When was full-out war during the Cold War most likely?

[Elheru Aran]

OK, i'm not sure if this is the right forum, so if it isn't, pls move...

Now! You have the options available over... please consider the most likely times for war to have actually occurred between the United States/NATO and the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact. This question came to mind during my US History class, actually...

As for me, I think it would've probably been the Cuban Missile Crisis. If Khruschev hadn't seen sense and backed down, there would have been serious fuck going on.

[General Zod]

this looks like SLAM stuff. just so you know your thread title is self-contradictory, as a cold war by definition is not a full out war.

[Techno_Union]

My vote is for the Cuban Missile Crisis. The United States does not like to have missles pointed at them which could do some good damage.

[El Moose Monstero]

My cold war stuff is a little rusty, but I think the Berlin blockade, because that was probably the area where things could really go wrong in terms of direct confrontation, after that, I've always held the belief that as soon as the nukes started to come out in big numbers on both sides, the likelihood of actual nuclear war reduced to zero for the simple reason that noone would want to be held responsible for being the one to fire the first shot in a war that would annhilate large quantities of the human race, even though we always came close to activating things, I dont believe that anyone person would have been prepared to push the big red button. But I'm not an expert on the subject, and it's been 4 years since I looked at that sort of stuff.

[Keevan_Colton]

Well, I'd say Cuba, the tactical nukes and lack of direct command from the motherland combined with yankee arrogance = bad juju.

[Tribun]

Cuba crisis.

They had nearly bombed the world into stone age. Only something gone wrong, and ...WHAM.

Thankfully, nothing happend.

[General Zod]

whoopsie. misread your title, so just ignore my previous blithering. although as to when it was most likely . . .hrm. probably the cuban missile crisis by virtue of how tense the situation was between the two nations during the event, and the fact that world leaders were seriously talking using nukes.

[Keevan_Colton]

whoopsie. misread your title, so just ignore my previous blithering. although as to when it was most likely . . .hrm. probably the cuban missile crisis by virtue of how tense the situation was between the two nations during the event, and the fact that world leaders were seriously talking using nukes.

Nevermind the missiles, tactical nukes were on the gound there...if the US had went the invasion route, its likely they would have been used by the commanders on the ground irrespective of what moscow might say.

[phongn]

Krushchev was not about to allow Cuba to escalate.

Some, but not all, of the missiles emplaced in Cuba were within the engagement envelope of the Nike Hercules SAMs emplaced around most major cities in the United States. Furthermore, with continuing surveillance of the island, we probably would have been able to destroy the launch sites courtesy of Mr. B-52.

Secondly, while the United States would take some licks, she'd be in pretty good shape after the exchange. Europe, China and the Soviet Union would be badly hurting though.

How effective was the Soviet nuclear arsenal during that period?

Deployable against the United States? Virtually nil.

Their ICBM was the R-7, a missile that had a detectable reaction time of 20 hours (the detection bit was in the hands of the U-2 and some other assets). By 1961, the R-7 force had grown enormously from its initila deployment level in 1959. By the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis there were no fewer than six R-7s in service. The follow-on to the R-7 didn't enter service until after the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Soviet bomber force had also changed dramatically since its early days in the 1950s. The most effective weapon the Russian Air Force had was the Tu-95M/Kh-20 combination. There were 15 of these in service by the time Cuba boiled. Unfortunately, they'd have to fly through the NORAD air defense system for two hours before getting to a release point. There were also 25 free-fall Tu-95 bombers and 50 Myaschiev bombers but they were regarded as beinge asy meat for fighters and the Myaschievs were already being relegated to tanker work.

The Russians didn't have any seaborne ballistic nukes; the subs were so unreliable the missiles had explosive warheads. The cruise-missile carrying subs didn't have the range to get over the atlantic; they were tasked against European targets only. The Russians were so desperate they seriously planned nuclear delivery by firing nuclear tipped torpedoes into US ports.

By way of comparison, the US had 1 heavy bomb wing with 45 B-52 aircraft, two with 30 B-52s each and eight with 15 B-52s each, 22 Heavy Strategic Wings with 15 B-52s each and three heavy aerospace wings with a total of 75 B-52s (for a total of 630 B-52s with 547 Hound Dog missiles) 17 medium bomb wings with 45 B-47s each and 3 medium aerospace wings also with 45 B-47s each (for a total of 900 B-47s) to which we should also add 144 Atlas ICBMs, 62 Titan 1s and 20 Minutemen

We shouldn't forget the Navy of course; they brought 144 dedicated carrier-based nuclear strike aircraft and four SSBNs with 64 missiles to the party.

