Cuban missile crisis, Soviets don't withdraw nukes

We all talk about how close the world was to WWIII during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If you don't know about it, here's a history lesson, in October of 1962, U2 spyplanes discovered nuclear missiles in Communist Cuba, aimed directly at the US. The US responded by resorting to a Naval blockade of Cuba, and massed troops in Florida for a possible invasion of Cuba. Fortunately, the Soviets removed the nukes from Cuba, and WWIII was averted.

But what if the Soviets hadn't withdrawn the nukes? What would have happened?

The US Generals get their way, there is Nuclear war and the world is destroyed.

US invasion of Cuba

backstab said:

US invasion of Cuba

Click to expand...

russian invasion of Turkey ,responce ,either side launchs nukes. Considering the size of the nucler arsenal of both nations AT THAT TIME. The world is not destroyed ,but badly damaged !!

backstab said:

US invasion of Cuba

Click to expand...

Russian authorities on the ground use nuclear-tipped FROG missiles (which were under theatre control for the first and only time in Soviet history).

U.S. responds with retaliatory strikes against Russian forces in Cuba.

--Either ends here, or escalates--

Us invades Cuba. Soviets + Cubans launch tactical weapons at the beaches, and other nukes at US. US B52s go forward toward soviet targets. US launches ICBMs, SLBMs, and IRBMs (in Turkey). Russia does likewise. War breaks out in Europe. Most nukes used within 24-48 hours. Assuming anyone survives, US gains control of Atlantic, soviets have at least a temporary advantage in Europe, probably take most of West Germany. If they bothered to invade turkey, most likely stopped by nuclear landmines. All round devestating, horrific war. Most likely outcome, other than the fall of civilization for few centuries, is a stalemate, as no one wants to get nuked again.

Its better that they backed down.....I think the US would have taken advantage of its superiority, and made a mess of things.

The South wouldv'e got wrecked, who knows how it would have blown up from there. I suspect the USSR would have tac nuked Europe, and tried to run the table. JMO though, they were still idealistic at that time, not just trying to stay in power.

Im not sure if USSR had operational nukes on Cuba. Didn't US act in time and stopped them by the naval blocade?

Berra said:

Im not sure if USSR had operational nukes on Cuba. Didn't US act in time and stopped them by the naval blocade?

Click to expand...

That is correct and there would be even less of them after Kennedy orders in B52s to carpetbomb known sites.

Furthermore, the Soviets had about 20 ICBMs plus 50 (?) Bear bombers. the Americans had 1000 bombers and 200 ICBMs. Whilst the Europeans would get hit by the IRBM and MRBMs, the USA is going to get away largely scot free. In reply the Soviets are going to well glow in the dark.

Michael B said:

the Soviets had about 20 ICBMs plus 50 (?) Bear bombers. the Americans had 1000 bombers and 200 ICBMs. Whilst the Europeans would get hit by the IRBM and MRBMs, the USA is going to get away largely scot free. In reply the Soviets are going to well glow in the dark.

Click to expand...

Great victory for the free world then...

Anyway, you're right.

Russian nuclear forces during the missile crisis consisted of 38 ICBMs, 72 SLBMs, and 412 bomber/IRBM delivered weapons, in addition to 2,800 tactical nukes. Also, with the orientation of US missile and bomber warning radar made it difficult to detect missiles from that direction. There would probably have been at least a few strategic weapons from cuba, in addition to ICBMs, landing in the US.
Plus, any US invasion would have gotten nuked on the beaches. And Europe would be glowing. However, yeah, the US would come out on top in the end, even if it did lose a few million in the process.

It's ironic that one of the most popular and charismatic Presidents ended up preserving Soviet power. Had Kennedy authorised an attack, there would have been a nuclear war. One with the USA so powerful that the USSR would be glowing for years to come. Instead of which, we have multiple nulcear powers, a resurgent Russia and a potential superpower China and lots of unstable nations developing nukes. Given that I was a 2 year old at Aldershot (UK military base) and thus a few glowing cinders, personally. what actually happened was a good thing - for now.

Jbenuniv said:

Plus, any US invasion would have gotten nuked on the beaches. And Europe would be glowing. However, yeah, the US would come out on top in the end, even if it did lose a few million in the process.

Click to expand...

Well, no matter what the outcome might have been, one things for sure, its bye-bye Cuba. Castro would have stood no chance to stop the US invasion, as they're only 90 miles from Florida and the logistics for the Soviets would have been impossible to try and reinforce it. I highly doubt that the Soviets would have tried to use nukes on the Cuban beaches, Cuba's an island remember? If they did, they would just as well destroy the entire island along with the tens of thousands of so Marines.

Or maybe the Soviets would nuke Cuba just to destroy the invading US forces there, I mean, what do they care if 8 million Cubans die in the process, its not like Stalin hadn't killed like 20 million people himself? What I think the Soviets would do, however, is try and have the Cubans hold out as long as they can, to prevent those troops from fighting in Europe, and then they would completely nuke Cuba. They only need about five or six to do the job.

Then, with Cuba glowing in the dark forever, it'd be no holds barred in Germany. I don't think both the combined US and Soviet nuclear arsenals would have ended the world, but seeing a tenth of the world's population being killed is more than plausible.

