The Cuban Missile War Timeline

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Amerigo,

I should have labeled my observations as a quibble because that's all it was. Honest.

Don't worry, I didn't take it as anything more than that. I want people to pick this timeline apart, find holes that I've overlooked, and take advantage of things I didn't cover. Thande's post was particularly helpful, and it's that kind of thing that helps me make this TL better.

The order had been rescinded but had the Foxtrots recieved that order yet? Cold War submarine operations are still shrouded in great secrecy, even ops from over 40 years ago. ForEx: there's a new book out claiming that USS Scorpion was deliberately sunk by the USSR and presents what is supposedly photographic evidence of that claim. (I've yet to read the book and cannot even begin to judge it's veracity however. Knee jerking here; I think the claims are nonsense.)

Agreed. I don't have an exact time of transmission of that telegram, so I can't be sure as to whether the Soviet submarines in the Caribbean recieved a similar one or not. The one in the link says nothing at all about submarine weapons, so I'm merely guessing that a similar message was sent. If not, he'd still be operating under the pre-conflict ROE, which gave him permission to arm the torpedo and use it only if he was in grave danger.

I'm running this TL under the assumption that no one, even Capt. Stavinsky, wants to start a nuclear war. It results not from willful action, but from accident, happenstance, miscommunication, and faulty intelligence.

Another [quibble with regards to Savitsky contacting Moscow, he would have had to raise a radio mast from periscope depth. They had no VLF capabilities at the time. With two destroyers 'trying to establish contact' via the dropping of hand grenades, coming to periscope depth doesn't seem like a very good idea.

Thanks for clarifying this for me. I was pretty sure that no one had ELF capability at this time -- the US didn't build its first big ELF antenna until the 1970s, IIRC. I'll have to clarify that section, giving your reason why they couldn't make contact with Moscow.

No one wants to be the one to shoot first, but Savitsky and the other Foxtrot captains were hand-picked for this mission and extensively briefed. They sailed with greater local control over nuclear weapons than any other Soviet officer every had prior to that time and greater control than any other Soviet officer would ever have again. We now know that Krushchev's actions in this regard were a big part of the post-Crisis political fallout he suffered and that fallout eventually helped lead to his removal from power.

Agreed. The post-Crisis removal of Krushchev was the primary reason I introduced the Moscow Plotters into the TL. In OTL, Krushchev's economic and agricultural reform failures backlit his percieved failure in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Here, as the situation escalates, that sense of percieved failure is going to be enormously high. Pressing on Krushchev's mind is the fact that he knows of the enormous missile gap between the Soviet Union and the United States. Added to that fact is the discovery of Penkovsky's spying for the United States. The revelation only a few months previous that he had revealed everything to the CIA means that not only does Krushchev know that he's behind in the arms race, but that the United States knows how far it is ahead. That makes him especially nervous, and was a big reason he backed down in OTL. Many of the Moscow Plotters won't have that information, and so Krushchev's willingness to back down will come as an unexpected shock.

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

I think France should get a bit more mentioning in your TL - they don't have an effective nuclear arsenal yet but they're still the biggest continental power in the firing line so I would assume that de Gaulle's opinion would play an important part in what's happening in Europe.

I think they should be mentioned a bit more as well, but I'm not really sure what to include. With no organic nuclear arsenal of their own, they're not going to be firing off nukes, and because of their refusal to allow American nuclear weapons in French territory, they don't have any borrowed weapons to fire off, as do the Italians, Turks, and British. From my point of view, De Gaulle's going to be yelling in Kennedy's ear the whole time -- but so will every other world leader. In terms of this TL, France isn't going to mean much more than Belgium or the Netherlands.

Unless, of course, someone can convince me otherwise and provide sources to back them up. I'm willing to include and expand a section on France, but beyond contributing to NATO forces Europe, they really don't have a part that would drastically affect the plot.

 

[Kit]

Fantastic timeline. One of the best I've read.

The two things I'm not so sure of is the independence of Scotland (I really don't think that will happen), and the emergence of China as the only superpower by 1977 - they simply don't have the technological or economic weight - without the boost from the West which will now not happen - to dominate as they are described as doing in the timeline. They'll certainly be a major power, probably equal in terms of influence to the US (given the US reducation and the Chinese primitive technological/scientific base).

Remember that the damage described in the timeline has not wiped out the US polity and the systems of technological, scientific and industrial progress that are inherent to it. By the 70s, these will all be strong, and they will strike a balance with China.

In terms of British Politics normal operations are suspended. The main political focus will, of course, be infrastructure rebuilding (after the initial survival of the remaining population has been assured that is).

