WI: President Eisenhowever Launches a Preemptive Strike

I remember earlier in the semester, my international relations professor claimed that Eisenhower at one point considered a preemptive strike against the Soviet Union as a lesser evil to the economic costs of a continued Cold War. I started thinking about this recently, and eventually found what seems to be the source, a 1983 Washington Post article about some then-recently declassified Pentagon documents. Specifically, this paragraph:

At that time, Eisenhower, in a memo to his secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, suggested that the United States would find security only in being able "to inflict greater loss against the enemy than he could reasonably hope to inflict on us. . . . But if the contest to maintain this relative position should have to continue indefinitely, the cost would either drive us to war--or into some form of dictatorial government. In such circumstances, we would be forced to consider whether or not our duty to future generations did not require us to initiate war at the most propitious moment we could designate."​

Around 1954, the US military started seriously considering a preemptive strike against the Soviets before they could acquire a hydrogen bomb, but in 1955 they determined that it would be impossible to knock out all of the Soviet's nukes before they could retaliate.

But what if history had taken a darker turn? What circumstances would lead Eisenhower to launch an unprovoked attack on the Soviet Union, and what would be the consequences? Would an American victory be possible, or would it result in mutually assured destruction?
 
From what I read in the 50's, the US did overestimate the amount of nuclear weapons in the soviet arsenal and a bomber gap emerged. Also given itd be 1954 while both sides would be strongly affected from what I read, it still wasn't a state of MAD as the USSR didnt have yet enough nuclear weapons to fully destroy the US so a pyrrhic American victory would've happened
 
This would DEFINITELY be seen as a crime against humanity a unprovoked attack against a world power killing millions?
 
... we would be forced to consider whether or not our duty to future generations did not require us to initiate war at the most propitious moment we could designate.

I suspect his notion of a "propitious moment" would have to include some sort of casus belli, probably over Korea or maybe Hungary or the U-2 shootdown; not just some random Tuesday when the balance of forces looked good.
 
As far as I know,american planners then significantly overestimated soviet nuclear abilities. A preemptive strike in the middle 50s would likely have seen the USA escaping any retaliation at all (nuclear speaking),though europe is likely another story.
 
All I can picture is General Buck Turgidson arguing - "If, on the other hand, we were to launch an all out and coordinated attack on all of their airfields and missile bases we'd stand a damn good chance of catching them with their pants down. Hell, we have five to superiority. We could easily assign three missiles to every target and still have a very effective reserve for any contingencies."
 
Considering that even as late as the Cuban Missile Crisis the US would have been the winner (albeit at great cost) of a nuclear exchange, an early 1950s Big One might see the US escape any damage at all
 
Top