Not a Missile in Cuba

Suppose Khrushchev offers Fidel Castro all support for Cuban sovereignty short of basing nuclear missiles there. What knock-on effects could we expect?

[1] To what extent would there still be a confrontation between the US and USSR over the Soviets shipping in military supplies to shore up Castro's regime?

[2] Without an explicit nuclear war scare, might the superpowers communicate less well during future crises?

[3] Were there bullets dodged in OTL because of the Cuban Missile Crisis?

[4] What olive branches might go unoffered, or conferences unconvened, in such a scenario?

[5] How long can Khrushchev remain in power absent our TL's foreign policy humiliation?

[6] Who would replace Khrushchev in an alternate succession?

[7] Without the Crisis, what happens to Kennedy's reputation? (Of course the bigger question is whether his assassination is butterflied. Most likely, yes, but in that case the biggest difference to his reputation would be about that, not about the Crisis.)

[8] How would future American elections go? Certainly '62 would be quite different?

[9] What of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? How long might something similar take to ratify, and might the conditions be different?

[10] What might the knock-ons of nuclear testing continued at a greater rate have been?
 

trurle

Banned
Suppose Khrushchev offers Fidel Castro all support for Cuban sovereignty short of basing nuclear missiles there. What knock-on effects could we expect?

[1] To what extent would there still be a confrontation between the US and USSR over the Soviets shipping in military supplies to shore up Castro's regime?
[2] Without an explicit nuclear war scare, might the superpowers communicate less well during future crises?
[3] Were there bullets dodged in OTL because of the Cuban Missile Crisis?
[4] What olive branches might go unoffered, or conferences unconvened, in such a scenario?
[5] How long can Khrushchev remain in power absent our TL's foreign policy humiliation?
[6] Who would replace Khrushchev in an alternate succession?
[7] Without the Crisis, what happens to Kennedy's reputation? (Of course the bigger question is whether his assassination is butterflied. Most likely, yes, but in that case the biggest difference to his reputation would be about that, not about the Crisis.)
[8] How would future American elections go? Certainly '62 would be quite different?
[9] What of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty? How long might something similar take to ratify, and might the conditions be different?
[10] What might the knock-ons of nuclear testing continued at a greater rate have been?

1) Without a nuclear deterrent, confrontation would be much worse. May be (albeit only in the worst case) down to nuclear bombing of Soviet Union.
2) Reduced communications are expected. No challenge, no resolve.
3) Not really. People act up to acceptable level of risk, and the situation of era was conductive to the risks escalation.
4) Clearly no Turkey/Cuba missiles return. May be postphones strategic arms reduction treaties.
5) May be a year longer compared to OTL. Silly man always find a way to do stupid things.
6) Because the Khrusshev retirement postponement is only the year, Brezhnev takes the rule as IOTL.
7-8) No idea. Ask somebody else.
9) Treaty is likely to be delayed by 3-10 years. The date is very sensitive to events after non-happening Cuban crisis.
10) Not really much effect. There was already enough testing data at the point, and all environmental effects were large enough to not be affected (in percentage) by few years more of nuclear tests.
 
1) Without a nuclear deterrent, confrontation would be much worse. May be (albeit only in the worst case) down to nuclear bombing of Soviet Union.

I'm a little lost. The Soviet Union still has a nuclear deterrent - they may even have a few nukes in the region, assuming their subs are equipped as in OTL - they just don't have anything sitting on the sovereign territory of Cuba.

2) Reduced communications are expected. No challenge, no resolve.
3) Not really. People act up to acceptable level of risk, and the situation of era was conductive to the risks escalation.
4) Clearly no Turkey/Cuba missiles return. May be postphones strategic arms reduction treaties.

The missiles might still come out of Turkey in a couple years, though. Weren't they supposed to be nearly obsolete?

5) May be a year longer compared to OTL. Silly man always find a way to do stupid things.
6) Because the Khrusshev retirement postponement is only the year, Brezhnev takes the rule as IOTL.

