That is the big issue with Stalin's plan. The USSR has between 120-150 nukes (the end of the year totals for 1953 and 1954), and furthermore lacks the capabilities to bomb much of the US (the Tupolev TU-4 is basically the only long-range bomber, and that couldn't reach the US). Meanwhile the US has between 1400-2100 nukes, and can use their bases in Europe to hit many Soviet cities. The Soviets' only hope is that Stalin backs down, and even then it might be too late.
Twilight of the Red Tsar
- Thread starter Napoleon IV
- Start date
-
- Tags
- dystopia stalin lives
- Status
inb4 Andrei Chikatilo gets the fire in his belly for politics, For All Time style
Like most of his time in power IOTL, Stalin is going from one disaster to another of his own making. He's messing everything up.
What about all that Fallout? Where would it go?
I don't think South Korea would like to deal with the bomb sites in northern Korea and China.
I don't think South Korea would like to deal with the bomb sites in northern Korea and China.
Stalin was a very political creature, willing to do whatever it takes to stay in power. He will back down if he believes that the destruction of the USSR is the other alternative. The key here is if he believes Eisenhower isn't bluffing. Stalin has already misjudged one grave threat before (i.e. that dictator with a toothbrush moustache).
Last edited:
IIRC the way the winds work in that area means the fallout would land in Korea and Japan. However in early 1954 the effects of nuclear fallout were poorly understood by the general public, and if the Koreans object Eisenhower will just ignore them.
When I first subscribed to this TL, I thought it was a trainwreck in slow motion.
It turns out it's a trainwreck at the speed of sound.
It turns out it's a trainwreck at the speed of sound.
Stalin's self-preservation instinct is basically the only thing that can save the USSR. Even then it's scary that the fate of the world rests in the hands of a clinically paranoid old man.
Hmm...I'm not sure I buy into the idea that Ike would use nukes. Do I think he would bluff? Absolutely. But actually use? Call me skeptical. I'm curious if you have a source discussing suggesting Eisenhower was more open to their use than whatever I have read over the years.
Richard K. Betts, Nuclear Blackmail and Nuclear Balance. He shows that Eisenhower discussed the use of weapons several times, formed several plans dealing with their use, and fought over the use of nuclear weapons with the army (which was less enthusiastic about using nukes, particularly in Korea, than Eisenhower). Most importantly the book quotes Eisenhower as saying that "We need to consider the atomic bomb as simply another weapon in our arsenal."
China ... probably. Russia, I'm not so sure. Stalin was, if anything, not a risk taker. Well, not one to take greater risks than absolutely necessary. Provoking an atomic power with strike capability against Russia's heartland (against which he can't retaliate fully) would probably be too much for him. He only ever got involved if he was guaranteed a shot at victory (either real or, as the Winter War demonstrated, perceived due to failures in intelligence and analysis). It would be severely out of character for Stalin to do anything more risky.
Now, that's no guarantee some twat in the field does something incredibly dumb, but it won't be a political decision.
If anything, Stalin's likely to exploit this opportunity to subdue China and curb the CCP's independence while making noise about capitalist atrocities. The Americans carpet nuking China is a win-win for Stalin, really.
Well, I like to people saying the same thing down the line when the whole world can be destroyed, when they say ""Atomic bomb is just another weapon."
To be fair to Eisenhower this wasn't an uncommon viewpoint at the time. The long-term effects of nuclear weapons weren't very well understood in the early '50s, the anti-nuclear movement in America was fairly small, and even the US military was okay with using nuclear weapons (as was mentioned in the update the main division between Eisenhower and his commanders wasn't if to use nuclear weapons, but where to use them).
Brosip Broz Tito
Banned
This is gonna get interesting, but if the world ends i'd assume the timeline would too, but it'll be interesting to see how this doesn't become WWIII.
Also you guys says 'Stalin was too pragmatic to escalate things' must be forgetting that ITTL he had a stroke so his personality, and reasoning skills, are probably made even worse.
Also you guys says 'Stalin was too pragmatic to escalate things' must be forgetting that ITTL he had a stroke so his personality, and reasoning skills, are probably made even worse.
Lost Freeway
Banned
The world won't end if WWIII happens now. The nuclear arsenals of America and SU haven't grown to that point.
Especially since deployable fusion bombs are light on the ground so most of the arsenal consists of fission bombs with yields in the low hundred kiloton range.
- Status