Hot War

WI the Cold War had turned hot? Say that JFK had so handled the Cuban Missile Crisis so...diplomatically, shall we say. There is no nuclear war, but hostilies escalate with the US invading Cuba. Russia responds by taking down America's closest ally, Britain. This is about as far as I've got. I'm kind stuck at the US fighting a 2-front war. If you have any ideas to add, let's hear 'em!
 
WI the Cold War had turned hot? Say that JFK had so handled the Cuban Missile Crisis so...diplomatically, shall we say. There is no nuclear war, but hostilies escalate with the US invading Cuba. Russia responds by taking down America's closest ally, Britain. This is about as far as I've got. I'm kind stuck at the US fighting a 2-front war. If you have any ideas to add, let's hear 'em!

If there was going to be a non-nuclear hot war wouldn't it be more likely that the Soviets would invade West Berlin? It would be a lot easier for them to do this than to launch an maritime invasion of the UK.

I'm also not sure how long it would take them to overrun the Cubans (if we're keeping it conventional), would they be able to accomplish this before the Soviet invasion fleet could reach the UK?

Really though, I don't think that you could avoid a limited nuclear exchange in an invasion of Cuba. The Cubans would be so over-matched that they'd almost certainly deploy the tactical/battlefield weapons that were available to them. Whether the US would respond in kind might be open to debate. However, I'm pretty sure that they'd be prepared to use such weapons once Soviet forces advance past Berlin and through Potsdam and toward Magdeburg.

I seriously don't think an invasion of the UK would be the Soviet first response to an invasion of Cuba. It'd be far to difficult to pull off from a logistical point of view when they have a land route in to the heart of Europe.

That's just my opinion and I'm certainly no expert. I'm sure other people will give you a much better insight than I.
 
WI the Cold War had turned hot? Say that JFK had so handled the Cuban Missile Crisis so...diplomatically, shall we say. There is no nuclear war, but hostilies escalate with the US invading Cuba. Russia responds by taking down America's closest ally, Britain. This is about as far as I've got. I'm kind stuck at the US fighting a 2-front war. If you have any ideas to add, let's hear 'em!

Russia wouldn't just have devastated Britain, they'd have destroyed most of Western Europe.

I loved Resurrection Day, one of my favorite alternate history novels, which takes place ten years after a Cuban Missile crisis that turned hot, but one of the books flaws is that while it correctly imagines the US obliterates the Soviet Union while getting heavily damaged, it thinks nothing happens to the people of Western Europe.

I think if the Cuban Missile Crisis went hot, as gruesome as it sounds, the US would have "won" the nuclear war, but would have taken some damage from Soviet nukes and Europe and the Soviet Union would have been completely destroyed.

The question then becomes whether or not theories regarding "nuclear winter" are true or not.
 
How would the Soviets lop off GB and leave West Germany, West Berlin and the rest of NATO intact? That's the big problem here. Especially if its staying conventional
 
Possible that cruise missiles and conventional warhead missiles could have been used, but nuke missiles are really the only way to destroy 1960s Britain. By 'destroy' read 'destroy war-fighting capability', as nothing much less than a 100 1-Megaton warheads could have destroyed the entire urban and rural infrastructure. Assume casualties 20 to 40 million, less if people take cover and not too many weapons are groundburst.
 
Possible that cruise missiles and conventional warhead missiles could have been used, but nuke missiles are really the only way to destroy 1960s Britain. By 'destroy' read 'destroy war-fighting capability', as nothing much less than a 100 1-Megaton warheads could have destroyed the entire urban and rural infrastructure. Assume casualties 20 to 40 million, less if people take cover and not too many weapons are groundburst.

That brings about a huge escalation. Cuba would be a parking lot as a result. Smartest thing the Soviets could do is 'liberate' West Berlin.
 
Possible that cruise missiles and conventional warhead missiles could have been used, but nuke missiles are really the only way to destroy 1960s Britain. By 'destroy' read 'destroy war-fighting capability', as nothing much less than a 100 1-Megaton warheads could have destroyed the entire urban and rural infrastructure. Assume casualties 20 to 40 million, less if people take cover and not too many weapons are groundburst.

Or 10, 10 megaton warheads right? You make it sound like 100 megatons in total in the Russian arsenal was a lot.

The largest bomb they ever detonated was 50 megatons alone. Impossible to really use in a war situation but 25 megatons probably wasn't.
 
Russia wouldn't just have devastated Britain, they'd have destroyed most of Western Europe.