By my maths that gives the US a total of 1,674 nuclear strike aircraft and 290 missiles against 100 Soviet bombers and six missiles.

As for escalation in the Cold War, I don't think any of the above scenarios listed would have resulted in World War III.

[Axis Kast]

You're positive the Nikes would have made good interceptors, Phongn?

The Soviets, by the way, had something close to 40,000 combat troops on Cuba during the crisis - with tactical nuclear weapons to repulse a U.S. landing...

[Sea Skimmer]

Well, I'd say Cuba, the tactical nukes and lack of direct command from the motherland combined with yankee arrogance = bad juju.

The Soviet commanders in Cuba and afloat did not have authorization or the codes to use nuclear weapons at any point during the crisis. If it had come to a shooting war, the US would have utterly crushed the island and the Soviets wouldn't have been able to do jack shit about it. Given the hugely overwhelming disparity of strategic nuclear firepower in the US's favor its is extremely unlikely the Soviets (who would be busy with a certain coup) would have launched a wider war.

Some, but not all, of the missiles emplaced in Cuba were within the engagement envelope of the Nike Hercules SAMs emplaced around most major cities in the United States. Furthermore, with continuing surveillance of the island, we probably would have been able to destroy the launch sites courtesy of Mr. B-52.

We'd have used fighter-bombers, enough where in position to fly 2000 sorties a day and they could react just as fast as SAC with conventional or nuclear weapons. Something like a flight of tactical aircraft was assigned to hit every individual missile launcher, plus more planes to hit support equipment and stored fuel and missiles, just in the first wave.

As I recall nuclear armed Nike Hercules batteries where also within range of many of the missile launchers as well, and could have struck them in SSM mode.

[Sea Skimmer]

You're positive the Nikes would have made good interceptors, Phongn?

When you have a 40-kiloton warhead, you don't need to get very close, and Nike Hercules made interceptions against ballistic missiles using only its conventional warhead.

The Soviets, by the way, had something close to 40,000 combat troops on Cuba during the crisis - with tactical nuclear weapons to repulse a U.S. landing...

Only 14,000 of the Soviet troops in Cuba where actual ground troops, organized into four reinforced motor rifle regiments. The other 28,000 men where support troops of various forms for the naval and air force deployments and of course the crews and engineers of the nuclear missiles. They and the Cuban army would be no match for the 150,000 man invasion force the US was going to put ashore and airdrop, with even more manpower at the ready to provide follow on and occupation forces.

The twelve FROG missiles where a threat, but authority and the codes to use them could only come from Moscow, and Moscow isn't going to risk its own obliteration over a failed bluff. The FROG firing units wouldn't have had a very good chance of getting authorization to launch in time to make use of it anyway, intercontinental radio communication in the early 60's wasn't something you could have on the back of your APC. It was more the multiple truck and long setup time sort of thing.

The FROG units also never left the port they where unloaded at as I recall, I don't think they where ever ready for action, and would have been easily destroyed until they did disperse.

[phongn]

When you have a 40-kiloton warhead, you don't need to get very close, and Nike Hercules made interceptions against ballistic missiles using only its conventional warhead.

IIRC, they even had a Hercules intercept another one in one test. But yes, a 40 kT warhead means you don't have to be incredibly accurate.

As for SSM mode, I'm not sure how accurate it was or what its range was.

[Patrick Degan]

I'd say the Cuba crisis was the potential flash-point. While Phongn is quite right about Khruchev's unwillingness to allow escalation, the potential for an accident to unleash hell was still quite high. Given the balance of nuclear forces as existed then, the United States would probably not have suffered anywhere near as badly as the Soviet Union would have in a nuclear exchange, but it would still have been a disaster by any standpoint.

[phongn]

While it was the closest we've been to complete nuclear war, I'm still not certain whether it would escalate. Neither side would seem to be willing to escalate after relative minor incidents -- both sides knew the consequences all too well.

A minor quibble: it is possible (thought a bit unlikely) that the US could have actually survived unscathed. There are a lot of factors, but SAC might be able to take out the Soviet R-7s on the pad (liquid-fueled rockets have a long reaction tmie), TAC should be able to hit all of the Cuban-based missiles and NORAD might well be able to knock down all the bombers. As for the Soviet navy, well, they aren't surviving the USN to get into launch range.

[Guardsman Bass]

I would actually say the Korean war- although the number of nuclear weapons were limited, MaCArthur wanted to invade newly Communist China, which probably would have forced the Soviet's hand and turned the Cold War "hot."

As for the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Kennedy Administration actually took steps to prevent the Soviets from feeling isolated and doing something "rash;" that's why he blockaded Cuba rather than invading it.

