OK, just want to put up a scenario here, no doubt there will be some factual errors but please try and ignore them and instaed go with the jist of the story, then let me know what you think happens next:

POD: in 1960, in a meeting between Mao and Khruschev, Mao needled Khruschev again and again about his peaceful co-existence policy with the west, telling him he has betrayed revolutionary Marxism. Khruschev rebukes Mao for adventurism, but takes the insult to heart and vows to prove to the world he is no coward and is the rightful leader of world communism, not Mao.

Despite the objections of the politburo, Khruschev decides to try and reform the tattered Sino-Soviet alliance, and has another meeting with Mao in 1961 in which he agrees to supply China with more tech and expertise, in return for Mao publicly recognising Moscow as the centre of world communism, and vowing that the communist world will not be split along ideological lines but hold firm in the face of imperialism. Mao makes a speech later in the year in which he refers to the USSR as "the senior socialist nation" and pledges that "we will never be split from out brothers and sister in europe and around the world". While stopping short of declaring a formal alliance, the Sino-Soviet split is clearly over and NATO has more to contend with than it did in the fifities.

Krushchev knows though, that US missile superiority will render this allinace useless if the USSR cannot strike the US mainland in the event of a war. He cannot afford a bomber force big enough to guarantee a genuine detterence but only has 2 or 3 ICBMs capable of hitting the US. So, as in real life, he goes along with his plan to deploy IRBMs on Cuba, enabling him to strike the eastern and southern parts of the US. the crisis unfolds as in real life.

Remembering Maos taunts and his pledge to stand firm in the force of percieved US aggression, in this world Khruschev refuses to recall the Soviet ships carrying missiles to Cuba, and a US warship sinks two in an engagement off cuba. the warship in turn is sunk by a Soviet submarine, and another US ship is crippled near florida by another Sub. A de facto state of war exists, but no declaration has been made. Kennedy gives a speech in which he calls Soviet actions "a declaration of war", promises that his nation will hold firm etc etc. all NATO pledges to stand against the Warsaw pact regardless of cost. As Warsaw pact forces gather outside Berlin, Kennedy is told he cannot expect Berlin and indeed Germany east of the Rhine to be held using conventional weapons in the face of Red Army tank superiority.

an invasion force is dispatched form Florida, but Soviet commanders, having beenm given permission to use tactical nuclear weapons without Kremlin clearance, detonate a small warhead over the invasion force, incinerating thousand of US marines... the world holds its breath


OK, try and tell me what happens next.

1. Does this become an all-out nuclear war immediately?

2. Is there anyway the US can win without suffering enormous loss of life on its mainland (some of the IRBM were operational).

3. Can the USSR come out on top in any way, perhaps if it dosent become an all-out nuclear war and if NATO splinters?

4. Would China become involved or stay out and hope to be top dog when the dust settles?

At the time of the Missile Crisis, we now know that there were already functional nuclear weapons in Cuba. I'm fairly certain the US had the capacity to obliterate the USSR but not the reverse, though. US would take severe damage and probably lose its status as the pre-eminent superpower, but the USSR would essentially cease to be.

At the time of the Missile Crisis, we now know that there were already functional nuclear weapons in Cuba. I'm fairly certain the US had the capacity to obliterate the USSR but not the reverse though. US would take severe damage and probably lose its status as the pre-eminent superpower, but the USSR would essentially cease to be.


not obliterate but destory to the point where it would, as a unified nation, have ceased to exist too. If the Eastern Seabaord is gone along with Texas and Florida, frankly you dont have much of a country left. the rest of the US couldnt have propped up what was left, imagine the refugees, rebuilding costs. Can you see a situation where the US could have won without taking massive damage? do you think once battlefield nukes were used Strategic ones would have followed immediately?

Your scenario has already been done...

http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Day-Brendan-DuBois/dp/0515129496/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195228356&sr=8-1

DuBoius' scenario is Florida, SoCal and DC wasted along with major strategic military bases. NYC not destroyed but irradiated and uninhabitable. US is crippled and ruled by a military dictatorship under a thinly vieled Curties Lemay character.

Russia literally bombed to the stone ages. Europe sat it out and came out on top, with the Brits, French and Germans reverting to 19th century balance of power games.

Cheers did not know that. Actually I think that outcome would probably have been the most likely.

That's actually the book I was taking my estimation of the level of damage from, alongside what I remember of a first-year 20th century international relations class. When I said "probably lose its status as the pre-eminent superpower" I should have said "been rendered Third World overnight".

Take back that last paragraph of the USSR using a nuke and I think the possibilites would be more interesting, as the decision to use the nuke would seal the USSR's fate, so what else could they have done? China's role in that post nuclear war world would be important as well, but had the USSR not used it, then it would be interesting to see how China would or would not support them at the point of the missles arriving in Cuba, because if they held Russia to be the leader of the communist world, then we might expect more action from them. Also, Cubas role in both scenarios -nuke or no nuke in Florida- should be taken into account? Is it blasted out of existance, or does Castro take advantage of the US being tangled up with a possible crisis to 'spread the revolution' to central and south american countries, if not Africa.

The Soviet Union would cease to exist after the rain of nuclear missiles. The rest of the world would follow soon after due to the effects of a nuclear winter.

Does anyone think such a war could have been fough without use of nukes at all? Say Cuba would have been invaded sucessfully but at the cost of thousands of US soliders lives and say 200,000 Cuban ones, and Berlin would have been re-taken by the Soviets (they had a large superiority in conventuional forces in Germany). How might it have played out if there were no nukes used?