If the Cuban Missile Crisis became nuclear war, which large cities would survive?

[Deleted member 93645]

If the Cuban Missile Crisis became WW3, which large cities in NATO and the Warsaw Pact would not be struck?

Would all countries in the "first world" and "second world" collapse or is it possible that some smaller countries or regions could survive?

Could the US survive with its large size and lower population density?

For perspective, in late 1962, the US had 27,200-29,000 nukes, Soviets had 3,300-4,000 nukes, and the UK had 205-280 nukes.

Nuclear winter requires the simultaneous detonation of 100 firestorm-causing nukes (not just nuclear explosions, but they have to create a soot cloud), which would cause a decrease in global temperatures of 1°C. Most temperate regions would cool by 20°C, while the Soviet Union would cool by 35°C.

 

[Berkeley2017]

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=65071

That's a really good TL which shows the aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis -> World War III. I think Los Angeles was amongst one of the major US cities surviving, and the US survives intact as a country in the aftermath of the war. It was ruled under a military junta for the first few years and then democracy and normalcy gradually made its way back to the US in the years after. EUrope and Russia, on the other hand, collapsed into anarchy. The only part of the TL I'm skeptical is China going unscathed when the US is perfectly capable of nuking it and take out a potentially hostile Communist nation.

 

[marathag]

The only part of the TL I'm skeptical is China going unscathed when the US is perfectly capable of nuking it and take out a potentially hostile Communist nation.

I'm more skeptical, given the lack of the USSR being able to deliver bombs and Warheads to CONUS

SAC planning of the era was to blast a path thru China so B-52s could enter the USSR from the SouthEast unmolested by Chinese jets

The USA had almost ten times as many warheads as the USSR at that point

 

[Thon Taddeo]

If the Cuban Missile Crisis became WW3, which large cities in NATO and the Warsaw Pact would not be struck?

Would all countries in the "first world" and "second world" collapse or is it possible that some smaller countries or regions could survive?

Could the US survive with its large size and lower population density?

For perspective, in late 1962, the US had 27,200-29,000 nukes, Soviets had 3,300-4,000 nukes, and the UK had 205-280 nukes.

Nuclear winter requires the simultaneous detonation of 100 firestorm-causing nukes (not just nuclear explosions, but they have to create a soot cloud), which would cause a decrease in global temperatures of 1°C. Most temperate regions would cool by 20°C, while the Soviet Union would cool by 35°C.

No major Soviet city would survive. SAC planned to destroy almost every city with a population greater than 50,000.

 

[Apollo 20]

The Soviets were surprisingly weak when it came to deliverable ICBMs; most of their strategic force was bomber-delivered in large turboprop bombers. I think the odds are very good that some substantial US population centers would have survived without damage. Exactly which ones might be a matter of chance to some extent, but it is quite clear that the Soviet Union could not destroy every major US city with missiles alone.

Here's an excerpt from a study of the capabilities of each side during the Crisis:

"The Soviet Union had approximately 42 ICBMs capable of reaching the United States, no SLBMs, and a long-range bomber force of 160 Bear and Bison bombers that would have had to face a formidable U.S. – Canadian air defense system of fighter interceptors with nuclear air-to-air missiles, BOMARC and Nike Hercules surface-to-air missiles. General Gribkov stated that Khrushchev and his military advisers "knew . . . that U.S. strategic nuclear forces outnumbered ours by approximately 17 to 1 in 1962". "

https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/...an_Missile_Crisis_Nuclear_Order_of_Battle.pdf

You can draw your own conclusions from the study, but the survival of a badly damaged US doesn't seem unreasonable, though the outlook for Europe and the SU would be pretty grim.

 

[Penny for The Guy]

20-20 Hindsight Being Necessary

"If we knew then what we know now,..." about the Soviet capabilities, I could see someone like Bobby McNamara and His Band making a case for a "cost-effective" First Strike.

Of course, the US would loose (sooner) its reputation as the Galactic Good Guys. (At least, once the nuke winter sets in. -- But, hey, at least nobody would worry about excessive global warming. )

 

[Apollo 20]

"If we knew then what we know now,..." about the Soviet capabilities, I could see someone like Bobby McNamara and His Band making a case for a "cost-effective" First Strike.