I loved Resurrection Day, one of my favorite alternate history novels, which takes place ten years after a Cuban Missile crisis that turned hot, but one of the books flaws is that while it correctly imagines the US obliterates the Soviet Union while getting heavily damaged, it thinks nothing happens to the people of Western Europe.

I think if the Cuban Missile Crisis went hot, as gruesome as it sounds, the US would have "won" the nuclear war, but would have taken some damage from Soviet nukes and Europe and the Soviet Union would have been completely destroyed.

The question then becomes whether or not theories regarding "nuclear winter" are true or not.

Ah, been trying to remember the name of that book. I always confuse it with "Cuban Missile War"
 
How would the Soviets lop off GB and leave West Germany, West Berlin and the rest of NATO intact? That's the big problem here. Especially if its staying conventional

The real question is why would they go to the massive effort of mounting a maritime invasion of the UK when they can roll over western Europe in tanks?

IMHO the Soviets would never have actually invaded the UK, however they would have turned it in to a glow-in-the-dark wasteland because of the US nuclear arsenal stationed there.

ETA: In fact I'd go so far as to say that if the OP wants to have a hot war without a nuclear exchange it's pretty much vital that the Soviets take no action against the UK.
 

Cook

Banned
Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) was a Nuclear War Plan and was the principal plan for war against the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis. The resulting civilian casualties would have dwarfed World War Two completely and the resulting radioactive fallout would have a permanent effect globally.
 
Russia wouldn't just have devastated Britain, they'd have destroyed most of Western Europe.

I loved Resurrection Day, one of my favorite alternate history novels, which takes place ten years after a Cuban Missile crisis that turned hot, but one of the books flaws is that while it correctly imagines the US obliterates the Soviet Union while getting heavily damaged, it thinks nothing happens to the people of Western Europe.

I think if the Cuban Missile Crisis went hot, as gruesome as it sounds, the US would have "won" the nuclear war, but would have taken some damage from Soviet nukes and Europe and the Soviet Union would have been completely destroyed.

The question then becomes whether or not theories regarding "nuclear winter" are true or not.
From the wikipedia article on this:
Europe survived the war largely unscathed. NATO collapsed almost as soon as hostilities commenced, and France and (a united) Germany now preside over the continent. Britain remains an ally of the USA, and actually assists in post-war reconstruction efforts in US states hit hardest by the war.
From what I remember, the idea is that because of this rapid collapse of NATO, only the US and USSR exchanged nuclear weapons. Also re: fallout, it's mentioned that East Asia takes the brunt of a huge fallout cloud from the destroyed USSR.
 
Or 10, 10 megaton warheads right? You make it sound like 100 megatons in total in the Russian arsenal was a lot.

The largest bomb they ever detonated was 50 megatons alone. Impossible to really use in a war situation but 25 megatons probably wasn't.

100 1 megaton bombs, properly deployed, are much more damaging than 10 10 megaton bombs due to various effects, which are rather numerous. Generally, the same megatonnage in small rather than large weapons is more effective.
 
Read the Cuban Missile War. This deals with a scenario (though the war breaks out for different reasons than Resurrection Day) where the Cuban Missile Crisis turns hot. One of the better timelines on the board, when Amerigo gets around to updating it.
 
everyone knows how world war III is fought.. Its world war IV that is rather iffy...


Nato's counter attack to Soviet aggression was to fall back and use nukes...

Direct conventional war between the Soviets/Warsaw Pact and America/Nato was a myth by '48 thought the cold war was hot.. just fought by proxy ...

Resurrection day was a great book...

Above post .. Cuban Missile Crisis = damn good read
 
WI the Cold War had turned hot? Say that JFK had so handled the Cuban Missile Crisis so...diplomatically, shall we say. There is no nuclear war, but hostilies escalate with the US invading Cuba. Russia responds by taking down America's closest ally, Britain. This is about as far as I've got. I'm kind stuck at the US fighting a 2-front war. If you have any ideas to add, let's hear 'em!

First west Berlin would be invaded, countries like Greece, Iran and turkey are the ones that could easely follow. One of the first things the US feared, should fighting begin, was an invasion of west Berlin. Should WW3 had happened, europe would have been involved for sure, unlike stupid novel where they stay out and us bombers unopposed.
Invasion of england is unlikely, with naval supplies being exposed but an invasion of Norway probably is.
In an invasion of Cuba, there would be significant losses in bombers and other aircrafts to S-75 missiles(offically deployed in the SU as early as May 1st 1957), far easier so than shooting down U-2 planes.
That there where missiles on Cuba able to intercept an U-2 aircraft is what finally convinced the US that a bomber attack on the missile bases, which had 144 S-75s, wouldn´t play out too well.
 
Last edited:
Top