Cuban Missile Crisis like scenario in the mid 1950s

Let's say some Communist leader like Castro manages to make Cuba Communist around 1950 and decides to ally himself with the Soviets. The only POD is after 1945, though fictional personalities (which technically require a POD before 1945 but doesn't alter history before then) are allowed. Could a Cuban Missile Crisis-type scenario, or maybe one involving Soviet bombers rather than Missiles, develop in the mid 50s and if so what would it look like?
 
Last edited:
Mid 50s: Cuba, the USSR, Warsaw Pact, and China get nuked in a massive pre-emptive strike using hundreds of B-47s and B-52s. They get some retaliation off, but Western losses are "bearable". - several (possibly a dozen+) European cities/targets are hit, and perhaps one or two US.
 
I guess early 50s is implausible since the USSR only had 5 nukes in 1950, but had 200 in 1955, a TTL Cuban Missile Crisis happening in 1955 makes more sense.
 
I guess early 50s is implausible since the USSR only had 5 nukes in 1950, but had 200 in 1955, a TTL Cuban Missile Crisis happening in 1955 makes more sense.

In 1955, Western aircraft were overflying the USSR with impunity, and they have hundreds of bombers. The USSR has dozens, most of which can't reach the US, and no recon.

The US also didn't have plans for limited war, or IMHO, good control over SAC. That's why I think the whole Communist bloc gets hit in a massive strike.
 
In 1955, Western aircraft were overflying the USSR with impunity, and they have hundreds of bombers. The USSR has dozens, most of which can't reach the US, and no recon.

The US also didn't have plans for limited war, or IMHO, good control over SAC. That's why I think the whole Communist bloc gets hit in a massive strike.

Can't the USSR put more bombers in Cuba?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The vast majority of the Soviet bombardment force in 1955

Let's say some Communist leader like Castro manages to make Cuba Communist around 1950 and decides to ally himself with the Soviets. The only POD is after 1945, though fictional personalities (which technically require a POD before 1945 but doesn't alter history before then) are allowed. Could a Cuban Missile Crisis-type scenario, or maybe one involving Soviet bombers rather than Missiles, develop in the mid 50s and if so what would it look like?

The vast majority of the Soviet bombardment force in 1955 were Tu-4s; the Tu-16 was only entering service, and neither type (much less the Il-28) was going to get to Cuba unobserved.

When the strategic strike force has to be winched off the deck of a freighter tied up in Havana harbor, it's not exactly a bolt from the blue.

The Tu-4 had the range for one-way missions from Soviet territory to Alaska, Canada, and some northern US cities, but even with ~850 produced, the operational numbers and how many of those that (conceivably) could have gotten anywhere important - whether in western Europe, the northwest Pacific, or over the pole to North America - with any weapon, but especially a nuclear bomb, is open to question.

It was a rugged enough aircraft, but was slower and had a lower ceiling than every jet in service, going back to the F-80.

Best,
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
In 1955 the Soviets had, in total, 200 weapons. The U.S. had 2,400.

The Soviets might have managed to get 20 bombers (mostly M-4 Bison, the Tu-4 wasn't going to have much of a chance against the defenses that NORAD had in place) to the U.S., none of which would reach home. The M-4 lacked the range to fly from the USSR to the CONUS and return.

There were also a number of Tu-16 and Tu-22 in inventory. They could not reach the CONUS even on a one way strike. They might have been usable over Europe, but the French, British, and U.S. had a robust ADZ in place with a large number of interceptors.

Overall, max 35 soviet weapons are delivered, none in the U.S. south of NYC and probably at best 10 anywhere in the U.S. the rest of the weapons strike targets in Europe, mainly Germany and with a try for France.

The U.S. with B-47s out of the UK and low numbers of B-52s supplementing the B-36 force lays waste to the Soviet Union to a degree that would impress the Old Testament Angel of Death.
 
Mid 50s: Cuba, the USSR, Warsaw Pact, and China get nuked in a massive pre-emptive strike using hundreds of B-47s and B-52s. They get some retaliation off, but Western losses are "bearable". - several (possibly a dozen+) European cities/targets are hit, and perhaps one or two US.

Why would America launch nukes first?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The vast majority of the Soviet bombardment force in 1955 were Tu-4s; the Tu-16 was only entering service, and neither type (much less the Il-28) was going to get to Cuba unobserved.

When the strategic strike force has to be winched off the deck of a freighter tied up in Havana harbor, it's not exactly a bolt from the blue.

