Did either side in the Cold War have a policy of nuking countries that were a possible threat?

It's often said that the USSR (and the US) had a policy of nuking countries that were/could be a threat to them after a full nuclear exchange even if they're ostensibly neutral.

Is this true/plausible?

Would the USSR for example nuke Switzerland to avoid its use as a safe haven by its enemies or to make sure it won't be a future threat?

An example for the US would be taking out Hanoi and Cam Ranh Bay/Haiphong harbor in Vietnam to prevent the USSR from using it as a port for their surviving ships.
 
Last edited:
I know it's often said on this board that the Soviets in particular planned to bring everybody - EVERYBODY - down with them in the case of a nuclear exchange, but my thread in Chat to find the source for this claim went nowhere.
 
It's plausible that either side would want to deny their enemy resources and safe havens. However would obscure nations like Madagascar or Paraguay get hit with nuclear weapons? Probably not.

Of course nations that aren't hit would still suffer as a result of the lack of transport, food aid, oil, medicine and other necessities required to keep a developing country's population alive. This isn't even factoring in the Soviet bioweapons program and the hundreds of tons of smallpox, anthrax, food blights and other agents they had the ability to use.
 
I know it's often said on this board that the Soviets in particular planned to bring everybody - EVERYBODY - down with them in the case of a nuclear exchange, but my thread in Chat to find the source for this claim went nowhere.

Well, as the relevant documents haven't yet been declassified by the Russians, we are unable to prove that (or the contrary). But I assume that the Russians would use their nuclear weapons only very reluctantly. They knew that they would win any conventional land war in Europe, at least in the 60s and 70s (the 80s saw their equipment and technology deteriorating).
 
I know it's often said on this board that the Soviets in particular planned to bring everybody - EVERYBODY - down with them in the case of a nuclear exchange, but my thread in Chat to find the source for this claim went nowhere.

I think the US would not be much different. Last thing you want is to be nuked or extorted by some stray just because you've used all your nukes and they have one pointed at you.
 
John Dusk wrote:
It's often said that the USSR (and the US) had a policy of nuking countries that were/could be a threat to them after a full nuclear exchange even if they're ostensibly neutral.

Is this true/plausible?

Would the USSR for example nuke Switzerland to avoid its use as a safe haven by its enemies or to make sure it won't be a future threat?

An example for the US would be taking out Hanoi and Cam Ranh Bay/Haiphong harbor in Vietnam to prevent the USSR from using it as a port for their surviving ships.

Noting the time period in question, (ie: "Cold War") "neutrals" weren't very clear and the general planning at the height of the period didn't show that much would be available to BE a "threat" to any survivor nation of the war. Most nations ("allied" or "aligned" wasn't really a difference at the time) had some sort of targeting scheme and depending on how the actual 'hot war' started the scheme changed to accommodate. Switzerland would probably not be hit directly but the overall effects were going to be pretty brutal anyway. While the US and USSR would of course have concentrated on each other and any nation that hosted bases or was allied with them, nations that were 'aligned' with them would be targeted if they could be used by surviving forces as bases. In the above quote Cam Ranh Bay/Haiphong were targets because Vietnam was 'aligned' with the USSR and had been used by Soviet Naval forces.

But this is rather obviously pre-war support bases based on pre-war use Circumstances could change over time. China invaded Vietnam in part to cause the Soviets to withdraw plans to have a major Naval support base there, but really the Vietnamese had already been backing away from such an agreement with the USSR at the time. Poland was still a "military" target for any war but was probably less so once "Solidarity" took hold as it would have been seen to be a burden rather than militarily helpful in a conflict and "nuking" it would have solidified Polish support for the Warsaw pact.

It's simply not that cut and dried as an idea of 'taking everyone with you' because military planning isn't to "lose" a war so much as to fight as long as possible and this does actually include nuclear war.

Where you actually contemplate and possibly build up a "Doomsday" scenario the most important part of the scenario is that EVERYBODY has to know that is your plan in order for it to work. It had to unambiguous and fully open or it doesn't work which is why I tend to discount stories where the Russians, (or in some cases on the other side "the Americans" :) ) were planning that scenario.
("A doomsday weapon isn't any use if you don't TELL someone about it!" "We planned to... At the Party conference on Tuesday..")

"Dead hand" and other "Operation-get-you-last" (Johnny Five!) scenarios are more fiction than fact as you can't really "plan" on hitting anyone and everyone who "might" be used against you without going down the "doomsday" path. And at that point in planning (and execution) you have to stand up and maintain a segment of the military not only capable but willing to do the worst to everyone, regardless of their standing, affiliation, or even capability of waging current or future war with your nation. That's pretty impossible to hide and even more so once the Cold war is over. And here's the thing with the "doomsday" option; it's not something you deploy 'against' an enemy. You deploy it against EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, forever. That is NOT something that a military is going to be comfortable with as it is preparing for defeat AND taking away any chance of victory or even survival of your nation or way of life should something go wrong.

Frankly everyplace YOU are not hitting the other guy probably will and any place neither of you is hitting directly chances are very good one or more of your allies or aligned nations will be hitting with something so in the end under any realistic "full war" nuclear scenario there won't be many, (or any) unaffected nations anyway, Weapons are going to miss their targets, accidents can and will happen, so even if there wasn't any official planning as the war progress' plans, orders and information will change as will targets and priorities.

And as far as we know it was clear from planning on both side you NEVER used "all" your assets. The US and USSR had enough to hit each and every target several times but they planned on only a few strikes per target and always planned a reserve because sending more than a few nukes at once would result in fratricide as warheads destroyed other incoming warheads. It's why strike plans were 'integrated' among allies as much as possible. Even at its worst plans were made to hold back and hold in reserve some weapons and forces to allow secondary strikes and new target assignments as the situation changed. It is actually non-linear but the fewer nukes you have the more likely you are to use them all at once at the first sign of conflict because you can't be sure the enemy doesn't know where they are and how many you have and is planning a pre-emptive strike to take them out. While more warheads of course can mean more devastation in general they are less likely to use them all as that would leave them vulnerable with no offensive capability at a later time.

Randy
 
Top