What's the population of the world if the Cuban Missile Crisis went hot?

[thevaliant]

"I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops! Uh, depending on the breaks."

 

[MKD]

False, it's over estimated. Sagan's theory was shown to be false

no worries then. Let's fire off all the missiles.

IF people think the worst we are less likely to press the button. Personally I don't want to bet on the consequences nor do I wish to find out which theory is right................

(TURGIDSON: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, the truth is not always a pleasant thing, but it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless, distinguishable post-war environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.

 

[Asp]

False, it's over estimated. Sagan's theory was shown to be false

Compare what Tambora did in 1815 with that eruption, far more particulate matter and sulfur compounds into the stratosphere that if every warhead was used in a groundburst and every city had a firestorm.

After all, a couple hundred nukes were shot off in open air tests, and no Winter. Same for WWII, all those cities burned, limited effects.

Mankind has the effect of firecrackers compared to large volcanic events.

Now from the Iceland to Germany, will be targets of the 3300 odd warheads of the USSR will be able to use, in place of the 27,000 the US was planning to dump on the USSR, Pact Nations, DPRK and China

So eliminate 75-90% of those populations within a year

The USSR, wouldn't be able t get many warheads to CONUS, as that was the driving force putting Missiles in Cuba in the first place.
Fallout would have been the problem for North America

Thank you. Beyond the exaggeration of nuclear winter here, I’m skeptical of the degree of damage most people are forecasting for the U.S. It would suck, but even with pretty much the worst case scenario like the one quoted below, the U.S. would still be far less damaged then Germany and Japan were at the end of WWII (I mean Germany lost 8% of its population and the bombing campaign literally stopped when they ran out of targets to destroy). They still recovered pretty quickly and could have done so much sooner if the harsh policies in place until about 1950 hadn’t been implemented.

The U.S. would not lose world superpower status long term, especially since their opponents would be absolutely eviscerated and India, Brazil, South Africa, etc. were so underdeveloped.

You kids and your obsession with sourcing.

Source:
Multidecadal global cooling and unprecedented ozone loss following a regional nuclear conflict

Let’s End the Peril of a Nuclear Winter

Climate Effects of a Regional Nuclear Conflict

That should get you started on where computer models have gotten us so far. Now, these models had in mind a regional war with only a couple hundred nukes. A nuclear Third World War starting in 1962 could likely count on many more than that exploding in Russia. The SAC is going to brutalize that country. Ozone loss will be severe for at least a few years in the northern hemisphere, the UV light is going to be many times more damaging than people, plants, and animals are used to. That will be paired with a dramatic drop in temperature, meaning a few severe winters, followed by generally cool years with likely much variation. Note that the cities hit by Soviet ICBM in North America will have to be evacuated for some time. According to one scenario that had America face a rather lucky break with Soviet mechanical errors in a similar situation, these are the cities below that you can count on being absolute disaster zones for some time. The United States of America will limp along, but these will be some terrible lean years. Surviving residents of the remains of the Soviet Union would still think of the American experience as luxurious, of course, since their country will be a virtual hellscape. I can't imagine that Russians will let go of a rather antipathic anti-Americanism for some time, but there may not be many left.

Washington, D.C. - Hit by three nukes, now Lake Washington.

Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado - Norad HQ hit by two missiles nearby that knocks it offline for weeks, massive wildfires but those underground survive

Omaha, Nebraska - Hit by two missiles, Offut AFB destroyed.

Syracuse, New York - SAGE Combat Center destroyed.

North Bay, Ontario - SAGE Combat Center destroyed.

Groton/New London, Connecticut - Submarine base destroyed.

Charleston, South Carolina - Charleston Navy Yard destroyed.

Norfolk, Virginia - Newport News and all military bases obliterated out to Virginia Beach by two missiles.

San Diego, California - North Island Air Station and Miramar destroyed, Camp Pendleton suffers light damage.

Tucson, Arizona - Davis-Monthan AFB destroyed, surrounding missile silos intact.