How the infrastructure will be rebuilt will be interesting. I'd imagine that, given the politcal culture of the time, it would be quite socialist. I'd imaging a 'national government' would be established with cabinet members from all parties. Large government programmes would oversee the rebuilding of argiculture, transport, coal and steel production, manufacturing etc.

Of course, such a process will be very slow, given the damage. You can pretty much rule out anything like a consumer culture emerging until the 1980s. Britain will be economically ruined for many years to come. However recovery will come. Eventually. But we would not be any more wealthy or advanced or influential than many Latin American countries when it does come.

In political ideological terms, presuming that parliamentary democracy surivives until the 80s and 90s. We'd start to see a return to 'politics as normal'. But we'd have undergone a significant shift to the left. We'd be a more strongly socialist country than we were in OTL. I'm sure that will cause inevitable conflicts between free-marketeers and socialists in the 21st century.

 

[Thande]

Fantastic timeline. One of the best I've read.

The two things I'm not so sure of is the independence of Scotland (I really don't think that will happen), and the emergence of China as the only superpower by 1977 - they simply don't have the technological or economic weight - without the boost from the West which will now not happen - to dominate as they are described as doing in the timeline. They'll certainly be a major power, probably equal in terms of influence to the US (given the US reducation and the Chinese primitive technological/scientific base).

Amerigo: I just want to point out that I particularly agree with Kit here. China tends to be rather overrated even now, and in 1962 the situation was quite different. Numbers suggest they will eventually be an important world power, but probably not until, say, 100 years later could they be described as a superpower.

Also, you mention China as having a billion people - in 1962 it was only about 700 million, maybe less.

And, as Flocc is always telling us, Don't Forget India! In 1962 India has close to the same population as China, a more stable political system and somewhat more Western-derived expertise on hand. This could be more an Indian century than a Chinese one.

On France: I think we need to get one of our French experts to detail the conventional forces France could bring to bear in Europe at this point and how relevant that will be. I myself have no more idea than you.

But do not let these comments detract from the fact that this is an astonishingly detailed TL already, and just needs input from experts in a few areas. The Cuban Missile Crisis War is now a cliché and yet can you point to anyone who has actually mapped it out, never mind in this much detail?

 

[Bill Cameron]

I'm running this TL under the assumption that no one, even Capt. Stavinsky, wants to start a nuclear war. It results not from willful action, but from accident, happenstance, miscommunication, and faulty intelligence.

Amerigo,

I cannot agree with that sentiment more strongly. This POD and subseuquent TL is the result of a tragedy of errors and not the result of any 'evil' intent on any man's part.

Thanks for clarifying this for me. I was pretty sure that no one had ELF capability at this time -- the US didn't build its first big ELF antenna until the 1970s, IIRC. I'll have to clarify that section, giving your reason why they couldn't make contact with Moscow.

Please be sure to note that the reason Captain Stavisky couldn't radio Moscow was that he couldn't come to periscope depth due to the USN destroyers aggressively operating above him. He couldn't call home because they wouldn't let him call home. Ever see a movie called The Bedford Incident? That's what came immeidately to mind when I read about Stavisky.


Bill

 

[Thande]

Quick note on China's population - closest figures I could find were-

1960: 648,000,000
1970: 820,000,000

So figure on maybe 660,000,000?

 

[Thande]

Amerigo,

I cannot agree with that sentiment more strongly. This POD and subseuquent TL is the result of a tragedy of errors and not the result of any 'evil' intent on any man's part.

I agree with this also. It's much better than the usual nuclear war TLs where it's the result of a warmongering bloodthirsty LeMay etc or his Soviet counterpart.

 

[Kit]

Taking the world in 1977 in this Timeline, I'd say that it's a multi-polar world.

The US has been significantly weakened, and shares the pre-eminant positions on the world stage with China (which is there due to it's sheer size and population rather than it's technological superority - it may or may not have a few nuclear weapons by this point), India (which is undergoing significant economic growth and is a nuclear power) and Japan (which didn't suffer too much and has also seen significant economic and technological growth). Second tier powers are Canada, Australia/New Zealand (which might also have gone nuclear and be in alliance with Japan), Brazil, South Africa and Argentina. Third tier powers are France, Britain, Scandanavia, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, most of the rest of Latin America, and some parts of Asia. Fourth tier powers are everyone else.

 

[Shadow Knight]

...and the emergence of China as the only superpower by 1977 - they simply don't have the technological or economic weight - without the boost from the West which will now not happen - to dominate as they are described as doing in the timeline. They'll certainly be a major power, probably equal in terms of influence to the US (given the US reducation and the Chinese primitive technological/scientific base).