The Tu-4 had the range for one-way missions from Soviet territory to Alaska, Canada, and some northern US cities, but even with ~850 produced, the operational numbers and how many of those that (conceivably) could have gotten anywhere important - whether in western Europe, the northwest Pacific, or over the pole to North America - with any weapon, but especially a nuclear bomb, is open to question.

It was a rugged enough aircraft, but was slower and had a lower ceiling than every jet in service, going back to the F-80.

Best,

Not to mention a number of late war piston engined fighters like the P-51, P-82, and Corsair, all of which were still in inventory, at least with NG units.

The real killers, of course would the the F-94 (with its unusual rocket barrage system) and F-89 and (in 1956) F-102 with their Falcon and Genie missiles. along with a absolute armada of F-86, F-100, and even P-80s, along with Canadian Sabres and Canucks. There are also the Nike-Ajax sites (I can see one of the old Radar sites out my window).
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yep; not to mention Navy and USMC jets on-shore...

Not to mention a number of late war piston engined fighters like the P-51, P-82, and Corsair, all of which were still in inventory, at least with NG units. The real killers, of course would the the F-94 (with its unusual rocket barrage system) and F-89 and (in 1956) F-102 with their Falcon and Genie missiles. along with a absolute armada of F-86, F-100, and even P-80s, along with Canadian Sabres and Canucks. There are also the Nike-Ajax sites (I can see one of the old Radar sites out my window).

Yep; not to mention Navy and USMC jets on-shore... heck, the FAM might even get a P-47 or two into action...

Best,
 
Why would America launch nukes first?
For the same reasons some people advocated a first strike during the Cuban missile crisis: so the Soviets don't get the chance to strike first.

But I wonder, what would trigger the crisis? AFAIK The USSR didn't have nuclear capable MRBM back in 1955. So if Cuba falls under the Soviet umbrella, either the Americans invade, conventionally, and ask the Soviets what were they going to do about it, or they embargo and tolerate it, like OTL.
 
In 1955 the Soviets had, in total, 200 weapons. The U.S. had 2,400.

The Soviets might have managed to get 20 bombers (mostly M-4 Bison, the Tu-4 wasn't going to have much of a chance against the defenses that NORAD had in place) to the U.S., none of which would reach home. The M-4 lacked the range to fly from the USSR to the CONUS and return.

There were also a number of Tu-16 and Tu-22 in inventory. They could not reach the CONUS even on a one way strike. They might have been usable over Europe, but the French, British, and U.S. had a robust ADZ in place with a large number of interceptors.

Overall, max 35 soviet weapons are delivered, none in the U.S. south of NYC and probably at best 10 anywhere in the U.S. the rest of the weapons strike targets in Europe, mainly Germany and with a try for France.

The U.S. with B-47s out of the UK and low numbers of B-52s supplementing the B-36 force lays waste to the Soviet Union to a degree that would impress the Old Testament Angel of Death.

If the Soviets already have enough bombers to overwhelm American defenses to score a few hits even if flying all the way from Russia, shouldn't they have an easier time doing so flying from Cuba? Thus allowing to strike the Southern US?
 
If Cuba became Communist in 1950 and allied itself with the USSR, the US response probably be very extreme--particluarly if Korean War of OTL also occurred. The US would have a military build-up that would be beyond that IOTL.

With a hostile Cuba in 1950, the US air defenses in this alternate timeline's 1955 would be so much beyond what the US had IOTL, any effective Soviet strike is unimaginable. Indeed, it hard to imagine that the US would tolerate any sort of strategic weapon being based on Cuba.
 
If the Soviets already have enough bombers to overwhelm American defenses to score a few hits even if flying all the way from Russia, shouldn't they have an easier time doing so flying from Cuba? Thus allowing to strike the Southern US?

Maybe but it depends on amount the bombers are in Cuba before America finds it. If it's too early, than the bombers might not be operational yet.
 
Let's say some Communist leader like Castro manages to make Cuba Communist around 1950 and decides to ally himself with the Soviets. The only POD is after 1945, though fictional personalities (which technically require a POD before 1945 but doesn't alter history before then) are allowed. Could a Cuban Missile Crisis-type scenario, or maybe one involving Soviet bombers rather than Missiles, develop in the mid 50s and if so what would it look like?

Me thinks we will get a replay of the Korean war rather
then a full blown nuclear showdown: The US will not recognize the new government and either continue to support the old dictator or set up a successor government in exile. Then launch a conventional invasion to "restore order". As the USSR now has to deal with the problem of a supply line that has to either pass Greenland or Gibraltar, the real fight will be the fight over the best press coverage between the Army Airborne Assault and the Navy's supercarriers holding the blockade.
 
Top