I think this is worth exploring in a little more detail, but I hear you.

7-8) No idea. Ask somebody else.
9) Treaty is likely to be delayed by 3-10 years. The date is very sensitive to events after non-happening Cuban crisis.
10) Not really much effect. There was already enough testing data at the point, and all environmental effects were large enough to not be affected (in percentage) by few years more of nuclear tests.

I'm not sure how true that is. I don't think there would be any enormous or immediate effects, but for one thing Project Orion was killed by the treaty because it relied on testing smaller bombs in atmosphere.

Speaking of which....

[11] How would the superpowers' space programs diverge in this situation?
 

trurle

Banned
I'm a little lost. The Soviet Union still has a nuclear deterrent - they may even have a few nukes in the region, assuming their subs are equipped as in OTL - they just don't have anything sitting on the sovereign territory of Cuba.



The missiles might still come out of Turkey in a couple years, though. Weren't they supposed to be nearly obsolete?



I think this is worth exploring in a little more detail, but I hear you.



I'm not sure how true that is. I don't think there would be any enormous or immediate effects, but for one thing Project Orion was killed by the treaty because it relied on testing smaller bombs in atmosphere.

Speaking of which....

[11] How would the superpowers' space programs diverge in this situation?
By the time of Cuban crisis, Soviet Union had a limited number of R-7 derived ICBM. These made a very weak nuclear deterrent because of their small number and long pre-launch sequence (easy to be destroyed by 1st strike). This handicap was one of the reasons why SU has bothered about delivering rockets to Cuba at all.
As about rockets in Turkey, they were likely to be upgraded without Cuban crisis (replaced by newer rockets), not just moved away.

Well, if you ask about Orion project..it was missing connection with reality by huge margin. Amount of explosions necessary to make Orion real (something like 500 for single boost) make any ground experiments complicated, and if and when (probability of failure was 10-50% in the era) Orion launch failure happens.. random state on Earth, including political rivals, will receive all unexploded nuclear bombs as Christmas gift.
NERVA development may went a bit further compared to OTL, may be even up to a few demonstration flights though - until something like "Kosmos 954" will inevitably happen with NERVA or other flight nuclear reactor.
 
By the time of Cuban crisis, Soviet Union had a limited number of R-7 derived ICBM. These made a very weak nuclear deterrent because of their small number and long pre-launch sequence (easy to be destroyed by 1st strike). This handicap was one of the reasons why SU has bothered about delivering rockets to Cuba at all.

I'm not convinced the Kennedy administration was quite as sanguine as you are about the Soviet nuclear armament. I mean, IIRC we have JFK on the Oval Office recordings stating that it was a mistake to mention nukes in Cuba as something the United States would not accept, since it didn't matter where the missiles were based - the US was within range.

As about rockets in Turkey, they were likely to be upgraded without Cuban crisis (replaced by newer rockets), not just moved away.

Sounds about right.

Well, if you ask about Orion project..it was missing connection with reality by huge margin. Amount of explosions necessary to make Orion real (something like 500 for single boost) make any ground experiments complicated, and if and when (probability of failure was 10-50% in the era) Orion launch failure happens.. random state on Earth, including political rivals, will receive all unexploded nuclear bombs as Christmas gift.

NERVA development may went a bit further compared to OTL, may be even up to a few demonstration flights though - until something like "Kosmos 954" will inevitably happen with NERVA or other flight nuclear reactor.

I'm not sure how any of this is relevant, though. I'm just tracing cause and effect here, and Project Orion is a clear case if the test ban treaty changes. Now we're on the topic, sure, any path that makes a giant nuclear spaceship more plausible is worth exploring. But I am about taking the next step from the POD and then the step after - the treaty might change, which might change the project.

If the project has 6 or 8 more years of tests, that knowledge may have other applications down the road. Or perhaps an ongoing project would get Soviet attention, and they'd pursue their own version, or otherwise diverge from their OTL space program.

