The Cuban Missile War Timeline

[Darkest]

I would think North Korea would conquer the south. I mean, they hadn't split with the Chinese Communists so much, they were sort of allies, and spreading communism, making it so that SK couldn't go to the side of Japan once it got back on its feet, would be part of China's agenda.

So: short Korean war, maybe even just SK bowing down to NK superiority. Include that in the map.

Also, how much of Siberia did China annex? Is there a to-the-letter border change, or does China just get to do what it wants in Siberia.

What about the other republics in the Soviet Union? Particularily the southern ones? Destroyed as well? Independent? Annexed by China?

 

[Hendryk]

Can we expect to see the Cultural Revolution here? I'm thinking that with the pragmatists having somewhat more of an upper hand than in OTL, Mao may not be in a position to execute that campaign. At the very least, it might be put off for several years. In that case, China will have a better base for expansion, rather than looking inward. Does that make sense, or am I totally off base?

No, you're quite right. In OTL Mao went into a kind of semi-retirement for 4 years after the failure of the Great Leap Forward, during which time he prepared his next move against his opponents in the Politburo. In TTL I don't think he would even be given the chance to do that. My guess is that the war would give the pragmatists the excuse they need to secure their hold on power and get rid of Mao one way or the other (including, if necessary, a carefully arranged premature death).

I would think North Korea would conquer the south.

Wouldn't a few US nukes be targeted at North Korea, especially with South Korea having been bombed by the USSR? Either way, it's likely the Korean peninsula would be satellized by China early after the war. That has always been one of China's geopolitical priorities.

 

[Darkest]

That has always been one of China's geopolitical priorities.

Keeping the dagger pointed at the heart of Japan, right?

 

[Kit]

Re: the UK after Atlee won in '45, and moved the political spectrum massively left, they dumped him for the Tories as soon as the changed their tune in '51, they Conservative party was seen up until the ERM crisis in '92 as the 'Natural Party of Government'. Despite agreeing with Socialist policies whenever the Tories have beem vaguely electable they have won, I mean Labour didn't win 2 elections in a succesion (*) till Blair came along! Not even a nuclear war could change that.

IMHO immediate post war National/Military/Whatever's left Government, until '65/'66 depending on how the recovery is going; then election of a Socialist, Socially Conservative, Authoritarian government. In other words the Tories, not least because while Labour's heartlands the Industrial Northern cities and London have been roasted, rural Cornwall will be fine.

Scottish independance is unlikely, not only was Independance not really an issue for anyone in '62. The immediate post war government would probably be based in Wales and Soctland as they would have come out best. The Soviets would have ended Englands dominace over the British Isles, a more equal, and more devolved Union would probably survive.

When/if would '79 and the New Right happen difficult to say. One of the main reasons why Thatcher triumped was that everyone was heartily sick of the unions, it is hard to image a post-nuclear holocaust government being very understanding with regards to strikes, treason springs to mind. A backlash in the late 70's as things slowly return to normal is likely meaning a backlash to that over correction will probably take another 10-15 years and be less severe than the '79 swing, so despite a nuclear holocaust it is possible to image a government with a similar policy position to New Labour taking power in the '90's, though from a Callaghan anaolgue rather than a Thatcher anaolgue.


* Sort of Atlee won the '50 election but his majority was so tiny he only lasted till '51 when he did lose.

I think that's a little optimistic.

Firstly the reason the Tories were seen as the 'natural party of government' was mostly due to labour's inabilty to manage the economy. However in TTL, the economy is in the toilet for both the Tories and Labour, and in any case is only being sustained by massive government rebuilding programmes. Secondly, there's going to be a big backlash against the conservative government that got us into the war and that's not going to disappear quickly. It might even push the Tories into third party status, with the Liberals and Labour swapping government back and forth. Thirdly, Wales and Scotland came through the war in the best shape and they're strong labour heartland country.

I also think that socialist style management is going to last longer than in OTL. It's not going to come to an end in the 70s, mostly because none of the factors that ended the post-ww2 politcal consensus are present. Socialism is going to continue until the 90s at the very earliest, and it's likely that a Thatcher style movement is going to emerge in the 2000s or 2010s.

 

[Thande]

Amerigo: the fact that even Kit and Aracnid can agree that the postwar govt would be socialist in nature should be a confirmation for you

Incidentally, do modern ICBMs continue to use the same gyroscope system you describe here, or is everything computerised now?

(I now know why you kept correcting me so much over those missile intercept scenes in The Arm's Length War... )

 

[Thande]

I think there's also the possibility that the parties may not survive in their then present form at all.

The Tories will be branded with Macmillan getting into war as you say, but Aracnid is also correct that more Tory heartlands will probably have survived (what was the situation like in Scotland and Wales then? I seem to recall the Tories having much more support in Scotland in the 60s than now).

I think what might happen is that the immediate postwar government will probably be Labour/Liberal dominated from the instinctive backlash, but then the Tories will quickly disown Macmillan and reinvent themselves, a bit like how Cameron is doing re. Thatcher (or Blair did re. Kinnock and his brigade).

