NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I haven't seen it before anyways. The question is basically this. What if the USSR had managed to place nuclear missiles in Cuba? Let's say, by some fluke, it remains secret, at least until they're there. Now, from what I understand, the USSR didn't have any missiles capable of reaching the US.

But with them in Cuba, how would the Cold War have transpired differently?

Well, I haven't seen it before anyways. The question is basically this. What if the USSR had managed to place nuclear missiles in Cuba? Let's say, by some fluke, it remains secret, at least until they're there. Now, from what I understand, the USSR didn't have any missiles capable of reaching the US.

But with them in Cuba, how would the Cold War have transpired differently?

States in south america would probobly back Russia.
America would still win due to the USSR collapse

States in south america would probobly back Russia.
America would still win due to the USSR collapse

Hmm. Personally, I think that with those missiles in place, USSR would have been more active, perhaps forcibly expanding farther. But as I can't think of any reason it would make them pull out of Afghanistan and stop bankrupting themselves, you're probably right.

Still, the forcible expansion on other fronts might be enough to radically reshape the way the world is today. Perhaps more communist governments still in power.

Well, I haven't seen it before anyways. The question is basically this. What if the USSR had managed to place nuclear missiles in Cuba? Let's say, by some fluke, it remains secret, at least until they're there. Now, from what I understand, the USSR didn't have any missiles capable of reaching the US.

But with them in Cuba, how would the Cold War have transpired differently?

They had nuclear warheards on Cuba. Missiles too.

They had nuclear warheards on Cuba. Missiles too.

Really? *blink* Great, now I feel like an uneducated idiot. But, since I have already revealed my idiocy, no harm in asking, what happened to them? Did the Russians take them back or something?

Well, I haven't seen it before anyways. The question is basically this. What if the USSR had managed to place nuclear missiles in Cuba? Let's say, by some fluke, it remains secret, at least until they're there. Now, from what I understand, the USSR didn't have any missiles capable of reaching the US.

But with them in Cuba, how would the Cold War have transpired differently?

From the very early days the USSR had nukes capable of reaching the USA - don't let your flat maps fool you, the two nations were very close together, both in terms of going over the Arctic or the Pacific. In fact, I'm pretty sure that at least half of the USA is closer to Russia then Cuba.

Anyway, nothing much would change. MAD would hold true. Even at that time the USSR was sleepwalking towards its destruction, the last opurtunity the Soyuz Sovetski had to save itself was lost when Leon Trotsky was exiled.

Really? *blink* Great, now I feel like an uneducated idiot. But, since I have already revealed my idiocy, no harm in asking, what happened to them? Did the Russians take them back or something?

Two thirds down the page.

Link (http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_11/cubanmissile.asp)


Several former decision-makers met October 12 during the conference in Havana to discuss the role of nuclear weapons in the crisis and the extent of nuclear danger on October 27, the day before Kennedy and Khrushchev agreed to a deal whereby the Soviets agreed to remove the missiles in Cuba; the United States pledged publicly not to invade Cuba; and, in a secret agreement, the United States pledged to remove NATO missiles from Turkey. The conversation was remarkable for its candor regarding how poorly the Americans and Soviets had thought through their actions that led to the crisis.

Participants in the following excerpts from the Havana conversation are Robert McNamara, President Kennedy’s secretary of defense; Georgy M. Kornienko, former first deputy foreign minister of the U.S.S.R.; and Nikolai S. Leonov, who was chief of the KGB’s Department of Cuban Affairs for 30 years. McNamara and Kornienko had met once, in 1991; Leonov and McNamara had never met.

.....
Tactical Nuclear Weapons

McNamara: Why did the Soviet Union deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba? Here at the Havana conference, General [Anatoly] Gribkov said yesterday that the tactical weapons were only for deterrence. But how could they have been for deterrence when we didn’t even know they were on the island?

Kornienko: This is exactly the problem. They were planning on announcing about the placement of nuclear weapons in November. Then of course, it would not be secret. Then, and only then, could the tactical nuclear weapons deter the U.S. from taking military action against Cuba. In other words, if the Americans discovered the missiles before they became operational and before Khrushchev could make his big announcement, he would be in trouble.

McNamara: I understand that General [Issa] Pliyev initially had the authority to use the tactical nuclear weapons, but that authority was withdrawn on October 27. Tell me, do you believe Pliyev would have used tactical nuclear weapons in the event of an American invasion, even though Moscow had rescinded permission to do so?

Kornienko: It is of course impossible to say with any degree of certainty. But under very difficult circumstances—via your massive planned invasion of Cuba—it is not out of the question that he would have felt it was his duty to give his troops all the weapons he had at his disposal, including the tactical nuclear weapons.

Leonov: I had an opportunity to talk with the commander of coastal defense, which also had tactical nuclear weapons. He said, if he didn’t have orders from Moscow, but if he was in danger of being destroyed by American paratroopers, then of course he would not let his weapons be destroyed. He said of course we all would have died, but that is the way any commander would have responded.

McNamara: Exactly!

(My emphasis.)

The warheads were not stored in the same place as the missiles. Pliyev didn't want to risk moving them from their secret hideout due to the increased U-2 flyovers. The Americans didn't know about them yet. In fact, no one knew until 1992 I think.

Really? *blink* Great, now I feel like an uneducated idiot. But, since I have already revealed my idiocy, no harm in asking, what happened to them? Did the Russians take them back or something?

Yep, they sure did. And a few months later we removed our tac-nuke missiles from Turkey. And just a note - the Russian "missiles" that sparked the whole to do were FROG-7 artillery rockets, with a very limited range that hardly threatened the US....

Yep, they sure did. And a few months later we removed our tac-nuke missiles from Turkey. And just a note - the Russian "missiles" that sparked the whole to do were FROG-7 artillery rockets, with a very limited range that hardly threatened the US....

True. Wasn't known at the time though. They would be comparable to modern 'battlefield nukes'.

And the Jupiter missiles in Turkey were ironically obsolete, and due for removal about 6-9 months previously. Soviets didn't know this. Kennedy lost nothing but a bit of public face to the Rep. and Nixon.

From the very early days the USSR had nukes capable of reaching the USA - don't let your flat maps fool you, the two nations were very close together, both in terms of going over the Arctic or the Pacific. In fact, I'm pretty sure that at least half of the USA is closer to Russia then Cuba.

I make the distance from the USA to Cuba to be about 100 miles, but the width of the Bering Straits to be only about 70. Make of that what you will.

I make the distance from the USA to Cuba to be about 100 miles, but the width of the Bering Straits to be only about 70. Make of that what you will.

I'm sure using the whole 'North Pole' thing, it was quietly forgotten that Canada is in the way....

Poor, poor Canucks.

I make the distance from the USA to Cuba to be about 100 miles, but the width of the Bering Straits to be only about 70. Make of that what you will.

Aye, but which would have more effect if it was nuked, Alaska or Florida?

Well, Florida was probably more expendable...;)

Aye, but which would have more effect if it was nuked, Alaska or Florida?

Hmmm. Golden Girls or Northern Exposure? I say waste the panhandle.