Bossier City, Louisiana - Barksdale AFB destroyed, Shreveport in flames, Louisiana Army Ammunition plant blows up.

Rapid City, South Dakota - Ellsworth AFB destroyed, missile silos intact.

Grand Forks, North Dakota - Grand Forks AFB destroyed, light damage to city.

Topeka, Kansas - Forbes AFB destroyed, massive damage to Topeka but only light damage to Lawrence.

Spokane, Washington - Fairchild AFB destroyed.

Columbus, Ohio - Lockbourne AFB destroyed along with Columbus in flames.

New York City, New York - City and Brooklyn Navy Yard destroyed, half of the city in flames, massive panic and damage as far as Newark, Statue of Liberty knocked into the sea.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - Philadelphia Naval Yard destroyed.

Colorado Springs, Colorado - Ent AFB destroyed.

Detroit, Michigan - City destroyed as far as Dearborn Heights.

San Francisco - City destroyed along with Golden Gate Bridge.

This would be a country with its industrial capacity stripped further than one can imagine possible in such a short time, and we haven't even looked at what the bombers would be capable of. Several states would see their administrative machinery obliterated, surviving governments would have to rely on militias and federal military, disorder would be rampant. Once food reserves run out and the next growing season is a wash, things could get very dicey.

This doesn’t represent the modern scientific consensus of how bad nuclear winter would actually be. See the criticism and debate section of the wiki, which I only cite for what’s in the footnotes. Science on the matter has historically suffered from often being driven by anti-nuclear activists who want to portray the worst possible scenario to get the public’s attention, a scenario that is at best very unlikely or outright impossible. It is, for example, very improbable that every nuked city will experience a firestorm (the Nagasaki detonation did not cause one, for example, and Japanese cities were made of much more flammable materials than U.S. ones in the 1960s).

Beyond that, even if your entire target list was hit it would not destroy the United States. A big majority of the industry in the U.S. and even most of the industry in the Rust Belt and Great Lakes region specifically is still untouched (losing Detroit is a blow but Cincinnati, Toledo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Rochester, Duluth, Chicago, Milwaukee, Flint, Green Bay, Buffalo, etc. survived, and that’s just scratching the surface). Obviously there’s still a ton left in the rest of the country even beyond that. It would be a severe blow, but the U.S. would still be left far less devastated than, for example, Germany was after WWII. To repeat myself, remember that the bombing campaign against them literally stopped when they ran out of targets to hit, and then the country was divided and its industry seized by the occupying powers until 1950 to boot. They still recovered by the late 1950s and could have done so maybe half a decade earlier if it hadn’t been for the punitive measures the WAllies went with in the first five years, which there will be no allegory to IATL.

Long term, considering that the Soviet Union, Europe, and possibly China are vaporized while Brazil and India (and China, if it survives) are much too underdeveloped in 1962 to take over as world leaders, this would probably make the U.S. a more dominant hyperpower rather than less.

 

[creighton]

It would be a severe blow, but the U.S. would still be left far less devastated than, for example, Germany was after WWII. To repeat myself, remember that the bombing campaign against them literally stopped when they ran out of targets to hit, and then the country was divided and its industry seized by the occupying powers until 1950 to boot. They still recovered by the late 1950s and could have done so maybe half a decade earlier if it hadn’t been for the punitive measures the WAllies went with in the first five years, which there will be no allegory to IATL.
.

There’s no Marshall Plan or rush of foreign investment coming for the US after the Cuban Missile War.

 

[Asp]

"I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops! Uh, depending on the breaks."

no worries then. Let's fire off all the missiles.

IF people think the worst we are less likely to press the button. Personally I don't want to bet on the consequences nor do I wish to find out which theory is right................

(TURGIDSON: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, the truth is not always a pleasant thing, but it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless, distinguishable post-war environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.

Some people don’t seem to understand that not believing nuclear war is necessarily the literal end of humanity does not require also thinking nuclear war isn’t a bad thing worth avoiding.