While "the Tories" will continue to be reviled, something like "the New Britain Party", made up largely of former Conservatives, could be a practicable government (providing it continues with socialist economic policies for the forseeable future).

Has anyone got any election maps of the 1960s elections to give us an idea of whose heartlands were worst hit?

I think that's a little optimistic.

Firstly the reason the Tories were seen as the 'natural party of government' was mostly due to labour's inabilty to manage the economy. However in TTL, the economy is in the toilet for both the Tories and Labour, and in any case is only being sustained by massive government rebuilding programmes. Secondly, there's going to be a big backlash against the conservative government that got us into the war and that's not going to disappear quickly. It might even push the Tories into third party status, with the Liberals and Labour swapping government back and forth. Thirdly, Wales and Scotland came through the war in the best shape and they're strong labour heartland country.

I also think that socialist style management is going to last longer than in OTL. It's not going to come to an end in the 70s, mostly because none of the factors that ended the post-ww2 politcal consensus are present. Socialism is going to continue until the 90s at the very earliest, and it's likely that a Thatcher style movement is going to emerge in the 2000s or 2010s.

 

[Max Sinister]

London is destroyed, as are probably other big cities - although someone said that in the 60s, the country/city divide wasn't as big yet. (If that's true, in Germany it was different.)

 

[Thande]

London is destroyed, as are probably other big cities - although someone said that in the 60s, the country/city divide wasn't as big yet. (If that's true, in Germany it was different.)

Yeah, that was me

It did exist, but it was largely industrial/non-industrial rather than the more straightforward modern urban/rural (AFAIK) and the Celts weren't as "anyone but the Tories" as they are nowadays.

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Amerigo: the fact that even Kit and Aracnid can agree that the postwar govt would be socialist in nature should be a confirmation for you

Incidentally, do modern ICBMs continue to use the same gyroscope system you describe here, or is everything computerised now?

(I now know why you kept correcting me so much over those missile intercept scenes in The Arm's Length War... )

American missiles today use this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Inertial_Reference_Sphere) system in conjunction with GPS. It's pretty damn accurate. In 1962, missiles are going to be using older gimballed gyros with pure inertial navigation systems. Over long distances, these tend to be less precise, hence the larger CEP of the older missiles -- they're much less likely to hit a precise target.

 

[Thande]

American missiles today use this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Inertial_Reference_Sphere) system in conjunction with GPS. It's pretty damn accurate. In 1962, missiles are going to be using older gimballed gyros with pure inertial navigation systems. Over long distances, these tend to be less precise, hence the larger CEP of the older missiles -- they're much less likely to hit a precise target.

Hmm, that's still more... "mechanical" in character than I naively expected. Interesting.

All right, I'm going to try and find some electoral maps of the 1960s elections to try and formulate the basis of the postwar political landscape. One advantage is that this is before the Tories officially changed all the county boundaries in 1974 so at least that piece of bureaucratic craziness won't happen in TTL, even if half of the people living in said counties are dead

 

[Viscount Stanthorpe]

Post war UK

I can see the return of rotten burroughs in this time-line, but I'd imagine a devolved UK will probably go along the line of a Commonwealth of Great Britain, with powers devolved to national parliaments & with Scotland rather than England as being the dominant constituent power.

But what would happen with Ulster? Ok, whilst the POD is pre-' troubles' & Ireland is the least damaged nation in Europe, its still sat beside the remains of the UK, and much of the food for Britain would probably originate (in one form or another) from there. I can see tensions there, but I cant see Ireland achieving reunification. If anything, I'd think that the New British Party (NBP) would take a strongly anti-Irish line during the reconstruction, especially if Ireland refused to sell food & medical supplies to the mainland at 'reasonable' prices & Ulster was undergoing a form of the troubles...

 

[Hendryk]

Keeping the dagger pointed at the heart of Japan, right?

Or keeping Japan from getting a foothold in China's backyard. The two countries have a long habit of going to war over the Korean peninsula. China would probably seize the opportunity provided by the war to settle the issue once and for all.

 

[Thande]

OK, this took me way too long to do, although at least I learned some new facts about southern and Celtic geography on the way (they probably won't let me back in now )

I was also outraged to learn that Doncaster elected a Conservative MP in 1959

This is by no means completely accurate, as the map is inexact with all the boundary changes (I think it's more 1974-era) but should give a rough picture of what's happening. Couldn't find all the boroughs of London at the time but there definitely seemed to be more Labour- than Tory-voting ones at the time.

The "Conservative allies" are the UUP and the National Liberals, who both worked with the Tories at Westminster. I did not distinguish the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party from the Tories as that would be too confusing.

All we have to do now is work out where the Soviet bombs would have worst hit...

 

[Shadow Knight]

Most impressive Thande.

 

[Thande]

Most impressive Thande.

Thanks, although this is one time when a BAM (if one existed of pre1974 constituencies) would have been most gratifying All those fiddly urban constituencies...it's enough to make me want to drop nukes on our cities, never mind the Soviets

 

[Shadow Knight]

Thanks, although this is one time when a BAM (if one existed of pre1974 constituencies) would have been most gratifying All those fiddly urban constituencies...it's enough to make me want to drop nukes on our cities, never mind the Soviets

LOL

On a side note does anyone know how many US troops were stationed in South Korea in 1962? And if they were the target of Soviet nukes in S. Korea how many would have likely survived?

