How Bad Would Nuclear War Have Been in 1962?

Arctofire

Banned
I've been thinking about this a lot. There is, and has been from the day the Cold War started, a lot of media hyperbole about how a nuclear war would destroy civilisation as we know it. I want to actually look at the facts, and think about what would have happened if the red button had been pressed in 1962 or 1983, let's just say 1962 for this question.

Say if Vasili Arkhibov had got on a different submarine, and a nuclear torpedo had destroyed the US fleet, what actually would have happened? Surely Cuba would have been obliterated as the US would have invaded the country. But wouldn't Khrushchev and Kennedy have tried to clear things up as quickly as possible, as neither of them wanted a nuclear holocaust? If a few missiles had been fired, would the USSR and USA have fired their entire arsenal? Or would it have ended there? Would military targets be hit first, or would they aim straight for cities?

Even had there been an all out nuclear war between the USA and USSR, I don't think it would have wiped out humanity. Whilst all countries would be effected by the radiation in the atmosphere and nuclear winter, I don't think all countries would have had an strike. Some of the countries which would be safe I think would have been:


Argentina
Australia
New Zealand
Austria
Switzerland
Sweden

If a nuclear war had happened, could these six developed nations have preserved the heritage of western civilisation and in the coming decades, gradually rebuild society?
 
Honestly, if WWIII goes off in 1962, there us a high chance for few Soviet his on CONUS, while from the Rhine to Vladivostok is radioactive ruins, the USA had almost 10 times the warheads that the USSR had, and most of the Soviet weapons are all short range, very few ICBMs.

The whole reason for the Cuban gambit, after all.

Inability of the USSR to put warheads on cities in the CONUS
 

kernals12

Banned
It would be bad, but definitely not the end of human civilization. It took about 5 years for Western European nations to surpass their prewar industrial output. And it's likely that the first targets in such a war would be the other sides' nuclear arsenal, limiting subsequent destruction.
 
Last edited:
Eurasia is screwed; the US/NATO could smother the USSR/WarPac in nukes and the USSR/WarPac could smother western Europe and Asia with nukes.

However the US might cop a few dozen or over a hundred nukes, the lower number is likely survivable but the upper isn't. As for the rest, most of the rest of the world wouldn't be hit directly, although indirect effects would be massive.
 
The US gets it's hair disheveled a bit. No way we take as many as a few dozen nukes.

Western Europe gets its teeth kicked in.

The USSR/Warsaw Pact/China cease to exist.
 
Back in the day the Hudson Institute did some research on the subject. There were some distorted media wonking on that research, but I recommend taking a look at the actual HI papers.

The core conclusion is it would have been bad,but not the end of civilization.
 
It would be bad, but definitely not the end of human civilization. It took about 5 years for Western European nations to surpass their prewar industrial output. And it's likely that the first targets in such a war would be the other sides' nuclear arsenal, limiting subsequent destruction.
The USSR really was almost blind in the early warning sense in 1962 vs the USA

They had no BMEWS or beyond the Horizon radar, and a very easily interrupted command control chain for Nuclear use, decapitation was a likely outcome, the first indication that War was on, would be the USN Polaris and Regulus nukes exploding, followed by Atlas and Titan, annihilating airbases and SAM sites that could interfere with B-47 and B-52 incoming waves

The Soviets didn't have enough weapons to choose between Counterforce and Countervalue. They had a handful of ICBMs, and the choice to hit Cities vs empty Silos in Nebraska and Kansas isn't hard

Even in 1962, the USA could do both, nukes to spare

The Moscow Metro area was due to get around 1000 megatons worth of nukes
 

kernals12

Banned
The USSR really was almost blind in the early warning sense in 1962 vs the USA

They had no BMEWS or beyond the Horizon radar, and a very easily interrupted command control chain for Nuclear use, decapitation was a likely outcome, the first indication that War was on, would be the USN Polaris and Regulus nukes exploding, followed by Atlas and Titan, annihilating airbases and SAM sites that could interfere with B-47 and B-52 incoming waves

The Soviets didn't have enough weapons to choose between Counterforce and Countervalue. They had a handful of ICBMs, and the choice to hit Cities vs empty Silos in Nebraska and Kansas isn't hard

Even in 1962, the USA could do both, nukes to spare

The Moscow Metro area was due to get around 1000 megatons worth of nukes
What matters really is who fires first, and given everything you mention, it seems like it would be the Soviets.
 

Arctofire

Banned
Back in the day the Hudson Institute did some research on the subject. There were some distorted media wonking on that research, but I recommend taking a look at the actual HI papers.

The core conclusion is it would have been bad,but not the end of civilization.

Where can I find these papers?
 
The US gets it's hair disheveled a bit. No way we take as many as a few dozen nukes.

Western Europe gets its teeth kicked in.

The USSR/Warsaw Pact/China cease to exist.

I will never get why people tend to use this joking euphemistic terms in regard to war. Was the american civil war "disheveled hair"? because even 2-3 nukes into the proper place combined with the loss of europe will be vastly more damaging to it then that little spat.
 
I will never get why people tend to use this joking euphemistic terms in regard to war
Dr Strangelove
general-buck-turgedson-george-c-scott.gif

followed by
But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks
 
The US takes roughly a dozen to a few dozen hits, depending on the details. Europe and Asia, of course, glow in the dark. Civilization will easily survive (particularly in the US) but between the physical devastation, climactic impacts, and hundreds of millions dead it will be vastly poorer and worse off with so much devastation even by the time it reaches today.
 

kernals12

Banned
The US takes roughly a dozen to a few dozen hits, depending on the details. Europe and Asia, of course, glow in the dark. Civilization will easily survive (particularly in the US) but between the physical devastation, climactic impacts, and hundreds of millions dead it will be vastly poorer and worse off with so much devastation even by the time it reaches today.
There should be a way to describe the US' ability to fight in global wars with minimal damage on the home front. I call it Western Hemispheric Privilege.
 

Arctofire

Banned
The US takes roughly a dozen to a few dozen hits, depending on the details. Europe and Asia, of course, glow in the dark. Civilization will easily survive (particularly in the US) but between the physical devastation, climactic impacts, and hundreds of millions dead it will be vastly poorer and worse off with so much devastation even by the time it reaches today.

Why would the US be less affected than Europe? Isn’t the US the USSRs main target? Also, would the nukes have first gone for military targets or straight for cities?
 
Why would the US be less affected than Europe? Isn’t the US the USSRs main target?
Because the Soviet Union didn’t really have that much that could deliver nukes to the USA at that time. That’s why they tried to put short range missiles in Cuba. The Soviet Union had plenty of short range missiles that could hit Western Europe however.
 
Where can I find these papers?

Look first for a copy of Herman Kahns book 'On Thermonuclear War'. Very likely its in the library, its still necessary reading for advance military science and political science students. Kahn was a founder of the Hudson Institute and the book summarizes some of the research and Kahns personal views. A portion of the other items the HI published were in libraries but I'm unsure how much remains. Not sure how much is on line. This was stuff published back in the 1960s, and the portion for the US military was classified Secret for a long time. Best bet is to Google up the Hudson Institute and see what they have available, then check any large university libraries nearby. I remember Purdue University had some of those publications back circa 1980.
 
Last edited:
A 1962 scenario will be bloody
The USA even hit would come out as "winner" from this Conflict and still be a superpower.
Almost depopulated USSR, East block, North europa. Same goes for Japan, Korea.
Million refugee in South Europe.
China population almost halved, Mao Zedong made cynical comment about this :
“I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left. I’m not afraid of anyone.”

Doctor Strangelove was reaction to this madness of Over kill: Sarcastic Dark Humor
general-buck-turgedson-george-c-scott.gif

But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks

DUgmrLfVQAA_EB2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top