Who would win in a Cold War nuclear exchange over Cuban missile crisis?

Loring Air Force Base, had four Nike Batteries, at Caswell, Caribou, Connor and Limestone in the far NE corner of the State.

Dow had Bomarc in the center/east.

RCAF Station La Macaza had Bomarc, but that was far off, NW of Montreal

Then the ADC and RCAF interceptor squadrons

During the CMC, I don't think you would have had much to worry about with Sov bombers
 
All valid points; if Loring were to be hit, it might well be an ICBM in order to catch aircraft on the ground. The Cuban Missile War timeline has either Loring or Bangor (Dow AFB) attacked by a bomber, one of the few successful attacks by aircraft, depending on which version you go by. But, it's not the 1980's when the Soviets could spare weapons to attack many bases--at this time, they had perhaps 25-30 ICBMs and something on the order of 100 bombers capable of hitting the American mainland.
 
All valid points; if Loring were to be hit, it might well be an ICBM in order to catch aircraft on the ground. The Cuban Missile War timeline has either Loring or Bangor (Dow AFB) attacked by a bomber, one of the few successful attacks by aircraft, depending on which version you go by. But, it's not the 1980's when the Soviets could spare weapons to attack many bases--at this time, they had perhaps 25-30 ICBMs and something on the order of 100 bombers capable of hitting the American mainland.

The SS-6 wasn't a fast reaction missile, and the 1st gen RV the Soviets used on the two ICBMs in service, the SS-6 and SS-7 were derived from early US blunt RV shapes that bled off speed rapidly on reentry, slow enough that the Nike Batteries around Loring could have a decent shot at an intercept.
 
The US might be able to feed Europe for a time, but then what? Europe is efectively destroyed and poisoned. At the end of WWII, the US helped Europe while it rebuilt itself. That's not going to happen this time. The US might as well evacuate survivors.

Also, sending supplies to a radiation-covered Europe... good luck finding volunteers for that. Not to mention the problems of having to decontaminate everyone and their gear (and ships!) on the way back.

Radioactivity from nuclear strikes decays into insignificance after a few weeks.
A million people live in Hiroshima today FYI ...
 
The SS-6 wasn't a fast reaction missile, and the 1st gen RV the Soviets used on the two ICBMs in service, the SS-6 and SS-7 were derived from early US blunt RV shapes that bled off speed rapidly on reentry, slow enough that the Nike Batteries around Loring could have a decent shot at an intercept.

If the Soviets shoot first, the reaction time matters less. And I could be mistaken about this, but from conversation on various threads here it seems that Nike didn't have any successful ICBM warhead intercepts in tests.

But probably the ICBMs would have been used for places like DC and New York, and critical command and control centers.
 
I was just thinking...in the Cuban Missile War timeline, Kennedy waits until the mainland US is clearly under attack before releasing American strategic nukes; if, however, Kennedy was persuaded to shoot first, the vast majority of the Soviet missiles and bombers could have been caught on the ground. What would the world be like with a (mostly) undamaged America and a non-existent Soviet Union? Europe would most likely still be devastated, including England; China might or might not still be there, depending on which SIOP Kennedy ordered. It would be an even more "uni-power" world than the 2000's were.
 
The thing is if the Soviets know that they can't pull off a counter-force preemptive stike but decide to nuke the US anyway, how devastating would a counter-value strike be.
 
The U.S wins hands down, the whole crisis was started in the first place, because Khrushchev's idea to gain leverage against the U.S by putting a hedgehog down their trousers, simply because the Soviet nuclear deterrent was inferior to the U.S.

The thing is if the Soviets know that they can't pull off a counter-force preemptive strike but decide to nuke the US anyway, how devastating would a counter-value strike be.

Depends on where they are fired at and will all of them hit, it might not be the end all be all but it still would be devastating.
 
And I could be mistaken about this, but from conversation on various threads here it seems that Nike didn't have any successful ICBM warhead intercepts in tests.

Got direct hit on another Nike incoming as a target, similar in speed to the terminal approve of the SS-6 RV. They did more testing on shorter ranged missiles like Lance and Corporal
using the HE warhead, rather than the Nuclear. It was rated for incoming speeds up to Mach 4
 
During the Cuban Missile Crisis SAC dispersed bombers to alternate fields both civilian and military that were not normally used for bombers, although of course SAC bases did remain in service. Airborne alert was also increased. What this means is that the number of potential targets for the Soviets multiplied significantly. Given the reality that there were a small number of Soviet ICBMs available to strike the USA, even though an ICBM strike against someplace like Loring would catch more aircraft, weapons, and personnel than a bomber strike (if it got through), by the time the crisis goes nuclear most of the known SAC bases like Loring would have sent a large numbers of assets elsewhere. There is no way Soviet intel is going to be able to know in real time which bases are empty or where the dispersal bases are so they could retarget ICBMs.When you have lots of ICBMs/SLBMs to throw around, its not a problem. In this scenario you don't have many of these so you need to hit targets like DC, Omaha (SAC HQ), Norfolk etc that represent major nodes that don't move.
 
In this scenario you don't have many of these so you need to hit targets like DC, Omaha (SAC HQ), Norfolk etc that represent major nodes that don't move.

Omaha and Norfolk is out of SS-6 range, and at the ragged edge of range for the SS-7 Mod1 deployed during the CMC, not all deployed missiles could reach.
 
I don't think "hands down" would be an appropriate term. More like "Pyrrhic victory."

No, that's not really correct either.

I really don't see any Soviet Bombers getting past the southern Canadian Border, then all depends how and when the CMC goes hot, like General Powers ignoring JFK and ordering an Alpha Strike to where not a single US city is hit, to worst case, a Soviet launch on Oct 26 when they detect the launches from Vandenberg, and launch all their SS-6 and 7s as the get fueled
 
I don't think "hands down" would be an appropriate term. More like "Pyrrhic victory."

Any time you are damaged but your enemy is destroyed is a victory. Particularly when in the aftermath you retain preeminence as the globe's leading economic, political and military power. There is nothing ambiguous here; the scope of the US victory is breathtakingly total.
 
Top