Israel uses nukes in '73--does it HAVE to lead to a US-Soviet nuclear exchange?

Asami

Banned
We are all aware of the 1983 incident that would have led to a full exchange if it wasn't for one field-grade Soviet watch officer. That is what launch on warning created, the future of the human species came down to one colonel who failed to follow standing orders. That was the reality of the Cold War.

I thought Petrov's claims were dubious or challenged by other ex-Soviet officers? ._.
 
I didn't say Soviet Union anywhere in the last response. Escalation doesn't have to start with a "tactical" weapon in the Fulda Gap. The use of a weapon is all that it takes.

There were political realities that overtake common sense. The Soviets controlled their "allies" through fear. The U.S. had it's dominant position in NATO because of the Nuclear umbrella. The Soviets fail to respond in defense of their ally in the Middle east, they lose much of their fear control and make it dangerously likely that places like Cuba decide that the U.S. might not be such a bad deal after all, or makes the PRC figure that taking back some territory the Soviets stole isn't a really bad idea. The U.S. fails to respond to the Soviet response and NATO falls apart in short order, the Japanese reevaluate their mutual defense treaty with the U.S., etc.

Two problems with that. First of all, unlike in an attack on the Soviet heartland, the Soviets are not under substantial time pressure here. They can take a few days, or even longer, deciding how to respond. They can issue ultimatums and demands. They can negotiate with the United States and other interested parties. Similarly, if the USSR nukes Israel, the US can take its time deciding. There isn't the same sort of time pressure as you have when you need to decide before the warheads land.

Second, the Soviets, as far as I am aware, did not have a mutual defense treaty with the Egyptians or the Syrians. They have not put them under a nuclear umbrella, nor has the US put Israel under a nuclear umbrella. While the consequences of appearing weak are substantial, they are significantly less serious then accepting a strategic nuclear exchange, and both the US and Soviet leadership knows it.

The reality was never calm, calculated, cool leaders in total mastery of the information flow and acting without fear or emotion. The reality was scared people acting on incomplete data being told that we can't wait at least as much as they were told to hold off.

There's a very, very wide gap between the nuclear robot and someone so panicky they reflexively push the button in response to a nuclear strike on a country they don't even have a mutual defense treaty with.

The SIOP may not have been about "use 'em or lose 'em" but scenarios that were actually exercised, the reality, came out differently.

You keep saying that, but you have yet to provide sources. I have provided sources. I can provide more if you want them. I want to see some sources for this assertion.

To date I believe that the preponderance of opinion still favors his version.

The reason "preponderance of opinion" still favors his version is because the only people who still pay attention to these issues are scholars with an ideological commitment to the idea that accidental nuclear war is a serious threat. As far as I'm aware, nobody disputes the events that supposedly happened, what I would dispute is whether the Soviet Politburo would have actually launched their missiles in retaliation if he had reported it up the chain of command. Specifically, if the Soviet Union or the US really were on a launch-on-warning posture, we would all be dead, because stuff like the Petrov incident happened pretty regularly.
 
I've seen estimates for the Israeli 1973 nuclear arsenal that range from 12 to 24 weapons. For our purposes here, let's split it down the middle and assume they have 18 bombs.

There was a period of several hours on the first night of the war when communications were lost with Israeli forces on the Golan front. There was deep concern in the Israeli war room, until they finally got communications and established that the Syrians had NOT broken through.

For the sake of argument here, let's say that in the heat of battle, communications are scrambled and unclear, and the Israelis are led to believe that the Syrians HAVE broken through, and that they are about to roll down the Galilee...and this leads Israel to use their nuclear capability. For the sake of argument, let's say five weapons against the Syrians, and five against the Egyptians. Does this inevitably lead to a US-Soviet nuclear exchange, or is there a chance that Armageddon could have been avoided?

Would the USA stand aside and allow the USSR to punish Israel with a similar number of nukes detonated?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Two problems with that. First of all, unlike in an attack on the Soviet heartland, the Soviets are not under substantial time pressure here. They can take a few days, or even longer, deciding how to respond. They can issue ultimatums and demands. They can negotiate with the United States and other interested parties. Similarly, if the USSR nukes Israel, the US can take its time deciding. There isn't the same sort of time pressure as you have when you need to decide before the warheads land.

