--the USSR would become even more of a pariah state after the strike. There must be a bigger POD than the Russians just deciding to nuke the Chinese though, at least the border skirmish must turn into a full-blown war.
 

Faeelin

Banned
The USSR has to nuke China back to the stone age. Or it has a pissed off and angry state which has become buddy buddy with the US on its door step home to hundreds of millions of people.
 

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan

Faeelin said:
The USSR has to nuke China back to the stone age. Or it has a pissed off and angry state which has become buddy buddy with the US on its door step home to hundreds of millions of people.
Click to expand...
What I was trying to say was that I think it would only take relatively few nuclear weapons to do that, as opposed to nuking every major Chinese city.
 

SeanPdineen

Chang and Mao must be friends

Wouldnt this feared Nuclaar attack convince Taiwan and PRC to make up.
Stranger things have happened?
 

FlyingDutchman

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan said:
What I was trying to say was that I think it would only take relatively few nuclear weapons to do that, as opposed to nuking every major Chinese city.
Click to expand...

Although China is much more vulnerable to nuclear weapons then either the US or the USSR that's probably not what you mean, right?

Although there's a possibility the Soviets only do a demonstration-attack, I agree with Faeelin that a minor strike (one which for example only would destroy China's ability to produce nukes themselves and the small amount which they might have) wouldn't suffice.

If the Soviets decide to nuke, it'll have to be a major strike; they'll go all the way.
They can't just nuke their largest neighbour a little and hope it stops at that.
They'll have to keep going untill China is so badly damaged it's no threat anymore.

At this time the Soviets themselves won't have that many operational nuclear weapons combined with an intercontinental delivery system themselves, so the maximum they can use is that they keep plenty operational nuclear weapons to stay a plausible nuclear power.
Unfortunately for the Chinese, that's still quite a lot.
 

adam888

What was the state of Soviet nuclear capabilities in 1969? Presumably it would be more than 1962 but I would also wonder what the capabilities of the Red Chinese to resist a Soviet nuclear attack.
 

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan

FlyingDutchman said:
Although China is much more vulnerable to nuclear weapons then either the US or the USSR that's probably not what you mean, right?

Although there's a possibility the Soviets only do a demonstration-attack, I agree with Faeelin that a minor strike (one which for example only would destroy China's ability to produce nukes themselves and the small amount which they might have) wouldn't suffice.

If the Soviets decide to nuke, it'll have to be a major strike; they'll go all the way.
They can't just nuke their largest neighbour a little and hope it stops at that.
They'll have to keep going untill China is so badly damaged it's no threat anymore.

At this time the Soviets themselves won't have that many operational nuclear weapons combined with an intercontinental delivery system themselves, so the maximum they can use is that they keep plenty operational nuclear weapons to stay a plausible nuclear power.
Unfortunately for the Chinese, that's still quite a lot.
Click to expand...

My point is that if the USSR could take out the all of the Chinese nuclear arsenal in a preemptive strike, then why bother nuking the rest of China? They can essentially demand unconditional Chinese surrender and the establishment of a puppet government in China. A China without nuclear weapons is a China that is no threat at all. This is, of course, assuming such a preemtive strike can be done. I don't think the Chinese nuclear program was too advanced at this stage, so I believe it's possible.
 

Blue Max

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan said:
My point is that if the USSR could take out the all of the Chinese nuclear arsenal in a preemptive strike, then why bother nuking the rest of China? They can essentially demand unconditional Chinese surrender and the establishment of a puppet government in China. A China without nuclear weapons is a China that is no threat at all. This is, of course, assuming such a preemtive strike can be done. I don't think the Chinese nuclear program was too advanced at this stage, so I believe it's possible.
Click to expand...

This gets into interesting territory.

The Cold War would take a sharply cold turn, and I somehow doubt that China would be a very pliant puppet. This is a nation that has fought lesser abuses from Japan for decades.

If the Soviets want China, they're going to have to occupy it, or at least occupy key parts of it. They will be hated worse than the Japanese, which takes some doing.

The USA will enthusiastically support Chinese Nationalism; the Chinese Communist Party is probably screwed over good between being forced to surrender to the Soviets and blamed for the war.

