Could the Cuban missile crisis have resulted in a conventional war?

Would the parties involved be reckless enough to risk millions of their own countrymen like so many imagine? Could there have been an actual conventional war? If so, what would it be like?
 

Pangur

Donor
US Navy versus Russian Navy?

How long would both sides stick to confrontation and conventional weapons?

Hard to see it staying conventional and even harder to see it just being fought of the coast of Cuba. Berlin would kick of and fast. There was that Sov sub that was ready to fire a nuclear armed torpedo at a US Navy ship that was stopped by the actions of one man. Its expecting too much for there always to be that one man to stop things going south and fast
 
Actually, yes. The Soviet commander in Cuba (Gen. Issa Pilyev) had been given authority to use his tactical nuclear weapons if he had lost communications with Moscow in the event of a U.S. invasion of Cuba. That was revoked on 22 October, prior to JFK's speech announcing the missiles in Cuba and the imposition of the blockade. The order was reiterated on 27 October, after the U-2 shootdown. Had OPLAN 316 been executed (eight to eighteen days of air strikes followed by invasion), the Soviets would have resisted conventionally.

The initial order to General Pilyev restricting his authority to use tactical nuclear weapons: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621022 Malinovsky's Order to Pliyev.pdf

The directive prohibiting use of any nuclear weapon without permission from Moscow: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621027 Ciphered Telegram No. 20076.pdf
 

cpip

Gone Fishin'
Certainly initially they might've resisted conventionally, but would Moscow have resisted releasing the nuclear weapons? Would the troops on the ground if they thought they were going to be killed? It's hard to say for certain.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It could. Question is if there was the ability to keep it from getting out of control. The issue extends way past Cuba. if the U.S. goes in there, the Soviets have the same sort of scenario with Turkey and something of an excuse. The Soviets move on Turkey and you have Article 5 in an eyeblink. NATO had tactical weapons, as well as CW, folded into every war plan.

The other factor to consider is that Nikita Sergeyevich was betting heavy and bluffing his ass off and he knew it. The U.S. had 10 times the throw weight of the Soviets, who MIGHT be able to actually get around 60 weapons onto North American soil (accuracy wise, hitting the Continent was about as far the soviet military could be sure of, and reliability of the 50-75 ICBM in the Soviet inventory was, to be charitable, somewhat sub-optimal). He also had a pretty good idea of just what the SAC brought to the table, all 27,000 deliverable warheads. Khrushchev blinked because he couldn't beat the American hand, and he knew it. Thankfully the U.S. didn't know it, had they been aware of the stunning disparity the pressure on Kennedy to kick the Commies' ass might have been too much to resist.
 
Certainly initially they might've resisted conventionally, but would Moscow have resisted releasing the nuclear weapons? Would the troops on the ground if they thought they were going to be killed? It's hard to say for certain.

I don't know why Khrushchev would want to risk Moscow just for Havana . A Havana that would be quickly lost anyways if nukes were used. The troops on the ground would follow orders.
 
Top