Second, the Soviets, as far as I am aware, did not have a mutual defense treaty with the Egyptians or the Syrians. They have not put them under a nuclear umbrella, nor has the US put Israel under a nuclear umbrella. While the consequences of appearing weak are substantial, they are significantly less serious then accepting a strategic nuclear exchange, and both the US and Soviet leadership knows it.



There's a very, very wide gap between the nuclear robot and someone so panicky they reflexively push the button in response to a nuclear strike on a country they don't even have a mutual defense treaty with.



You keep saying that, but you have yet to provide sources. I have provided sources. I can provide more if you want them. I want to see some sources for this assertion.



The reason "preponderance of opinion" still favors his version is because the only people who still pay attention to these issues are scholars with an ideological commitment to the idea that accidental nuclear war is a serious threat. As far as I'm aware, nobody disputes the events that supposedly happened, what I would dispute is whether the Soviet Politburo would have actually launched their missiles in retaliation if he had reported it up the chain of command. Specifically, if the Soviet Union or the US really were on a launch-on-warning posture, we would all be dead, because stuff like the Petrov incident happened pretty regularly.
Already flat out stated I do not have the cites you are requesting. When I was reading journals or essays in the early 90s I wasn't getting ready to write a book or a dissertation, and I most assuredly never even imagined I would be discussing them, or anything else for that matter, on an Internet Forum.

This being the case you can feel free to call me a liar, since I do not have reams of documents to support my position, and have no intention of going through 20+ years of old journals, magazines, and published papers to find the citations you want.

You do not want to believe that Launch on Warning was a thing or that the Soviet leadership was intensely paranoid under various leaders, especially Andropov, and particularly terrified of Ronald Reagan who they took at literal meaning of his stump speeches. Okay, although there are plenty of documents indicating otherwise.

Not going to do enough research for a Doctoral dissertation over this issue.

Not much more I can say.

I'll just go with, you win.

Enjoy the victory.
 

jahenders

Banned
In general, if Israel does use them at that point in 73, it probably only uses 2-3 and probably focused on Syria (Egypt wasn't too threatening at that time). At most, it uses 1 against Egypt as a deterrent.

Assuming that's the Israeli use, I don't see the Soviets responding with nukes. Instead, they'll rant and rave and arm/re-arm the Syrians, possibly including with nukes.

If the Russians DID decide to use a nuke on Israel, it'd be a single bomb. Assuming it's more of a show than destructive, the US/Russia avoid escalation.
 

jahenders

Banned
Pretty reasonable scenarios

There are only two possible scenarios that could trigger an israeli nuclear strike.

Option I:
In OTL The syrian arab army stopped their tank divisions just before crossing into Israel proper due to a soviet warning of an impending israeli nuclear strike.
In this timeline however, the soviets give out the warning too late and Israel uses one or two of the crude nuclear devices on the syrian tank divisions.
In retaliation, A soviet nuclear missile would be detonated over Israeli-controlled sinai and eliminate the two tank divisions in the area.
American Nuclear fleet, already on high alert due to the war would strike with a low yield nuclear device detonated over egyptian soil with casualties both of the egyptian and soviet armies.
Before the exchange gets too violent G. Secretary Brezhnev and President Nixon manage to agree on a ceasefire agreement between all warring sides.

Option II
In OTL the 2 southern tank divisions of Israel manage to block the Egyptian army attack.
In the alternate timeline those divisions are destroyed by egyptian army and they are now on direct route to Tel-aviv
In a very controversial descision, P.M Meir decides to detonate 1 nuclear device over the advancing egyptian divisions killing 2000 men.
In retaliation, the soviets detonate one nuclear device over Palmachim air base and one over mifkedet merkhav shlomo (sinai H.Q) killing about 10000 men combined, israeli sinai military infrastracture is completely destroyed.
In retaliation, the americans detonate two warheads over Tartous and Alexandria ports. casualties are 15000 soliders and civilians in egypt and additional 7800 in syria.
Again, before the world dives into a nuclear WWIII a ceasefire is reached between Nixon and Brezhnev.

P.S. First reply ever on the forums, I hope I didnt ASB this scenario too much.
 
Top