There’s no Marshall Plan or rush of foreign investment coming for the US after the Cuban Missile War.

The rush of the aid from the rest of the U.S. and the fact that everyone else in the world would have to trade with us since no one else has any industry left would mimic that. Also, history shows that even without those things it’s possible to recover. The Soviets got no aid or foreign investment and, despite suffering way worse in WWII than the U.S. did here and having an unimaginably bad economic model, still recovered in time.

Again, for the U.S. at least, it’s a very heavy blow but the vast majority of the country is still untouched.

 

[MKD]

Some people don’t seem to understand that not believing nuclear war is necessarily the literal end of humanity does not require also thinking nuclear war isn’t a bad thing worth avoiding.

Like i said i would rather not hang about to find out which hypothesis is correct. Neither are good. Even the " good " result many posters here seem to favour (and which seems oddly naive to me) results in millions killed, destruction on an unimaginable scale and the alteration of the fabric of society on which we all stand.

In any event the value in nuclear weapons is in the threat and the change to strategic thinking possession of those weapons and the threat of those weapons causes in the mind of your enemy.

 

[Barry Bull]

Like i said i would rather not hang about to find out which hypothesis is correct. Neither are good. Even the " good " result many posters here seem to favour (and which seems oddly naive to me) results in millions killed, destruction on an unimaginable scale and the alteration of the fabric of society on which we all stand.

In any event the value in nuclear weapons is in the threat and the change to strategic thinking possession of those weapons and the threat of those weapons causes in the mind of your enemy.

Actually, there are a school of strategic throught that consider nuclear warfare survivable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Kahn

Kahn argued for deterrence and believed that if the Soviet Union believed that the United States had a second strike capability then it would offer greater deterrence, which he wrote in his paper titled "The Nature and Feasibility of War and Deterrence".[6]

Whether hundreds of millions died or "merely" a few major cities were destroyed, Kahn argued, life would go on – as it had, for instance, after the Black Death in Europe during the 14th century, or in Japan after the limited nuclear attack in 1945 – contrary to the conventional, prevailing doomsday scenarios. Various outcomes might be far more horrible than anything hitherto witnessed or imagined, but some of them nonetheless could be far worse than others. No matter how calamitous the devastation, Kahn argued that the survivors ultimately would not "envy the dead" and to believe otherwise would mean that deterrence was unnecessary in the first place. If Americans were unwilling to accept the consequences, no matter how horrifying, of a nuclear exchange, then they certainly had no business proclaiming their willingness to attack. Without an unfettered, unambivalent willingness to "push the button", the entire array of preparations and military deployments was merely an elaborate bluff.

The bases of his work were systems theory and game theory as applied to economics and military strategy. Kahn argued that for deterrence to succeed, the Soviet Union had to be convinced that the United States had second-strike capability in order to leave the Politburo in no doubt that even a perfectly coordinated massive attack would guarantee a measure of retaliation that would leave them devastated as well:

At the minimum, an adequate deterrent for the United States must provide an objective basis for a Soviet calculation that would persuade them that, no matter how skillful or ingenious they were, an attack on the United States would lead to a very high risk if not certainty of large-scale destruction to Soviet civil society and military forces.[citation needed]

Superficially, this reasoning resembles the older doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) due to John von Neumann, although Kahn was one of its vocal critics. Strong conventional forces were also a key element in Kahn's strategic thinking, for he argued that the tension generated by relatively minor flashpoints worldwide could be dissipated without resort to the nuclear option.