Of course, the US would loose (sooner) its reputation as the Galactic Good Guys. (At least, once the nuke winter sets in. -- But, hey, at least nobody would worry about excessive global warming. )

I'd be more concerned about LeMay making that case than McNamara.

 

[marathag]

Nuclear winter requires the simultaneous detonation of 100 firestorm-causing nukes (not just nuclear explosions, but they have to create a soot cloud), which would cause a decrease in global temperatures of 1°C. Most temperate regions would cool by 20°C, while the Soviet Union would cool by 35°C.

As a scientist I want to rip the theory of nuclear winter apart, but as a human being I want to believe it. This is one of the rare instances of a genuine conflict between the demands of science and the demands of humanity. As a scientist, I judge the nuclear winter theory to be a sloppy piece of work, full of gaps and unjustified assumptions. As a human being, I hope fervently that it is right.

and

It's (nuclear winter theory) an absolutely atrocious piece of science, but I quite despair of setting the public record straight....Who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war?
--Freeman Dyson

 

[Delta Force]

I'd be more concerned about LeMay making that case than McNamara.

General LeMay called President Kennedy a traitor for not attacking the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis because he thought it was the last chance the United States would have to engage in a winnable nuclear war.

 

[Apollo 20]

General LeMay called President Kennedy a traitor for not attacking the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis because he thought it was the last chance the United States would have to engage in a winnable nuclear war.

And in one sense, with hindsight, he was probably right. Never mind that large parts of the US would be destroyed, the continent of Europe laid to waste and the Soviet Union (and probably China) obliterated. Even in a nuclear war that you "win", you lose.

 

[Lost Freeway]

In "Cuban Missile Crisis: Second Holocaust" by Robert L. O'Connel, the United States only loses Washington D.C., along with a small town in Virginia hit by a Soviet SLBM meant for Norfolk.

 

[elektro]

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=65071

That's a really good TL which shows the aftermath of Cuban Missile Crisis -> World War III. I think Los Angeles was amongst one of the major US cities surviving, and the US survives intact as a country in the aftermath of the war. It was ruled under a military junta for the first few years and then democracy and normalcy gradually made its way back to the US in the years after. EUrope and Russia, on the other hand, collapsed into anarchy. The only part of the TL I'm skeptical is China going unscathed when the US is perfectly capable of nuking it and take out a potentially hostile Communist nation.

That is a really good TL, definitely recommend it. Honestly, it's a bit of a USSR-wank (if any TL resulting in genocide of your population can be thought of as such), especially with the strategic balance the way it was at the time.

Basically, the damage to the US is going to depend on when nuclear release starts. If it's a massive US/NATO first strike, say after B-59 launches its nuclear-tipped torpedo (Amerigo's POD), then CONUS may get off almost scot-free with the vulnerability of Soviet ICBMs (liquid fueled, no silos) and the limited early-warning system.

In a staged escalation (airstrikes, invasion of Cuba, Central Europe conflict) then I would expect to see something like Amerigo's scenario, i.e. 10-20 metro areas damaged/destroyed. I think he overestimates the success of the Soviet ICBMs especially without any info on Soviet warhead reliability - there were serious issues with a number of deployed warheads (the W52 on the Sergeant SRBM basically a dud and the W47 on Polaris A1 thought to be little better). Probably also slightly underestimates the Soviet bomber success, with the Skyshield exercises showing near 100% penetration and simulated delivery by RAF Vulcans (albeit with much better ECM than Soviet bombers could rely on).

Either way Europe is devastated and the Soviets are utterly annihilated. There is a list of DGZs from the early SIOPs on nukevault that is instructive; the level of destruction planned for the Soviets is sickening.

I'm more skeptical, given the lack of the USSR being able to deliver bombs and Warheads to CONUS

SAC planning of the era was to blast a path thru China so B-52s could enter the USSR from the SouthEast unmolested by Chinese jets

The USA had almost ten times as many warheads as the USSR at that point

SIOP-63 went into effect in Aug 1962. This had a "hold" option for WARPAC and the PRC (helped along by Kennedy). In contrast, SIOP-62 was no-holds-barred and the entire Communist block would be targeted. Nice reference on the early SIOP planning: SIOP-63

That said, it's certainly possible China gets it, especially if civilian NCA is lost due to surprise attack on DC from the SS-4s in Cuba. Gen. Power appears to have been a more aggressive and less controlled version of LeMay, and that saying something!