[phongn]

I would actually say the Korean war- although the number of nuclear weapons were limited, MaCArthur wanted to invade newly Communist China, which probably would have forced the Soviet's hand and turned the Cold War "hot."

That would force escalation of the war into a much larger battle ... which was why Truman refused to allow nuclear release.

As for the correlation of forces in 1953...

Balance of Power - 1953 There have been many debates about what would have happened if the US and China hadn't negotiated an end to the Korean War in 1953. Lets look at the balance of strategic power at that time to put the situation in context.

United States - Offensive

6 Heavy Bomb Wings with 185 B-36
4 Heavy Strategic Wings with 137 RB-36
7 Medium Bomb Wings with 329 B-47
4 Medium Strategic Wings with 99 RB-47
3 Medium Bomb Wings with 138 B-50
5 Medium Bomb Wings with 110 B-29
1 Medium Strategic wing with 38 RB-50 and 8 RB-29
5 Strategic Fighter Wings with 235 F-84G
20 Medium Air Refuelling Squadrons with 359 KC-97
8 Medium Air Refuelling Squadrons with 143 KB-29

Total stock of nuclear weapons - approximately 1,200 all fission devices

Its often assumed that the "strategic fighters" were intended to escort the B-36s. This isn't quite true. They were intended to "escort" them but in the sense of using nuclear weapons to blast a hole in the outer shell of the Soviet defenses. It was assumed that once the bombers were through the outer crust they could go more or less where they wanted.

United States - Defensive

600 F-86D, 37 F-89B, 31 F-89C, 109 F-94A, 356 F-94B. Large numbers of old piston engined fighters including F-47N and F-51D and H in the Air National Guard. Five Nike-Ajax battalions were formed but would not be operational until mid-1954.

Soviet Union - Offensive

1 Long Range Aviation Corps with 100 Tu-4A
18 Long Range Aviation Regiments with 1,100 Tu-4

The Tu-4A desigantion indicated that these aircraft were the only ones that were atmomic-weapons capable. At least some of these aircraft were configured to act as tankers. The Soviet Union had a stockpile of around 30 nuclear weapons in 1953, all fission devices.

Soviet Union - Defensive

Details are very unclear and contradictory but it appears that there were a mixture of around 1,000 fighters including MiG-15s and MiG-17s, Yak-23s and La-15s as jetfighters and La-11 piston-engined fighters.

A few things pop out of the pageon this. One is that the war is still largely a conventional one - the US has a ferocious atomic arsenal for its first blow but therafter bombing would be largely conventional. The Soviet Union has virtually no nuclear strike capability in terms of reaching the US.

At this time, CONAD is a pale shadow of what it will be later in the decade as NORAD. There is no computerized IADS and the early warning radars in Canada are limited to the Pine Tree Line. The Mid-Canada Line and Distant Early Warning Line are nonexistant.

However, Tu-4s were inferior in performance compared to the B-29 which they were based on and the experience of B-29s over Korea will probably be repeated by Tu-4s over North America. Some may well break through to reach their targets, however.

On the American offensive side, the B-36 cannot be intercepted. The other aircraft are more vulnerable (slower, lower-flying, shorter-ranged).

[Axis Kast]

This is almost certainly a silly question brought on by my ignorance of current missile technology, but why isn't the Nike still an option for use in an SDI?

And you're absolutely positive about all nuclear weapons on Cuba having been unassembled, Sea Skimmer?

[phongn]

This is almost certainly a silly question brought on by my ignorance of current missile technology, but why isn't the Nike still an option for use in an SDI?

It is an option. However, there is the slight problem that high-altitude nuclear blasts would fry anything not hardened on the ground and kill every satellite within a decent radius. Also, it is rather old technology by now and the people who made it (Bell Labs) are no longer in the defense business.

Nike lives on in a manner speaking, however -- Aegis is partially descended from it.

And you're absolutely positive about all nuclear weapons on Cuba having been unassembled, Sea Skimmer?

Even if they weren't, TAC probably could have swamped it from the sheer number of aircraft available.

[Vympel]

Nike lives on in a manner speaking, however -- Aegis is partially descended from it.

How so? What's the similarity? They seem to be as dissimilar as you could possibly get.

[phongn]

Nike lives on in a manner speaking, however -- Aegis is partially descended from it.

How so? What's the similarity? They seem to be as dissimilar as you could possibly get.

The third post by "Stuart" on the BadAstronomy forum has some notes on how Aegis relates to Nike. It's not a textual source, granted, but he's usually right on air-defense systems (when I can confirm it, anyways), so take it as you will.