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

All we have to do now is work out where the Soviet bombs would have worst hit...

Military bases, communications and transportation centers, industrial facilities, and targets of opportunity.

I'd start with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO) link. Scroll down to the section detailing NATO bases worldwide. There's a link for bases in Britain. I'd also try to find a listing of RAF, RN, and Army bases -- those shouldn't be too difficult. I'd add the biggest civilian airports in the UK, as well as known government control facilities.

The Soviet Union had roughly 3,300 total nuclear weapons at the time of the war. Figure about half to be in storage. That leaves 1,650. Three hundred fifty on submarines, bombers, and missiles targeted on the United States. That leaves 1,300. Figure 700-1,000 tactical/short range strategic weapons that don't have the range to reach the UK. That leaves only about 300 weapons with enough range to hit the UK. All of them won't be targeted on the UK, of course. Some will go to the Iberian peninsula, Morocco, or be slated for more distant targets like Keflavik in Iceland. As a wild-ass guess, I'd suggest at most 175 warheads ranging from 50kt to 3Mt.

 

[Thande]

How much are we assuming the Soviets knew? Obviously not all the important stuff would have been publicised re. its location...

That's what puzzled me a bit in your TL - the Soviets would know where major American military bases were because they'd be a bit hard to hide, but it seemed as though the USSR had targeted missiles on things like those coordination sites in the US. Would they necessarily know about Cheyenne Mountain and the others, even allowing for espionage?

Military bases, communications and transportation centers, industrial facilities, and targets of opportunity.

I'd start with this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO) link. Scroll down to the section detailing NATO bases worldwide. There's a link for bases in Britain. I'd also try to find a listing of RAF, RN, and Army bases -- those shouldn't be too difficult. I'd add the biggest civilian airports in the UK, as well as known government control facilities.

The Soviet Union had roughly 3,300 total nuclear weapons at the time of the war. Figure about half to be in storage. That leaves 1,650. Three hundred fifty on submarines, bombers, and missiles targeted on the United States. That leaves 1,300. Figure 700-1,000 tactical/short range strategic weapons that don't have the range to reach the UK. That leaves only about 300 weapons with enough range to hit the UK. All of them won't be targeted on the UK, of course. Some will go to the Iberian peninsula, Morocco, or be slated for more distant targets like Keflavik in Iceland. As a wild-ass guess, I'd suggest at most 175 warheads ranging from 50kt to 3Mt.

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

That's what puzzled me a bit in your TL - the Soviets would know where major American military bases were because they'd be a bit hard to hide, but it seemed as though the USSR had targeted missiles on things like those coordination sites in the US. Would they necessarily know about Cheyenne Mountain and the others, even allowing for espionage?

The beauty of a free society. It's tough to miss the construction of massive underground bunkers, and places like Cheyenne Mountain, Mount Weather, and the deployment of the SAGE system were widely reported in the press by a government eager to demonstrate to the public how exactly it was fighting back against the Red Menace. Of course, no one unauthorized would be allowed to enter the facilities, but people could still gawk at their size and strength, standing as an example of American strength against the Soviet threat -- or so the propaganda went.

By the late 1950s, however, a lot of that fervor went away, and you start to see movies like Seven Days in May, which features a Mount Weather lookalike as the centerpiece of a coup attempt against the US government.

 

[atreides]

Hi,

A very interesting timeline! But I think everything was going to move much more quickly towards disaster after the USA nukes Havana. (Oct 29).

In the timeline, the first time nukes are used on land, with massive civilian casualties, is against Guantánamo town and environs, by the USA. After this, Castro seizes Soviet tacnukes and bombs Guantánamo Base (a military target, obviously). In retailation, the USA among other things, nukes Havana!

How could Kennedy justify the destruction of the capital of a close Soviet ally on the grounds of retaliating against the destruction of a mere military base? Also, to invade Cuba you don't need to nuke Havana at all! Absolute overkill.

Besides, the diplomatic consequences are enormous. First, WWIII begins at once. The Soviets just can't stand by if an ally receives such a blow. They would loose their empire 40 years in advance. They would have retailated against a comparable target...perhaps, let's say, by nuking Ankara. Of course, they may conclude that after that point escalation is inevitable and just let everthing go from the beginning.

If they don't retaliate (which is politicaly impossible), next day the USA looses all support it had in most of the (thinking) world. Latin American countries would be in turmoil: massive demonstrations, breaking-off diplomatic relations, perhaps even a coup in some right-wing dictatorships if there is time. Whatever happens after, the USA would have lost LatAm forever.

If the disturbance spreads to Western Europe, it would introduce discord at the worst moment, when the West needs to be united the most. The Soviets would have a propaganda field day. It is difficult to say what would happen. Anyway, just to point out that the Havana bomb would be a great error: it would initiate the war, no doubt.

Regards, and congrats for a great timeline!

A.