 

[wtw]

If the Cuban Missile Crisis became WW3, which large cities in NATO and the Warsaw Pact would not be struck?

Would all countries in the "first world" and "second world" collapse or is it possible that some smaller countries or regions could survive?

Could the US survive with its large size and lower population density?

For perspective, in late 1962, the US had 27,200-29,000 nukes, Soviets had 3,300-4,000 nukes, and the UK had 205-280 nukes.

Nuclear winter requires the simultaneous detonation of 100 firestorm-causing nukes (not just nuclear explosions, but they have to create a soot cloud), which would cause a decrease in global temperatures of 1°C. Most temperate regions would cool by 20°C, while the Soviet Union would cool by 35°C.

Europe, Japan, the USSR, the Koreas and China is gone without question, I cannot see the coastal cities of the US and Canada surviving at all, and any city with a population over half a million at this time is gone, smaller cities due to distances in North America are to great to go after smaller cities.

I will say this though, all attempts will be made to save Moscow and Leningrad, if anything those might be the only cities left on the Northern Eurasian continent.

Also globally I think addition deaths due to crop failures, starvation and climate change and disease would half the population globally. Nuclear weapons and fallout in Eurasia and Northern North America would mean at least a third dead.

So my guess unless some Midwestern/Western city in the US and/or Canada gets luck most likely it will be Moscow and St. Petersberg/Leningrad.

Best bets for surviving regions though would be the stretch between San Fransisco and Portland Oregon in fact the US you might just see Oregon being the least hit area of the country, In Europe between the Swiss in bunkers and the non UK Ireland if I had to place bets because at that time Ireland was not seen as a major factor in planning, followed by much of Scandinavia and Austria, both will see lots of fallout, Austria shit tons, but if there are enough bunkers the populations will survive.

Ironically enough bombing Tibet would probably be a low priority due to distances and some reaches of Soviet Central Asia and the Caucuses. Although I do think at this time Taiwan will get hit by a few nukes as will the Philippines.

 

[okmangeez]

Europe, Japan, the USSR, the Koreas and China is gone without question, I cannot see the coastal cities of the US and Canada surviving at all, and any city with a population over half a million at this time is gone, smaller cities due to distances in North America are to great to go after smaller cities.

I will say this though, all attempts will be made to save Moscow and Leningrad, if anything those might be the only cities left on the Northern Eurasian continent.

Also globally I think addition deaths due to crop failures, starvation and climate change and disease would half the population globally. Nuclear weapons and fallout in Eurasia and Northern North America would mean at least a third dead.

So my guess unless some Midwestern/Western city in the US and/or Canada gets luck most likely it will be Moscow and St. Petersberg/Leningrad.

Best bets for surviving regions though would be the stretch between San Fransisco and Portland Oregon in fact the US you might just see Oregon being the least hit area of the country, In Europe between the Swiss in bunkers and the non UK Ireland if I had to place bets because at that time Ireland was not seen as a major factor in planning, followed by much of Scandinavia and Austria, both will see lots of fallout, Austria shit tons, but if there are enough bunkers the populations will survive.

Ironically enough bombing Tibet would probably be a low priority due to distances and some reaches of Soviet Central Asia and the Caucuses. Although I do think at this time Taiwan will get hit by a few nukes as will the Philippines.

This is pretty accurate, but I disagree with the Russian cities surviving. How the hell will the capital of the USSR and Leningrad (which has a massive naval base nearby) survive? The US has 27,000 nukes to waste the Warsaw Pact. I guarantee you that Moscow will get more than 3 nukes. Same with Leningrad.

As for the USA, I can definitely see LA, NY, DC, Seattle, Miami, Atlanta, San Francisco, Dallas, Forth Worth, Houston, Chicago, Pittsburg, and Cleveland gone.

Europe is screwed. China is screwed (eastern part of it anyways). Japan will get hit hard. Korea will be pounded. Taiwan will be intact.