I haven't considered the science involved in maybe half a decade, so I'll set aside your technical points for the moment. But two basic thoughts: Probability of failure in the era assumes they build and launch one in that era. And as far as nuclear gifts go, launch doesn't take several orbits - if your flight path starts over an ocean the only benefactors are going to be squid.
 
The missiles might still come out of Turkey in a couple years, though. Weren't they supposed to be nearly obsolete?

Jupiter and Thor were going to be replaced with Polaris or other missiles

Italians, for example, were planning to have the refit cruiser Giuseppe Garibaldi to carry the Polaris missile.

In the UK, Thors were replaced when the UK has sufficient Blue Steel cruise missiles, until those were replaced with RN subs with Polaris.
 

trurle

Banned
I'm not sure how any of this is relevant, though. I'm just tracing cause and effect here, and Project Orion is a clear case if the test ban treaty changes. Now we're on the topic, sure, any path that makes a giant nuclear spaceship more plausible is worth exploring. But I am about taking the next step from the POD and then the step after - the treaty might change, which might change the project.

If the project has 6 or 8 more years of tests, that knowledge may have other applications down the road. Or perhaps an ongoing project would get Soviet attention, and they'd pursue their own version, or otherwise diverge from their OTL space program.

I haven't considered the science involved in maybe half a decade, so I'll set aside your technical points for the moment. But two basic thoughts: Probability of failure in the era assumes they build and launch one in that era. And as far as nuclear gifts go, launch doesn't take several orbits - if your flight path starts over an ocean the only benefactors are going to be squid.
If you need the POD leading to Project Orion implementation, full-scale nuclear war is the best candidate. After unleashing several thousands of nuclear bombs, a thousand or two more, exploded in orderly manner, are not going startle anyone any-more. Who worry about additional 5% of radioactive pollution? Just add more air filters!:p
 
If you need the POD leading to Project Orion implementation, full-scale nuclear war is the best candidate. After unleashing several thousands of nuclear bombs, a thousand or two more, exploded in orderly manner, are not going startle anyone any-more. Who worry about additional 5% of radioactive pollution? Just add more air filters!:p

I suppose I wasn't very clear before: You are the one bringing up the question of whether or not a giant nuclear spacecraft launching from the Earth's surface in this timeline.

I am trying to elicit discussion about the broader effects on the world of averting the Cuban Missile Crisis. As one small part of that, I am talking about a research program related to the space race that was cut short by the consequences of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It's about exploring what might follow from the root premise.

If you really want to keep focusing on the project and why it wouldn't have worked, well, okay. It's an interesting topic and I'd like to learn more about it. And I do appreciate that you're replying.

But if you choose to do so, I'd ask you to start providing some info that I couldn't find with a 5-minute google search. Some links maybe? That would be constructive.
 

Delta Force

Banned
The Soviets were assembling nuclear capable bombers in Cuba, so it might just become the Cuban Bomber crisis instead.
 
The Soviets were assembling nuclear capable bombers in Cuba, so it might just become the Cuban Bomber crisis instead.

I had no idea....

You know, that's probably a more strategically significant act than basing the missiles.

Well, obviously, for the purposes of this timeline the POD is Khrushchev choosing not to offer any form of local nuclear deterrent to Cuba.
 

Delta Force

Banned
I had no idea....

You know, that's probably a more strategically significant act than basing the missiles.

Well, obviously, for the purposes of this timeline the POD is Khrushchev choosing not to offer any form of local nuclear deterrent to Cuba.