Remember that the damage described in the timeline has not wiped out the US polity and the systems of technological, scientific and industrial progress that are inherent to it. By the 70s, these will all be strong, and they will strike a balance with China.

I agree whole heartedly. China is going to be a power (especially as they pick up the resources of Siberia...although offset by needing to clean them up) but without western investment it is going to be slow going.

I'd expect though with the beating the US took that Japan is going to once again stretch its might (as it seems to have gotten off relatively unscathed) and be a check to China for several decades.

 

[Kit]

I agree whole heartedly. China is going to be a power (especially as they pick up the resources of Siberia...although offset by needing to clean them up) but without western investment it is going to be slow going.

I'd expect though with the beating the US took that Japan is going to once again stretch its might (as it seems to have gotten off relatively unscathed) and be a check to China for several decades.

Yes, I'd imagine that it would form some sort of alliance with Australia/New Zealand.

I'd also imagine that it would seek to go nuclear, eventually, and that Aus/NZ might go with it. After all, the UK will still have nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons scientists and nuclear production equipment, but without the resources to maintain them anymore. Whereas Aus/NZ will soon be facing an aggressive and expansionist communist China with no one else apart from Japan to turn to for defence. In exchange for food aid, I'd imagine Aus/NZ to get the UK's nuclear industry shipped over wholesale.

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Amerigo: I just want to point out that I particularly agree with Kit here. China tends to be rather overrated even now, and in 1962 the situation was quite different. Numbers suggest they will eventually be an important world power, but probably not until, say, 100 years later could they be described as a superpower.

Also, you mention China as having a billion people - in 1962 it was only about 700 million, maybe less.

And, as Flocc is always telling us, Don't Forget India! In 1962 India has close to the same population as China, a more stable political system and somewhat more Western-derived expertise on hand. This could be more an Indian century than a Chinese one.

Thanks for the clarification there, Kit and Thande. Definitely a point I'll address in the next draft. The reason I tend to favor China over India in this situation is for the power vacuum that China can expand into up north. It's an immense storehouse of resources just waiting to be exploited, but as you say, Rome wasn't built in a day, and China won't take over Siberia in a decade. It'll take time, and I probably need to scale that back.

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Quick note on China's population - closest figures I could find were-

1960: 648,000,000
1970: 820,000,000

So figure on maybe 660,000,000?

Maybe a bit more... how about 750m for 1975?

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

In political ideological terms, presuming that parliamentary democracy surivives until the 80s and 90s. We'd start to see a return to 'politics as normal'. But we'd have undergone a significant shift to the left. We'd be a more strongly socialist country than we were in OTL. I'm sure that will cause inevitable conflicts between free-marketeers and socialists in the 21st century.

Fascinating... my theory was that due to the polarizing influences of the war and a strong anti-leftist feeling that we'd get from a war against the Soviet Union, that the obvious result would be a really rightist government. You've definitely made a strong case for the opposite, however.

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

The US has been significantly weakened, and shares the pre-eminant positions on the world stage with China (which is there due to it's sheer size and population rather than it's technological superority - it may or may not have a few nuclear weapons by this point), India (which is undergoing significant economic growth and is a nuclear power) and Japan (which didn't suffer too much and has also seen significant economic and technological growth). Second tier powers are Canada, Australia/New Zealand (which might also have gone nuclear and be in alliance with Japan), Brazil, South Africa and Argentina. Third tier powers are France, Britain, Scandanavia, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, most of the rest of Latin America, and some parts of Asia. Fourth tier powers are everyone else.

I really like the idea of an "Indian Invasion" of Europe -- Indian recruiters and corporations going to Europe to pick up specialists and people of interest for the Indian economy, rather in reverse of OTL. Perhaps Europe could be India's Siberia, maybe in partnership with Israel?

 

[Thande]

Taking the world in 1977 in this Timeline, I'd say that it's a multi-polar world.

The US has been significantly weakened, and shares the pre-eminant positions on the world stage with China (which is there due to it's sheer size and population rather than it's technological superority - it may or may not have a few nuclear weapons by this point), India (which is undergoing significant economic growth and is a nuclear power) and Japan (which didn't suffer too much and has also seen significant economic and technological growth). Second tier powers are Canada, Australia/New Zealand (which might also have gone nuclear and be in alliance with Japan), Brazil, South Africa and Argentina. Third tier powers are France, Britain, Scandanavia, Ireland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, most of the rest of Latin America, and some parts of Asia. Fourth tier powers are everyone else.

