The Cold War and Strategic Bombers Without ICBMs

But that's the way it's done. For the States before the ALCM there were Hound Dogs and SRAMs to "roll back" the air defences to get to the primary target and later bombers. Messy but efficient.

Yes i know that 'that's the way it's done', i simple state that in case of all out war, with all that nuclear ammunittion used, well a direct hit by an ICBM will be unnecessary, between nuclear ABC system, nuclear Sram to destroy air defense, nuclear torpedo or deep bomb for carrier and submarine we will all glow by night even if all the ICBM or bombers are destroyed
 
I agree with Shaby that "eventually" the concept of the ICBM would be proven and tested by the USA, USSR, or Britain, but this development would be far less accelerated, especially in the west but even in the USSR. One reason - possibly the only reason - the German ballistic missle program received the priority it did was because Germany lacked an effective force of strategic bombers.

The USA and Britain were fully committed to the concept of strategic bombing and had aircraft capable of carrying massive loads of conventional weapons or one large nuclear bomb over very long distances. Also by 194546, bombers such as the B-29 and soon to be introduced B-50 and B-36 could operate at speeds and altitudes that rendered them difficult to intercept even by the jets of the late 1940's, and in this scenario the German advances leading to effective SAMs would not have occurred. Possibly the USSR, with their existing interest in artillery and rocketry, coupled with the fact that they lacked a large heavy bomber force, might have followed the German path but again it is hard to believe that they would have "perfected" usable ICBMs capable of delivering nuclear weapons before the late 1970's. It is just as likely that the Russians, with the "gift" of several interned B-29s in Siberia would just follow the bomber path.

Also, while rocket-propelled ICBMs might not evolve, I see no reason that the development of cruise missles would ne retarded. The V-1 (not a Von Braunian rocket) was a jet propelled cruise missile and research and development of unmanned atmospheric cruise missles would continue, creating at least a theoretical rival to the manned strategic bomber by the early 1960's. But it was only with the introduction of GPS and sophisticated computers that trully effective cruise missles that could not easily be intercepted or shot down evolved. These are dependant on satellites in earth orbit and this takes powerful rockets. Absent German reserach it's entirely a matter of speculation as to when nations would begin launching satellites. I think it's just as likely that manned strategic bombers would remain the core of strategic nuclear power through the 20th century, becoming redundant only when effective unnmaned cruise missiles - and later - reusable unnmaned bombers were developed in the 2010-20 period.
 
1. Still even now a truly ABM efficient system is basically science-fiction,

2. unless you go for the nuclear tipped missile, that in case of massive exchange is basically a choice from a quick death to a slower death

No 1 is just plain BS.
If a decent ABM system was supposedly science-fiction, then why would a dozen or so countries worldwide be investing in it? Why would the Israeli ABM system (non-nuclear IIRC) be up and running?

It's a matter of (political) choice that decent (even non-nuclear) ABM systems haven't been around for decades in half a dozen of countries.

No 2 the Soviets/Russians don't seem to agree with, considering that they have had a (nuclear armed) ABM system operational for nearly 40 years...
 
The cruise option

In the 50s both the USSR and the US were working on long range cruise missiles to deliver nukes. Both superpowers droped the projects once the ICBM programs showed more promisse. If the ICBM programs had been delayed or canceled the Strategic Cruise Missile programs would have been continued and we sould have seen a diferent kind of missile race. As far as Bombeers go, the US had an overkill capability with bombers, so we would see pretty much the same as OTL, but the russians really put a brake on their bomber programs when Krutchev went for the Missile option, so we might have seen larger numbers of Tu95 and M4-3M, with a follow on by better designs, like the Sukhoi T4.

navvsbur.gif
 
No 1 is just plain BS.
If a decent ABM system was supposedly science-fiction, then why would a dozen or so countries worldwide be investing in it? Why would the Israeli ABM system (non-nuclear IIRC) be up and running?

Well the USA after more than two decades and some billion of dollars had a system good enough for the NK and Iran but who the Chinese can overwelm, against the URSS of the old the actual system is basically useless. The country who invest in the ABM are Japan and Israel but their need are more limited in sense of cover and menace (against ICBM the success of their system is very doubtfull) so more affordable both in tecnological and more important financial terms, the other system are version of a-a missile with dual role for containing the expense and with limited role; a truly ABM system who suddenly transorm the missiles in useless junk is out of the question now, image in the 60's unless you go for the nuclear option, ok but we go in 'the operation is a success but the patient is dead' territory.

It's a matter of (political) choice that decent (even non-nuclear) ABM systems haven't been around for decades in half a dozen of countries.

It's more a mix of political reason and that we don't have the tecnology to do that

No 2 the Soviets/Russians don't seem to agree with, considering that they have had a (nuclear armed) ABM system operational for nearly 40 years...

The system around Moscow was there for two thing, show and make impossible a decapitation strike protecting the politburo (who will be rushed on the protected bunker) long term effect of the explosion on the rest of the population i don't think that they were even considerated
 
Without ballistic missiles (and actually without development of any kind of missile technology) you are not only hurting ballistic missile programmes.

Cruise missiles also don't get developed in time. SAM-development also suffers. Furthermore you don't have spy satellites.

So both sides will have to rely on bombers, which won't be that easy to shoot down at high altitudes (less SAMs!) and will deploy more spy aircraft than in OTL.
 
Project Pluto

What about the SLAM/Project Pluto? That to me is always a very acceptable alternative to ballistic launchers. I fully agree though that you'd never hold ballistic missiles down too long, the knowledge would come through sooner or later.
 
Top