The Soviets are in even worse shape than OTL. They may have eaten some nuclear hits, now they face the daunting prospect of occupying China. The Chinese, for their part are going to be badly abused by the Soviets and probably going to try everything they can get away with.

This is how the Soviet Union may be dead by 1980--they can't pay to hold onto Eastern Europe, China, and primacy in ground forces. Forced to make a choice, the Soviets would probably have to give up on Eastern Europe to ensure that a vindictive China doesn't re-emerge.
 

mowque

Banned
Blue Max said:
This is how the Soviet Union may be dead by 1980--they can't pay to hold onto Eastern Europe, China, and primacy in ground forces. Forced to make a choice, the Soviets would probably have to give up on Eastern Europe to ensure that a vindictive China doesn't re-emerge.
Click to expand...

And that would have probably been the end of the whole Union.
 
Aranfan

Aranfan

So the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has Nuked the People's Republic of China? I somehow see this as discrediting Communism.
 

loughery111

Banned
Yea, the Soviets could not afford to simultaneously hold down Eastern Europe, directly occupy China, have some semblance of a domestic economy, maintain parity with NATO on the ground in Europe, fund the R&D necessary to keep the nuclear stalemate going, and run a space program.

I figure they don't make it out of the Brezhnev-era economic stagnation intact. At least one of the following occurs: organized Chinese/Eastern European revolt spawning additional revolt in Eastern Europe/China, conventional/limited nuclear war with NATO results in loss of Eastern Europe, China revolts with US/Japanese/Taiwanese/South Korean/Australian help, USSR suffers total economic collapse and breaks apart as in OTL, doomsday scenario in which Soviet leadership succumbs to seige mentality and all-out nuclear war ensues.

My personal favorite for this scenario is a combination of 1, 2, and 4, with 2 probably featuring limited tactical nuclear weapons use.

Regular revolts in China eventually spawn limited revolts in Eastern Europe in 1977, to which the USSR wildly overreacts, putting them down with brutal and well-publicized force. NATO and the US, at this point maintaining superiority in conventional forces both in Europe and East Asia, justify intervention on humanitarian grounds and declare war to liberate Eastern Europe, while semi-openly shipping vast numbers of arms to China via Japan, Thailand, Pakistan, and India. The Soviets, having used nuclear weapons in the tactical role in China before, use them to destroy concentrations of Chinese rebels, hoping this won't provoke the West. It does, and tactical nuclear weapons are used in Europe by both sides on troop concentrations. This use favors NATO by a large margin due to its significantly more advanced mobile launch platforms. (Western R&D efforts have long since decisively surpassed their underfunded Soviet counterparts) The Soviet Navy is kicked up one side of the ocean and back down the other, simply because its submarines are older, more primitive, and above all, louder than those of the West.

By war's end, NATO forces in conjunction with East European rebels have driven the Soviets virtually back into their own borders; moving further risks provoking an all-out nuclear war, so they stop in place. China is in complete and total chaos; though the Chinese cannot win outright, they can bankrupt the Soviet Union, and the war has nearly done so already. The Soviet economy is on the verge of collapse, having lost its "allies" in Eastern Europe and forced to spend huge sums rebuilding its army to fight in China. Additionally, an upsurge of Islamic terrorism in Central Asia and the Caucasus damages oil infrastructure there, cutting off the flow of hard currency even after the war ends.

The Soviets collapse about three years after the treaty with NATO is signed, in late 1980. The Baltic republics, Moldova, and the Ukraine join NATO, while Georgia makes preparations to do so. China comes out of the revolt with a western-aligned nationalist government and begins talks with Taiwan to reunify China, which occurs in 1983. North Korea withdraws into itself; following massive famines in the late 1980's, it briefly invades South Korea in 1991 and loses the resultant war, thus allowing Korea to reunify in 1994. Russia itself is perpetually on the brink of civil war as a Communist Party successor and a neo-fascist party bicker over leadership and the spoils of a shattered economy. The northern Caucasus is in a state of near constant revolt against authority, while much of eastern Russia is considering breaking away from the west to escape the political turmoil and in the hope of actually seeing some of the revenue from the oil drilled from beneath their lands.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Blue Max said:
This gets into interesting territory.

The Cold War would take a sharply cold turn, and I somehow doubt that China would be a very pliant puppet. This is a nation that has fought lesser abuses from Japan for decades.