"The unthinkable"[edit]
Due to his willingness to articulate the most brutal possibilities, Kahn came to be disliked by some, although he was known as amiable in private, especially around children.[citation needed] Unlike most strategists, he was entirely willing to posit the form a post-nuclear world might assume. Fallout, for example, would simply be another one of life's many unpleasantnesses and inconveniences, while the "much-ballyhooed" rise in birth defects would not doom mankind to extinction because a majority of survivors would remain unaffected by them. Contaminated food could be designated for consumption by the elderly, who would presumably die before the delayed onset of cancers caused by radioactivity. A degree of even modest preparation – namely, the fallout shelters, evacuation scenarios and civil defense drills now seen as emblematic of the "Cold War" – would give the population both the incentive and the encouragement to rebuild. He even recommended the government offer homeowners insurance against nuclear-bomb damage. Kahn felt that having a strong civil-defense program in place would serve as an additional deterrent, because it would hamper the other side's potential to inflict destruction and thus lessen the attraction of the nuclear option. A willingness to tolerate such possibilities, Kahn argued, might be worth sparing Europe the massive nuclear exchange more likely to occur under the pre-MAD doctrine.

A number of pacifists, including A.J. Muste and Bertrand Russell, admired and praised Kahn's work because they felt it presented a strong case for full disarmament by suggesting that nuclear war was all but unavoidable. Others criticized Kahn vehemently, claiming that his postulating the notion of a "winnable" nuclear war made such a war – whether judged subsequently as "won", "lost", or neither – more likely.

 

[MKD]

Actually, there are a school of strategic throught that consider nuclear warfare survivable.

I don't suggest nuclear war would snuff out all life instantly or that people could not survive such an outcome. The human race endures and adapts. The problem would be that society and the infrastructure supporting that society would be fractured beyond repair. The lucky ( or unlucky) survivors would live in a very different and much harder world. To rebuild even a fraction of that infrastructure in a contaminated environment, with limited numbers of labourers, few mechanical aids, patchy ( at best) electrical supplies, reduced food, limited shelter etc would be very hard.

Personally I am not against nuclear weapons. I think their existence restrains responses to situations that might otherwise spill over into combat but to suggest a nuclear war is winnable is insane. It isnt. Your smoldering heap might be smaller than their smoldering heap but you all you hold is a smoldering heap! Well done.

PS would the wifi be ok and will there still be tea? ;-)

 

[bobbobbins3]

I don't suggest nuclear war would snuff out all life instantly or that people could not survive such an outcome. The human race endures and adapts. The problem would be that society and the infrastructure supporting that society would be fractured beyond repair. The lucky ( or unlucky) survivors would live in a very different and much harder world. To rebuild even a fraction of that infrastructure in a contaminated environment, with limited numbers of labourers, few mechanical aids, patchy ( at best) electrical supplies, reduced food, limited shelter etc would be very hard.

Personally I am not against nuclear weapons. I think their existence restrains responses to situations that might otherwise spill over into combat but to suggest a nuclear war is winnable is insane. It isnt. Your smoldering heap might be smaller than their smoldering heap but you all you hold is a smoldering heap! Well done.

PS would the wifi be ok and will there still be tea? ;-)

In all honesty, however, a hot Cuban Missile Crisis may be one of the few instances in which society isn’t entirely destroyed and is still repairable. Yes, the US and NATO will take a beating both conventionally and strategically along with the obliteration of the USSR and perhaps the Warsaw Pact, but the US does have contingency plans for a post-nuclear US. Furthermore, even with nuclear winter, countries like Finland and those in South America will escape largely unscathed and will dominate regional affairs for decades. While I assume that modern trade will become almost nonexistent due to food becoming the most treasured resource, there are plenty of nations that could take up the mantle of world superpowers depending on the US’s SIOP plans and whatever the Soviets has in mind for a nuclear strike.

To further focus on the US, after the worst couple of years following the attack and once the agricultural situation stabilizes, there may be enough industrial infrastructure remaining to start limited repairs in areas not completely irradiated. Obviously major centers like Pittsburgh and Detroit will be out of action, but the Soviets can only hit so many locations given their lack of ICBMs and reliance on a bomber strike, so if some form of a central government still exists and enough power plants are still operational, then perhaps an unskilled labor force can be recruited to produce medical supplies, tools, etc.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

Personally I am not against nuclear weapons. I think their existence restrains responses to situations that might otherwise spill over into combat but to suggest a nuclear war is winnable is insane. It isnt. Your smoldering heap might be smaller than their smoldering heap but you all you hold is a smoldering heap! Well done.

