nope. As both a state capital city and home to a big AFB, Cheyenne is multiple targeted. In one of Dale Brown's recent books, Cheyenne (along with half the AFBs in the nation) get nuked...Wendell said:
Cuban Missle Crisis Leads To Nuclear War
- Thread starter shane
- Start date
Wendell said:
Depends how safe they're going to be from nuclear fallout & contamination - especially in the long term. Afterall, the east & Gulf coasts are going to get hit hard. Then the next hardest hit region would probably be around the Great Lakes & towards the south. I'd say that any city east of the Mississippi is probably out. Similarly any city along the west coast is also out as several of them would have also been targetted.
Nice map. It's more or less about what I'd say would be the case, although I don't know why Canada & China are getting nuked. And there's no reason why Yugoslavia is hit.
I think Japan would suffer less as would western Europe.
I think Omaha would be in trouble as it's got the big USAF base there.
Kansas City might be an option.
Oh & Hawaii would be hit as well - especially Pearl Harbor
I think Japan would suffer less as would western Europe.
I think Omaha would be in trouble as it's got the big USAF base there.
Kansas City might be an option.
Oh & Hawaii would be hit as well - especially Pearl Harbor
Wendell said:
This would be too close to contaminated regions. Like the last thing you want for a national capital is that, if the wind changes direction, everyone has to remain indoors until it changes again due to it coming from a contaminated zone. This is why I say anywhere east of the Mississippi River couldn't be considered for a decade or two.
Actually, let's have the invasion result not in a nuclear war, but in a large conventional war scenario in Western Europe. It would require a POD earlier in the Crisis and no missiles in Cuba, but let's do it that way, shall we?
A repeat of WWII with late-50s era technology would be interesting to see, to say the least.
A repeat of WWII with late-50s era technology would be interesting to see, to say the least.
Wendell said:
yeah, nukes are in limited numbers in 1950, but still both sides have them. So if the Soviets managed to get a break in the NATO lines, it would be hard for NATO, that is the USA, not to use one or two. And that, of course, more than likely means a nuclear response from the USSR.
The escalation would, however, be limited due to a couple of factors: the limited number of nukes in the first place; & the need, by both the USA & USSR, to keep a large number of nukes in reserve should one side try to nuke the territory of the other.
But essentially, WWIII in 1949-50 shouldn't be nuclear in general. It would depend upon if NATO can hold the Soviets, even if that means a fighting withdrawal. At best I'd say no more than half a dozen nukes may be used overall, if things got really desperate.
JHPier said:
I'd doubt it. Nuclear winter requires a few thousand detonations on top of secondary fires. If I was to have a guss, I'd say we'd be talking something like 600-800 overall in a 1962 nuclear war - that being about 100 detonations within the US & around 500 in the USSR, with about 10 - 20 elsewhere.
Nuclear winter also requires one deeply flawed bit of logic.
It turns out that in Carl Sagan's theory, he assumed that both superpowers would be going for ground bursts and maximum debris and fallout, while doing less damage to cities and, amazingly, being less likely to knock down enemy bombers and missles just getting off the ground.
In other words, maximizing damage to their own country, at the expense of not destroying enemy bombers and ICBMs. Not very plausible.
It turns out that in Carl Sagan's theory, he assumed that both superpowers would be going for ground bursts and maximum debris and fallout, while doing less damage to cities and, amazingly, being less likely to knock down enemy bombers and missles just getting off the ground.
In other words, maximizing damage to their own country, at the expense of not destroying enemy bombers and ICBMs. Not very plausible.
Ramp-Rat
Monthly Donor
Would it be just the US attacking the USSR, or would UK join in, using its V-Bombers, and Thor missiles under SIOPs? The map shows hits on UK, though not one on Scapa Flow, so was it London and the V-bases in East Angler that were hit. Why would UK join in, use them or lose them, in any nuclear exchange, between US/USSR we were going to get hit anyway. Rember at that time UK was the only other nuclear power going. If US/USSR hit each other hard Britain is the worlds only surper-power, for a few years!! Thats if there are no hits on UK, so we were going to be hit, so we hit out, does this make sense? given the feelings of that time. I am pretty sure that the V-Bombers were on runway alert, with the crews sleeping at A/C side, so we were ready, but would we have gone.