I think Canada is too badly damaged to be even a second-rank power (note how many bombs intended for America ended up targeting Canadian cities instead); otherwise I agree.

 

[Thande]

Maybe a bit more... how about 750m for 1975?

I meant for 1962, not 1975. For 1975, it shouldn't be too different to OTL, say 850, 900 million.

Fascinating... my theory was that due to the polarizing influences of the war and a strong anti-leftist feeling that we'd get from a war against the Soviet Union, that the obvious result would be a really rightist government. You've definitely made a strong case for the opposite, however.

It doesn't really work that way - by 1962 the various Labour and Socialist parties in Europe had done a good job of dissociating themselves from Moscow and, e.g. British Socialism was of an entirely different character to what was coming out of the USSR. Typically European countries, here including the UK in that classification, had a large homegrown Labour/Socialist party and a small Communist party that did take its marching orders from Moscow. Sure, expect them to vanish, but not socialist thought as a whole.

EDIT: Also you might see an anti-rightist surge, painting the conservative parties in power as warmongers, but I don't know if that would be a major thing. Most probably in Britain as Macmillan ordered those nuclear attacks you mentioned and the UK was plastered in retaliation.

 

[Thande]

I really like the idea of an "Indian Invasion" of Europe -- Indian recruiters and corporations going to Europe to pick up specialists and people of interest for the Indian economy, rather in reverse of OTL. Perhaps Europe could be India's Siberia, maybe in partnership with Israel?

Possibly. Also don't neglect North Africa - don't overdo it, but some of the countries there are in a position to reverse history and effectively colonise the northern Med. I don't mean with settlers, of course, but by providing supplies, aid etc. in return for European technological expertise going there. In particular, Algeria (which had only become independent after its civil war finished a couple of years ago) might well take the opportunity to get its revenge on France by doing so... and Gadaffi's Libya also (not Egypt if they've gotten plastered by Israel as you suggest).

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Incidentally, one thing I'm really torn on is the post-war view of nuclear weapons. Given that we've just had nearly a billion people die in a massive nuclear war, my thought was that the automatic response would be to push for their banning and destruction. I could see up-and-comers like India, China, and the rest pushing really hard for the UK and US to give up what nukes they have left. I personally don't think that would happen, not in their weakened states.

And if that doesn't happen, it would provoke those up-and-comers to develop nuclear weapons of their own in response, despite the immense social pressure against them. The Chinese, after all, are only two years off from testing their first weapon at the time of the war. But what do you think? Would outside pressure, coupled with the need for foreign recovery aid, force the US and UK to destroy their remaining stockpiles of nuclear weapons, or would they simply become akin to gas weapons in WWII -- too deadly to use, but not too deadly to build?

If that's the case, biological weapons might make a great alternative. I toyed with the idea of having Johnson dust Cuba with some as a backup to the nuclear bombardment of the western half -- just to be sure. The capability was there in 1962, and it just makes sense. Still undecided on that.

 

[Amerigo Vespucci]

I meant for 1962, not 1975. For 1975, it shouldn't be too different to OTL, say 850, 900 million.

I'll change that. Thanks for the info there.

 

[Thande]

Incidentally, one thing I'm really torn on is the post-war view of nuclear weapons. Given that we've just had nearly a billion people die in a massive nuclear war, my thought was that the automatic response would be to push for their banning and destruction. I could see up-and-comers like India, China, and the rest pushing really hard for the UK and US to give up what nukes they have left. I personally don't think that would happen, not in their weakened states.

And if that doesn't happen, it would provoke those up-and-comers to develop nuclear weapons of their own in response, despite the immense social pressure against them. The Chinese, after all, are only two years off from testing their first weapon at the time of the war. But what do you think? Would outside pressure, coupled with the need for foreign recovery aid, force the US and UK to destroy their remaining stockpiles of nuclear weapons, or would they simply become akin to gas weapons in WWII -- too deadly to use, but not too deadly to build?

If that's the case, biological weapons might make a great alternative. I toyed with the idea of having Johnson dust Cuba with some as a backup to the nuclear bombardment of the western half -- just to be sure. The capability was there in 1962, and it just makes sense. Still undecided on that.

To be honest, I'm not sure. You could make a case for either. While there'll be a massive public opposition to nukes in the ruined countries, said countries' governments might hold stubbornly onto their weapons in order to have a bargaining chip against the undamaged but less advanced states that now have a bigger say in the world like China or India.


Another point I've just thought of: What is Mexico doing in all this? Are we going to see Mexico being, on a smaller scale, the same to the US as you suggest India is to Europe? Not to the same extent because the US isn't as badly damaged, but I could see something happening...