There are actually a number of times where nuclear war is winnable this is in the late 50s early 60s when Soviet long-range strike capability was non existent and SACs ICBM and bomber force grievously outmatching their opponents in a nuclear war during said time period its likely CONUS can escape with virtually no damage and the only US territory attacked being Alaska

 

[Marc]

A much more serious and realistic issue is the nearly irrevocable loss of crucial infrastructure and resources and the social and economic capital of human society.
The casual assumption is that the world can rebuild a la post-WW2 in at most a generation. Well, maybe not for the handful of surviving millions in Eurasia, just that, some millions, from Ireland to Japan. But heh, the greatest good for the least number, right?
Various war game scenarios are usually presented by folk who have never seen real carnage, first hand.
Oh, and forget about nuclear winter, nuclear famine is far more likely, even in the "spared" US - those of you who know about modern agriculture can raise your hands.

 

[manitobot]

Are they self-sufficient in food production?

I believe was in the process of nearing self-sufficiency by this time. It was the tail end of the Green revolution.

 

[walmart]

I believe was in the process of nearing self-sufficiency by this time. It was the tail end of the Green revolution.

Do they rely on western fertilizer ?

 

[manitobot]

Do they rely on western fertilizer ?

Amongst other things, yes.

 

[Ace009]

It depends on the exact sequence of events that leads to the crisis going nuclear. There aren't enough nukes on the Soviet side to destroy the world in 1962, only Western Europe and some ICBMs directed at the CONUS.

If the US strikes first the Soviet Union loses the majority of its second strike capability on the ground such was the state of their nuclear capabilities in 1962. The US might optimistically lose no major cities.

In a worst case scenario the US loses about as much of their population as the Soviet Union did in WWII, upwards of 27 million and substantial damage to major cities and industry but nothing that the country can't come back from in a decade or two.

The Soviet Union will be a wasteland since SAC will keep bombing until they run out of targets to hit. Western Europe is also hit hard by short range nukes.

Latin America and Africa are fine, Asia will depend on whether the US restrains itself from smearing Red China. In 1962 the assumption was that all communists are on the same team so they're also on the hit list unless the Commander-in-Chief decides to spare them.

So it would be ugly but not the Apocalypse like a nuclear war in 1983 would be.

[insert shameless plug link here].

 

[MKD]

In all honesty, however, a hot Cuban Missile Crisis may be one of the few instances in which society isn’t entirely destroyed and is still repairable. Yes, the US and NATO will take a beating both conventionally and strategically along with the obliteration of the USSR and perhaps the Warsaw Pact, but the US does have contingency plans for a post-nuclear US. Furthermore, even with nuclear winter, countries like Finland and those in South America will escape largely unscathed and will dominate regional affairs for decades. While I assume that modern trade will become almost nonexistent due to food becoming the most treasured resource, there are plenty of nations that could take up the mantle of world superpowers depending on the US’s SIOP plans and whatever the Soviets has in mind for a nuclear strike.

To further focus on the US, after the worst couple of years following the attack and once the agricultural situation stabilizes, there may be enough industrial infrastructure remaining to start limited repairs in areas not completely irradiated. Obviously major centers like Pittsburgh and Detroit will be out of action, but the Soviets can only hit so many locations given their lack of ICBMs and reliance on a bomber strike, so if some form of a central government still exists and enough power plants are still operational, then perhaps an unskilled labor force can be recruited to produce medical supplies, tools, etc.

There are actually a number of times where nuclear war is winnable this is in the late 50s early 60s when Soviet long-range strike capability was non existent and SACs ICBM and bomber force grievously outmatching their opponents in a nuclear war during said time period its likely CONUS can escape with virtually no damage and the only US territory attacked being Alaska

I live in England. That destruction of Russia and the Warsaw pact you speak of is a smidge closer than for you guys in the USA! We haven't got lots of space to absorb damage and still produce crops. We have a large population crammed into a very small area. We are in big trouble.

