AHC: More nuclear weapons used in war?

GarethC

Donor
I suggested if the Hungarian rebels were better organized in 1956 and able to push away the Soviet troops from Budapest, the Soviets might nuke the city.

(I admit this was inspired by how, in the Draka novels, rebels took over the city of Barcelona and the Draka nuked them.)

Someone with more knowledge of the USSR said the Soviets weren't nearly as "stern" as the Draka and it was more likely they'd simply keep attacking the Hungarians conventionally.

However, I did read that the Soviets lied to the soldiers they sent to Hungary, telling them they were going to Egypt until they actually got there, and they used tanks in Budapest to limit opportunities for fraternization with the rebels. There were Soviet troops executed later for refusing to fire on protesters.

Maybe the Hungarian rebels do better and the Soviet leadership starts fearing a mutiny. However, conventional aerial bombardment would get the job done without outraging everyone the way nukes would.
It takes a bit of doing.

If Nagy was a bit more considered initially, and assured Khruschev that Hungary was not going to declare neutrality or leave the Warsaw Pact, there were voices (including Zhukov) that were accepting of pulling Soviet troops out instead of intervening.

If Nagy then (say, at Christmas or the New Year) made those two declarations, after getting the Hungarian armed forces to sort themselves out a bit, then Hungary would be rather better placed to defend against the following Soviet invasion.

If (and this is a very very big "if", although it helps if the Hungarian Air Force takes part in the fighting unlike OTL) that defence was successful initially, both pocketing and forcing the surrender of at least one Soviet garrison troop formation, and temporarily stopping the advance at the border, then Khruschev might order either a demonstration nuclear strike* or a tactical one on a Hungarian army concentration.

But I have to admit it feels like quite a long shot. The later start of hostilities means that Khruschev isn't also worrying about Nasser in Suez at the same time, which should act as a brake on any more... impetuous decisions.

*I'm not sure if that's actually feasible for a Hungarian campaign, though.
 
Larry Bond's novel Vortex features a particularly reactionary man coming to power in South Africa as it liberalizes. He orders an invasion of Namibia, only for it to go absolutely pear-shaped and the Cubans and their local allies invade South Africa itself.

A tactical nuclear bomb delivered by aircraft wipes out a major Cuban armored formation. The Cuban soldiers take white hostages to avoid a repeat and Vorster (the evil South African leader) prepares to hit the logistics hubs in Angola and Mozambique supporting the invasion, only for the U.S. to conduct a massive commando raid that destroys South Africa's main nuclear facility.

(The rationale is that hitting those cites would destroy Soviet ships in port and risk Soviet intervention.)

I'm thinking something like that might be realistic. The "frontline states" invade with Cuban and Soviet support, there're internal black uprisings, and the South Africans get desperate.
 
Another possibility that hasn't been mentioned is that in the early '60s, right when strains were starting to show in the Sino-Soviet relationship, Khrushchev made a backchannel proposal that the US & Soviet Union engage in a joint preventative nuclear strike on the PRC designed to eliminate the Chinese nuclear weapons program- the President at the time (can't recall if it was Kennedy or LBJ) wanted nothing to do with it, & without US participation, the Soviets were unwilling to risk going it alone. However, if whoever was in the White House in a sufficiently close ATL saw things differently....

My understanding is that this went the other way - that it was Kennedy who proposed the strike to Khrushchev, who didn't want any part of it, as he was still hoping to patch things up with the PRC.
 
Top