If push had come to shove, could the Soviets have actually launched a nuclear attack on the US from Cuba?I recently read an Order of Battle document on the crisis and while around 36 R-12 missiles and 24 launchers had arrived in-country, only six launchers were actually operational, the rest were still in the process of unloading and reassembly. Seems to me like the proposed conventional preemptive strike or Operation Ortsac might've actually succeeded at least locally.Here's the document if anyone's interested.https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/event/2012_10_24_Norris_Cuban_Missile_Crisis_Nuclear_Order_of_Battle.pdf
>>64523299I mean they COULD have done it.However the result would be them getting ass raped by the Americans because nuclear war was actually completely winnable for the US up untill the end of the 60s
>>6452334167-74 was the dicey period, after that real rot set into readiness. By the time Chernobyl happened it was missiles with rust holes.
>>64523365addendum:In terms of Vietnam, it was decided it was never going to be nuclear on day 1 of open bombing in the north (kinda still, yes, but actually).The soviets didn't care that much and the Chinese won't bleed anywhere but defending the homeland. At most they'll send the undesirables.
>>64523299Just remember, this guy voted for everyone to live : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov
>>64525057>On returning to the Soviet Union, many crew members were reprimanded. One admiral told them: "It would have been better if you'd gone down with your ship." Arkhipov’s wife Olga later said he rarely spoke of the events, feeling that their ordeal had not been appreciated.[14] Each captain submitted a report to Marshal Andrei Grechko, who was substituting for the defense minister.Zigger moment
>>64526168They're right though
>>64523368>and the Chinese won't bleed anywhere but defending the homelandWhat is North Korea
>>64523341>completely winnable for the USStill is. Unless there's a nuclear apocalypse after all nukes are fired US would steamroll anyone who pulled such move. I'd argue they might even calculate it's beneficial to do limited precision strikes on adversary to disable their military, while preserving livable environment and all enemy natural resources and then just take over.Basically anyone willing to go against US, would have to go for Samson option. Otherwise US would simply destroy them conventionally. Put all adversary population into camps shoveling away contaminated soil and rebuild stripping adversary land dry. Or just colonize adversary land being professional colonizers they are.
>>64530804Given how much they sperg out at Ukrainian civilians for not bending over and spreading their anuses, I think it's safe to say any Russian-American nuclear exchange would be the Russians simply firing off every warhead they have at major US/EU cities in a final act of murderous rage
Did the Soviets simply want to be on equal terms with the United States when it came to deploying intermediate-range missiles to their frontline allies?
>>64533007Well actually, yes. The reason they put missiles in Cuba is because the US put missiles in Turkey first. The conclusion of the Cuban Missile Crisis was a mutual withdrawal of missiles.
>>64532889Why does no one ever acknowledge that China and Russia have had nukes pointed at each other since the Maoist era?Is it just ignorance? Burger education?
>>64530804these days US seems to be very weak internal politics wise. Even if they were attacked directly today I doubt it would amount to more then an excuse to accuse the other party of X, instead of unity
>>64533085You kinda saw this with 9/11 even. Within days, you had Jerry Falwell on TV screaming about how abortionists brought it upon America rather than you know, Muslim terrorists
>>64526168>gone down with the shipSo either those ziggers wanted the ship to be sunk, or they wanted him to start a war which the US WOULD utterly dominate, the US had 27 THOUSAND nuclear weapons while the Soviets barely had 3500. A US first strike would make zigger DNA even rarer in the human genome than Neanderthals, that's how utterly complete Total Zigger Death would be.
>>64523299>only six launchers were actually operationalWell, there's your answer.
>>64523299Why exactly was cuba even such a big deal? I get that the flight time of the missiles would have been very short, but does that even matter in a MAD scenario?
>>64535096IIRC the fear was a decapitation strike. Remember, it's the 1960s and a lot of the launch detection tech is still getting the kinks worked out - you don't want to end the world because a bunch of red balloons got too close to a NORAD site, so you have to wait to give the launch order until more data has come in. Sites in Cuba might've been close enough that the US wouldn't have time to properly vet a launch detection before the sun dawns again over somewhere important.
>>64535070We don't call it a death cult for nothing, anonovich.
>>64535070>A US first strike would make zigger DNA even rarer in the human genome than Neanderthals, that's how utterly complete Total Zigger Death would be.
>>64535133It's not just detection - you also have the issue of reaction time - for a short range missile you only have minutes from launch until arrival during which you have to try and issue launch orders, deliver them to your own missile sites and prepare the missiles for launch. That's not really feasible to do even today, although nowadays we have other failsafes for that purpose which make such an attack less potentially debilitating.
>>64530804>>64523341A lot of muricans seem to have the idea they can "win" a nuclear war, and the long paragraphs they post always seem to leave out the effects of hundreds or thousands of nuclear warheads exploding over American cities.
>>64536644>hundreds or thousands of nuclear warheads exploding over American cities.Preventing this is what winning a nuclear war is about, retardo mc brownson.
The US also could feasibly launch a nuclear attack on Moscow from Turkey. The whole point of the nukes under your enemy's nose was to dissuade conflict, it was never a viable strategy to "win" a nuclear conflict.
>>64536644>hundreds or thousands of nuclear warheadsThe US Outspends Russia/China on maintaining its nuclear arsenal by a longshot. Worst case the US would have to face a 250-500 warhead scenario with the most likely scenario being 50-100 warheads max reaching the US. That's assuming China manages to launch ALL 600 nukes at the US and doesn't trigger North Korea to flatten Beijing. I'd imagine Russia has less than 300 operational nukes left and they'd get nuked in retaliation by France for sure.
>>64536654>Preventing itYou should actually read a nuclear policy white paper from RAND or the DoD. Counterforce/decapitation strike was already dismissed as fiction DECADES ago.>You can't actually locate most modern ICBMs because they're stored in redundant silos, truck based ICBMs, nuclear submarines and so on. It is very deliberate that nuclear warheads are distributed both geographically and across delivery platforms.>It is VERY TRIVIAL to design a failsafe system to trigger a second strike, all nuclear countries have one>The boost or midcourse phase interception needed to counter MIRV ICBMs would require far more money than it's equal nuclear arsensal, no country on earth has a workable national ballistic defense >If you work out the math, decreasing the distance needed to travel for a ballistic missile has diminishing returns because of its ballistic trajectory People much smarter than you - game theorists, engineers, mathematicians, scientists, generals - have already worked this out and said it quite plainly.
>>64536678No, the worst case by definition is everything gets through. You may not know this, but the nuclear policy of every nuclear power (including the USA) has not even the hope that any notable number of missiles will be stopped. People who are less informed believe there's in the politicians speeches about a vague notion of a "nuclear umbrella", as if there was some defensive system, but there is no real defensive system. It purely relies on game theory. Even if "just" 50-100 warheads reach the United States, that's enough to wipe out every major capital and city. A lot of people here brush off the idea of a city being destroyed, especially those who for political reasons sneer at urbanites. But in reality, studies of the economic and industrial impact of nuclear war have to use world war 2 because the total mass of all bombs dropped is ~2.7 million tons, while a modern warhead yields a few million tons of explosive power (a few megatons). Which is to say even 50 warheads would be like having the damage if 50 world wars happening. In practical terms>First order effects - Telecommunications of all sorts are destroyed. