A good story, but not realistic on numberSoviet hits on CONUSCuban Missile War by Amerigo Vespucci.
A good story, but not realistic on numberSoviet hits on CONUSCuban Missile War by Amerigo Vespucci.
I feel like it's worth pointing out there that if you take any of the depictions of crazed Air Force generals from circa that period seemingly pressing for nuclear war, while they've now gone down in popular history as warmongering nuts, the reason they were doing it at the time was because they were looking at exactly the kind of numbers the more conservative people in this thread are proposing in terms of strikes on the U.S.
They're looking at those and figuring that in 5 or 10 years, when the Soviets have their act together, they're going to be capable of pummeling America as bad as America can already pummel the Soviets. So if there's going to be a war, better get it over with now while most of the U.S. will survive it.
It's a madman's kind of calculus.
That and deterring the Soviets requires them to think you are going to use the bombs as they would probably lose conventionally v the Red army. US generals had read all the books on game theory and where just playing/leaking the part required knowing that the US civilians in charge would call them back?the reason they were doing it at the time was because they
Well sure there is an element of that, too, but that was the guidance they were offering Kennedy behind the scenes too, not just playing it in public.That and deterring the Soviets requires them to think you are going to use the bombs as they would probably lose conventionally v the Red army. US generals had read all the books on game theory and where just playing/leaking the part required knowing that the US civilians in charge would call them back?
Well sure there is an element of that, too, but that was the guidance they were offering Kennedy behind the scenes too, not just playing it in public.
Look at it from Curtis Lemay's perspective, to take the guy most derided. He would be old enough to remember World War I happening when he was in middle school. He had watched the events of the 1930s and was a World War II vet. Appeasement doesn't work. If you're on the military side, at least, you probably have a pretty skeptical view of diplomacy in general out of that debacle. Now you have the Soviets, another brutal revisionist power. Appeasement won't work this time either. And now there's the nasty addition of nuclear weapons to the picture.
Odds are, peace won't hold forever. Two powers the size of the U.S. and the USSR are almost certainly going to clash eventually.
The only choice in your power to make is whether to have that fight now when the odds are still in your favour, or later when the odds are more even.
Please note I'm not recommending this worldview. Events proved them wrong. That was Japan's mentality in 1941, too, and we know how well worked it out for them (i.e. it destroyed them). But at least you can understand where they were coming from.
and now many of those would it there target (are even get near there target).Soviet ICBM total was 24-44 in this era so I see few, if any, American cities hit.
The Soviet missiles, while carrying large warheads, had some pretty impressive CEPs and it cannot be emphasized too strongly that CEP means HALF of the weapons fall in that circle and the other half anywhere form a cm outside the circle to who knows where
and now many of those would it there target (are even get near there target).
The first generation Soviet RVs were copies of the earliest US prototypes. Blunt body. While that is great for returning spacecraft, it's not so good for a nuclear warhead.
Problem was it shed speed, fast- enough to drop from hypersonic down to low Mach range, into the envelope where they could be intercepted by the Nike-Hercules SAM batteries surrounding most large US metro areas at this tiem.
With the nuclear warhead, that SAM had limited ABM captability.
Next gen Soviet RV that used biconic shapes wasn't for a few years yet, that kept high speeds
I have thisThe Soviets kept around half of their missiles ready during the crisis on a rotating basis (and all of the 26 missiles they had in silos could be made launch ready within a maximum of 15 minutes), so that's a minimum of approximately 25 launches.
I have this
*snip*
the above doesn't all of ADC and ANG aircraft. 150 odd bombers getting thru vs that many fighters.....
Yes, I've seen that. It's where the 26 missiles-in-silos with a launch time of 5-15 minutes comes from (although I notice you left that bit of out).
That's why I posited a 75+% interception rates, which is extremely high. Still, it's inevitable that there'll be at least a few leakers.
Document didn't mention the lift time, just
The majority of the Soviet ICBM force during the crisis was the 36 SS-7s (R-16), 26 in silos and 10 on open launch pads
The majority of the Soviet ICBM force during the crisis was the 36 SS-7s (R16), 26 in silos and 10 on open launch pads. The SS-7 Saddler was a two-stage storable, liquid-propellant ICBM capable of delivering 3500 lb reentry vehicle to a range of 12,000 kilometers with a CEP of 1.0-1.25 nm. It was deployed in soft and hard sites. Reaction time under normal conditions was three hours for soft sites and five to fifteen minutes for hard sites.
besides what ADC and ANG (and our Canadian friends of the RCAF) would do, you still had the BOMARC and Nike batteries. Soviet bombers were on a Deathride, jumping into a woodshipper