If the Soviets want China, they're going to have to occupy it, or at least occupy key parts of it. They will be hated worse than the Japanese, which takes some doing.

The USA will enthusiastically support Chinese Nationalism; the Chinese Communist Party is probably screwed over good between being forced to surrender to the Soviets and blamed for the war.

The Soviets are in even worse shape than OTL. They may have eaten some nuclear hits, now they face the daunting prospect of occupying China. The Chinese, for their part are going to be badly abused by the Soviets and probably going to try everything they can get away with.

This is how the Soviet Union may be dead by 1980--they can't pay to hold onto Eastern Europe, China, and primacy in ground forces. Forced to make a choice, the Soviets would probably have to give up on Eastern Europe to ensure that a vindictive China doesn't re-emerge.
Click to expand...

On the flip side, they Soviets wouldn't be able to support NV as much, which would make the Vietnam war much more interesting.
 
Cook

Cook

Banned
I first read about this in the early 80's and was dumbfounded that what was essentially a border dispute over a small economically and strategically worthless island on the Ussuri river could have nearly lead to a nuclear war.

A full scale attack on China’s cities, which was what the Russians hinted was going to take place would have resulted in the Japanese islands being blanketed in radioactive fallout and a very large portion of the Japanese and Korean populations dying, this would have been followed by a pall of radioactive ash falling on the United States and Canada.

So an attack on the People’s Republic of China would very much have been an attack on the west (Japan and Korea) and the United States even if no missiles were directed that way.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Cook said:
I first read about this in the early 80's and was dumbfounded that what was essentially a border dispute over a small economically and strategically worthless island on the Ussuri river could have nearly lead to a nuclear war.
Click to expand...
Well, the fighting over Zhenbao Island was really just a flashpoint/convenient excuse for the Soviets to nip the "China problem" in the bud. They knew what a threat China would pose to the USSR in the future. But in 1969, the USSR had more and better nukes than China, so...well, let's remember the old adage; "When the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
 

FlyingDutchman

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan said:
My point is that if the USSR could take out the all of the Chinese nuclear arsenal in a preemptive strike, then why bother nuking the rest of China?
Click to expand...

I explained why a minor strike only wouldn't suffice in the rest of my previous post after the first sentence. :D

They can essentially demand unconditional Chinese surrender and the establishment of a puppet government in China. A China without nuclear weapons is a China that is no threat at all. This is, of course, assuming such a preemtive strike can be done. I don't think the Chinese nuclear program was too advanced at this stage, so I believe it's possible.
Click to expand...

You're right AFAIK that the Chinese program wasn't too advanced at that time. They were still experimenting and I doubt they were far enough to be able to reach another nation with nuclear weapons through missile or bomber.
Approximately they were at the same stage as Iran/North-Korea are now.

A China without nukes is still a threat to the Soviets with amongst others their conventional forces.
I also don't know in so far a China with only it's nuclear program irradiated will surrender. At most you'll have a cease-fire untill the Chinese deem themselves strong enough to try again.

Don't forget, this is the nation with Mao who only a few years earlier tried to encourage the Soviets to start a nuclear war with the West, because there would always be enough Communists left afterwards...
 

MerryPrankster

Faeelin said:
The USSR has to nuke China back to the stone age. Or it has a pissed off and angry state which has become buddy buddy with the US on its door step home to hundreds of millions of people.
Click to expand...

But doing that kind of damage would produce a refugee crisis and a lot of radioactive crud that would threaten its southeastern border regions.

Furthermore, if there's a lot of radioactive crud being spread everywhere by the wind, that will affect neighboring countries and PO them at the USSR, causing foreign-policy problems.

And nobody has to do anything, especially someone in the kind of position that IIRC Brezhnev was at this point.
 

karl2025

MerryPrankster said:
But doing that kind of damage would produce a refugee crisis and a lot of radioactive crud that would threaten its southeastern border regions.

Furthermore, if there's a lot of radioactive crud being spread everywhere by the wind, that will affect neighboring countries and PO them at the USSR, causing foreign-policy problems.

And nobody has to do anything, especially someone in the kind of position that IIRC Brezhnev was at this point.
Click to expand...

I agree. A simple handful of nuclear weapons would be enough to ruin most countries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top