I don't say ALL life is destroyed just that the remains will be so different from today ( or the 1960's) that while there will be life it will not be as we know it. It will be reminiscent of a much earlier period of human history.

 

[Michel Van]

I study this for abandon TL were Berlin Wall Crisis goes Nuclear
I used available Date in amount of Nuclear weapons and there targets sites
and estimate a "mild" Nuclear winter similar to "The year without Sommer" of 1816 (a volcanic winter caused by the massive 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora)
Follow by "Nuclear Summer" caused by damage in ozone layer as result of Nuclear War

World population in 1961 were 2 Billion.
around 400 million people would died directly in Nuclear War ( Nuclear strike, Fallout and Combat)
mostly in Europe (west and East) USSR, China, Korea and Japan, special USSR will be hit hard by US Forces with Nuclear weapon
Scandinavia will be hit hard by nuclear fallout from north Europe.
The USA would face Little to almost no damage, but...

During Nuclear winter make also allot dead by famine, diseases (that include also Bioweapons) and Combat (fighting for last scrap of Food, water, fuel)
Follow by "Nuclear Summer" were Earth is hit by hard UV light do damage in ozone layer, damaging plants and animals and humans
This result in lost of harvest, follow by more famine and more violence

World population in 1971 would be roughly around 600 millions

This only for October 1961, in October 1962 both sides had more nuclear Weapons...

 

[marathag]

Extra UV might be hard to calculate, as Ozone loss is counteracted on how long it takes for soot to wash out, took three years for Tambora's ash to diminish, and Industrial output of Europe and Russia will be a few percent of what it had been

 

[DougM]

I think sometime folks over estimate the effect of nuclear bombs. In 1962 my family lived in “Detroit”. My Dad worked in “Detroit”. It was a 32 Mile Drive from our home to my dads work. Much of the manufacturing capabilities were located a long way outside of downtown. And as far as that goes Detroit never had (in modern times) most of the manufacturing in Michigan. Flint, and Saginaw and many other small towns all had manufacturing. My home town had three significant manufacturers making train and auto and building parts and a half dozen or so smaller companies like machine shops and such. And we only had about 6000 people in town then.
Good luck taking all of that out with one or even three bombs. And even if you get All of Detroit and it’s metropolitan area an area covering around 1,000 sq miles. You still in 1962 have the rest of the state to take care of.
And that is just Michigan.
In 1982 you may wipe Detroit off the map but I think that is beyond what the USSA can do in 1962. The place is just to spread out.

I don’t know about the rest of the Cities in the US but the Detroit area is going to take a LOT of work to take out. When I was young someone overlaid a map of the city with a large nuclear explosion and it basically would have taken out the core area that at that time was being abandoned as everyone and everything that could moved into the suburbs in the early 50 to early 60s. This led to the joke about “Nuking Detroit would just result in 250 million dollars of urban renewal”.

I have often wondered if this decentralization in the Detroit are was the result of deliberate policy by the government as it sure was the best way to survive bombing.

 

[Michel Van]

DougM, your right with that argumentation

Special for USA in 61 and 62 war Scenario (not for 1983)
The Soviets had only a 50/50 Chance to hit USA with FOUR R-7 ICBMs with each a 3 megaton warhead
There Bombers would not have chance against Air defense system of Canada and USA
also there Sub have get very close to US coast, then surface to fire there nuclear missile, while US Navy is hunting them.

On the Other hand USA would drop over 100 megatons alone on Moscow (Bombers, ICBM, MRBM SRBM and SSBM)
That would not only wipe out central Moscow but also there suburbs.
Similar to Paris if Soviets nuke the NATO installation there in 1962 with only three 3 megaton bomb they annihilate the City

Ironic
this argumentation brought Nikita Khrushchev on a Bad Idea
the R&D on 100 Megaton nuclear Warhead and it ICBM the UR-500 aka Proton rocket...
Lucky Leonid Brezhnev terminated that Program once he was in power