 

[Deleted member 93645]

Why would China or Japan be targets? I could see coastal cities in China bombed conventionally, but the PRC did not have nukes, Japan did not have nukes, and the Soviet Union is the main threat to the west. And only long range weapons could be used on China and Japan anyway.

 

[wtw]

This is pretty accurate, but I disagree with the Russian cities surviving. How the hell will the capital of the USSR and Leningrad (which has a massive naval base nearby) survive? The US has 27,000 nukes to waste the Warsaw Pact. I guarantee you that Moscow will get more than 3 nukes. Same with Leningrad.

As for the USA, I can definitely see LA, NY, DC, Seattle, Miami, Atlanta, San Francisco, Dallas, Forth Worth, Houston, Chicago, Pittsburg, and Cleveland gone.

Europe is screwed. China is screwed (eastern part of it anyways). Japan will get hit hard. Korea will be pounded. Taiwan will be intact.

Historically the Russians spent most of their money and military might defending those two cities, even today there is a ring of defenses around both of them, they will fight the hardest at sea and in the air for Moscow and Leningrad. As for Taiwan I think Taipei might get hit at this time as a gesture towards China. Although you maybe right on that, Taiwan overall would be a lower priority.

I would add at this time Boston, Philidelphia, Detroit which had 2million people around that time and Milwaukee which had 1 million people, and St. Louis.

Possible surviving cities Las Vegas, Denver, some in New Mexico and Arizona and much of the Rockies, and Northern Great plains, maybe Kansas City and maybe Minneapolis- St. Paul, my guess on this, a lot of these places will receive a lot of radioactive fallout though, and on the off chance that these survived both the US and the USSR and allies where developing biological weapons in case a situation like this happened.

Understand both sides ICBM technology was crude a best and the vast majority of the nuclear weapons used would have been dropped from aircraft. The aircraft itself would of had a very high rate of destruction and shoot downs. There still would have been attempts made to keep as many bombs falling. But between one third and 50% where not expected to make it, or fail to explode or other issues with the tech. That fallout was not a guarantee to kill enough people and that biological weapons would have been used as well until all aircraft was shot down. So even if large cities survived you would have large numbers of people suffering from the combination of starvation, disease and fallout. Not a lot of people will survive.

Honestly you want to survive go to Australia and New Zealand, they are to far and to low a priority for Soviet nukes, at best Biological weapons will be used. The same for much of Africa, Southern Asia and Latin America at this time.

 

[wtw]

Why would China or Japan be targets? I could see coastal cities in China bombed conventionally, but the PRC did not have nukes, Japan did not have nukes, and the Soviet Union is the main threat to the west. And only long range weapons could be used on China and Japan anyway.

The West's ie the US's fear of communism is still very high at this time and the inability of the West to tell Soviet communism and Moaist communism apart, and add that China is the largest communist nation in the world at that time.

Japan was seen as a major Western ally and had large numbers of US military personal located in Japan sort of like how the UK and West Germany did. The USSR would not let tens of thousands of US forces and thousands of air craft and an untold number of ships be on its far Eastern coast.

 

[marathag]

Gen. Power appears to have been a more aggressive and less controlled version of LeMay, and that saying something!

from some I spoke with at SAC, he wasn't far off from Jack D. Ripper from Dr Strangelove.

That said, it was LeMay's call to have bypasses for the 1st gen. PALs

 

[marathag]

This is pretty accurate, but I disagree with the Russian cities surviving. How the hell will the capital of the USSR and Leningrad (which has a massive naval base nearby) survive? The US has 27,000 nukes to waste the Warsaw Pact. I guarantee you that Moscow will get more than 3 nukes. Same with Leningrad.

Before SIOP reduced overtargeting, Moscow metro area was targeted with near a gigatons worth of warheads&bombs, mix of ground and airbursts.

 

[Lost Freeway]

Historically the Russians spent most of their money and military might defending those two cities, even today there is a ring of defenses around both of them, they will fight the hardest at sea and in the air for Moscow and Leningrad.

Bro, do you even SIOP? Moscow and Leningrad would would targeted by multiple missiles and bombers.