Well, those troops can't fight in Europe if they're radioactive dust either. Both sides will have expended all of their Straegic missiles, ICBM, SLBM, IRBM, whatever within the first hours. Then it's up to the bombers. The US bombers will get to the USSR within two to three hours from their forward bases. I don't know how long it would take Soviet bombers to reach the US, but it's probably longer.
On the ground in Europe, the Soviets have launched their strategic nukes and probably taken out a good number of European cities and forces. At this point, since it's already nuclear, Neither side has qualms about using tactical warheads to stop the enemy. Also, considering the weight of the Red Army, it's the only chance to keep Western Europe from being overrun.
Even after expending tactical nukes to slow the Soviets, the US still must keep the sealanes open, as there are going to be more Soviet forces on the way, and the only choices are to either irradiate Europe to the point of being uninhabitable, or to land conventional forces and oppose them on the ground.
NATO would probably push for conventional forces, and the USN, which still has an edge on the Soviet Navy, would have to destroy the Soviet fleet and keep the convoys safe from attack.
So, two possibilities
1) Severely Radioactive Europe, USSR, Cuba, and to a lesser extent US.
2) Severely Radioactive Germany, USSR, Cuba, and to a lesser extent Western Europe and the US, with Western Europe either in the hands of NATO or the USSR.

If you've read Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy, it deals with a Soviet Invasion of Europe that takes place around 1987 (the same year I was born), without the use of nukes.

If this were to occur in 1962, and nukes weren't used, the European theatre, to me, would resemble much like the one that Tom Clancy hypothesized, where it turns into a war of attrition, just not as high tech as in Red Storm Rising, and basically ends in the status quo antebellum.

Of course, if the Soviets refused to remove nukes from Cuba, that would undoubtedly mean that the war itself would go nuclear.

Europe would never be the same again...

As for Cuba, it'd be glowing in the dark, and Castro, well, he'd be crispier than the ashes from his cigars.

There are two good alternate history fictions of this potential war.

One is in the book I believe called the "What Ifs of American History".

In it, the Soviets in Cuba manage to destroy Washington D.C. with an IRBM and manage a few other launches.

In response, the U.S. basically genocides the Soviet Union and Cuba. Killing more than 90% of the populations of both countries with many dieing elsewhere from fallout.

As a result the U.S. is considered by the world to be a rogue state and is ostracized.

In the book "Resurrection Day", the U.S. takes far more damage and becomes a second rate power dependent on British aid.

Again, the Soviet Union is basically vaporized.

Dayton Kitchens said:

In it, the Soviets in Cuba manage to destroy Washington D.C. with an IRBM and manage a few other launches.

In response, the U.S. basically genocides the Soviet Union and Cuba. Killing more than 90% of the populations of both countries with many dieing elsewhere from fallout.

As a result the U.S. is considered by the world to be a rogue state and is ostracized.

Click to expand...

I would not be so sure. When you think of the situation at the end of WW2: Europe, the Soviet Union, China and Japan ravished by war and the USA with 50% of the world's industry and the US had gone into the city levelling business. Yet they were considered by many non-Americans to be people to cuddle up next to.

It would depend on who nuked a city first. If it were the Soviets then what they and the Cubans got in return would be regarded as understandable if still over the top. Remember we are talking about a time when a lot of people considered that the bombing of cities in WW2 had been a good way to prosecute the war against the Nazis.

Its true, throught the second world war, and up until the end of the Vietnam War, bombing of densely populated cities against the civilian populace was an accepted doctrine of US military warfare.



So, back on subject, the US could use nukes against the Soviet Union and Cuba and all the nations would see them as heroes.

It is only in the recent wars in Iraq that the US tries its best to avoid hitting civilian centers. The reason the US has decided to spare the citizenry of the nations it goes to war with, is simply the citizenry of the countries the US faces have but a tiny amount of industrial capacity that can be used to make weapons. The US is technologically unmatched by any opponent, so the US can get by with only hitting 'military targets'. However, despite its strength, it hasn't been so good at winning hearts and minds. That's half the battle right there.

If the US faced off with an country that was even a quarter of the caliber of itself (Russia, France, India, Japan, not that the US would go to war with any of them) then they certainly would revert to using massive bombing campaigns on major civilian areas, or possibly even nuclear weapons.

The USA didn't commit genocide in WW2. They were infact fairly lenient especially relative to the Soviet alternative. If however they had decided to kill 90% of the Japanese population and 90% of the Germans within their power.. people would have decided differently.

Its a simple issue of justification. If the soviets nuke first, people won't be suprised to learn the US fired back hitting 5-10 times as many targets.
The extermination of everyone Russian let alone Cuban for the loss of a single city would appear mildly disproportional. Especially so given the dictatorial nature of such regimes and the relative input of 90% of the population.

On the otherhand I don't think the USA would go nuclear as quickly as people are saying here. People would say the USSR was pushing things by trying to deploy Nuclear weapons on Cuba, but the USA deciding to react by nuking Moscow would again be considered less than justified.
On the otherhand so few would know who started what it probably wouldn't matter.

It would be catastrophic. The Russians had tactical nukes in Cuba. They would have been used when the US invaded Cuba. That would quickly shift.

It is true that the Soviet Union's capacity for destroying the US was limited. You yanks would 'only' lose a few or your major cities. However all of Western Europe was in the range of Intermediate range Soviet missiles. That would be it

And of course the US had the capacity to totally devaste the Soviet Union,

If the Nuclear Winter thing turned out to be true that is the end of the World, if not the US would be starting to recover just about now