Insurgencies suppressed with nukes

If a military situation got bad enough, however, a panicking government might go for what it had.

Well, I guess if a massive Cuban armored thrust was heading for the Angolan border and there weren't any CAS assets available for some reason, I can sort of see that happening, but it's still extremely unlikely.
 
Originally posted by ahunter951


I have my doubts. IIRC at the time there was strong anti-nuclear movement supported by the Soviets who were affraid of Western nuclear arsenal, especially missiles like Pershing 2. Soviet and Eastern Bloc propaganda was full of anti-nuke rhetorics (of course Soviet nukes were all right). Using nukes against more or less partisants would be very expensive from political POV. First, it would turn all the greens and anti-nuke activists against the Soviets; second, it would be a sign of weakness - the mighty Red Army has to use nukes against guerilla movement?
Oh, and you can not hiding using a nuke that easy. Of course you can lie, but CIA will gladly sent a few Greenpeace activists to Afghanistan so they could check themselves. And then a hell will be rised.
Pro-Soviet Afghanis will not be happy about Soviets nuking their country - many of them will defect, not necessarily openly (they stay on their posts, but start support mujahideens); all neighbours of Afghanistan (except USSR) will become nervous; in UN USA rises merry hell; all pro-Soviet peace activists are discredited; politacl costs are enormous.

Off the top of your head, what is the magic number?

What level of civilian causalities is beyond the pale and causes a PR firestorm in the world that the SU would not want to face?
 
It is not a matter of number. In 1980s nukes had a terrible PR and were seen not only as weapons against enemies, but also against nature, Mother Earth and pretty much all mankind. In this moment I'm talking only about Soviets nuking Afghanis, of course.

I still respectfully disagree with a thesis that more frequent (i.e. any) usage of nukes in 1950s would make them more "acceptable" as a mean to an end. The opposite, IMHO. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were enough to give nukes very bad name IOTL. More of them would make that extremely negative picture even worse.
I might agree that in early 1950s nukes might been used against military targets in an open conflict between states, although I still have my doubts about it. Nukes in an anti-colonial conflict... No. I already put practical reasons in my previous posts.
BTW, perhaps we could establish what we understand as "insurgency" - because people here mentioned already Korea (which was open, "conventional" conflict), hypothetical Cuban tank raid against South Africa (which would be also "conventional" conflict), civil war in China (IIRC Mao's army in late 1940s often fought conventional, open battles against KMT).
 

amphibulous

Banned
Once the resistance became significant in Afganistan in the mid 80's the Soviet forces could have considered the use of Nuc shells, or air delivered mini nuclear weapons.
Benefits would have been to deny areas of low population to mujhadeen fighters by allowing fallout (Ground burst) or Neutron type devices.

Wrong in any meaningful sense, unless you expend an unimaginable number of weapons. You'll get areas with higher radiation, yes - but not so high that Muj will instantly die if they march into them. They'll just be more likely to get cancers years later. To get tactically useful radiation "walls" that can't be simply marched around would take hundreds of bombs and you would have to repeat every few months.

And much of the fallout from all this would travel considerable distances - you'd have millions of longterm Afghan deaths.
 
It is not a matter of number. In 1980s nukes had a terrible PR and were seen not only as weapons against enemies, but also against nature, Mother Earth and pretty much all mankind. In this moment I'm talking only about Soviets nuking Afghanis, of course.

I still respectfully disagree with a thesis that more frequent (i.e. any) usage of nukes in 1950s would make them more "acceptable" as a mean to an end. The opposite, IMHO. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were enough to give nukes very bad name IOTL. More of them would make that extremely negative picture even worse.
I might agree that in early 1950s nukes might been used against military targets in an open conflict between states, although I still have my doubts about it. Nukes in an anti-colonial conflict... No. I already put practical reasons in my previous posts.
BTW, perhaps we could establish what we understand as "insurgency" - because people here mentioned already Korea (which was open, "conventional" conflict), hypothetical Cuban tank raid against South Africa (which would be also "conventional" conflict), civil war in China (IIRC Mao's army in late 1940s often fought conventional, open battles against KMT).

It was of course a leading question. Whatever reasonable number you mentioned my plan was to show that the soviets had already killed more than that OTL. In OTL the soviets purposefully tried to deprive the insurgents of a population to blend in with by depopulating the countryside. Despite this they never paid a PR cost.

Why? Because they were big and scary. Big and scary people discourage criticism.


(as I said, I don't count Reagan's support for the insurgents, because he would have done that even if the soviets for some reason had been playing with kid gloves.)
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Corbell Mark IV
In OTL the soviets purposefully tried to deprive the insurgents of a population to blend in with by depopulating the countryside. Despite this they never paid a PR cost.
Why? Because they were big and scary. Big and scary people discourage criticism.

And they managed to kill so many people without nukes. But using them would have made them VERY BAD guys in world's eyes. Even those, who usually looked at USSR through pink lenses, would have had very hard time to find a good excuse for nuking insurgents. Because nukes had a terrible PR in 1980s.
 
Top