They were Ilyushin Il-28 bombers. Some of the ones in Cuba were fully operational and equipped with tactical nuclear warheads by the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
 
They were Ilyushin Il-28 bombers. Some of the ones in Cuba were fully operational and equipped with tactical nuclear warheads by the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Given that Florida had ANG and USAF intercepter squadrons, and Army Nike-Hercules SAMs and USN assets in between, it's not quite the threat that IRBMs were
 
Having thought more on the subject of averting or delaying the end of atmospheric nuclear tests, it occurs to me that the environmental movement would be quite different. Ceasing such tests would probably use up a lot of the oxygen for activism, and delay the efforts or alter the focus of groups like Greenpeace.

It's also possible that a further incident like the Daigo Fukuryū Maru (when a Japanese tuna boat was hit by fallout from a test on Bikini) would take place. If airborne nuclear tests are clearly killing people you might see states eliminating testing individually under internal pressure, rather than by treaty. Although I doubt that would apply to the Soviets or Chinese quite so much, I could imagine later powers like India avoiding atmospheric tests due to public opinion.

If there wasn't an incident of people dying due to tests after the mid-'50s, and atmospheric tests occurred regularly from the '40s into the '70s, might attitudes towards the threat of nuclear fallout be much more nonchalant in this TL? Maybe the guy handing out fliers at the street corner and generally being ignored is talking about this. I can't imagine that it would last forever, though.

How would routine nuclear testing affect attitudes toward nuclear power?

Thoughts?
 
The missiles might still come out of Turkey in a couple years, though. Weren't they supposed to be nearly obsolete?

Yes, just as the Matador Cruise missiles were pulled before the Crisis, Thors and Jupiters were going, as Polaris was to take the place, in Subs, plus Italy was due to get Polaris for one of their cruisers

[11] How would the superpowers' space programs diverge in this situation?

More military launches, but don't see Apollo changing much, even if butterflies keep JFK from getting shot.
 
1) Without a nuclear deterrent, confrontation would be much worse. May be (albeit only in the worst case) down to nuclear bombing of Soviet Union.

Point of order: as far as the US is concerned, the nuclear status IOTL was no different then what you are suggesting here. We didn't know Russian nukes were already on Cuban soil and operational until after the Cold War ended.
 
Last edited:
Yes, just as the Matador Cruise missiles were pulled before the Crisis, Thors and Jupiters were going, as Polaris was to take the place, in Subs, plus Italy was due to get Polaris for one of their cruisers

More military launches, but don't see Apollo changing much, even if butterflies keep JFK from getting shot.

Thanks. Interesting.

I hadn't really intended it, but space and nukes have really taken over the thread. I can live with that. So Apollo continues as in OTL. Is there any reason to suspect the Soviet space program of the '60s will diverge from OTL? I'm terribly ignorant in this area, but my Wiki Fu suggests not.

So suppose both the US and USSR are continuing roughly their OTL space efforts through 1970 or so. Assume the Soyuz 11 disaster is butterflied away, eliminating OTL's only deaths in space.

Without a legal barrier to it, researchers in the US continue to experiment with the possibilities of nuclear pulse launches to orbit or in deep space. It's a forgettable sideline, but it exists. And because the Americans are working on it, the Soviets work on it too. If anything, this may mean atmospheric nuclear tests increase through the 1960s, rather than ceasing. The size of the average detonation might decrease, though - you don't need a city killer to throw a carbon-coated steel plate.

For the moment I think we can take at face value the unlikelihood of an actual Orion launch. Definitely for the 1960s, at any rate!

But with two superpowers exploring it, there would still be knock-on effects. If the other side were to successfully launch with a nuclear pulse drive, they could in one stroke dwarf the collective lift of dozens if not hundreds of conventional launches. Just because it would be uneconomic for the other side to actually do it doesn't mean the possibility won't be considered and factored into planning.

IIRC the US had it within its means in OTL to leave the final stages of some rocket boosters in orbit, where they and the leftover fuel in them could theoretically have been put to further use. In practice this was not pursued, and the sections were directed back down to burn up in the atmosphere. If there is a chance, however remote, that the Soviets might try to put a huge quantity of materiel into space all at once, could that change the calculus of making that decision at all?
 
Top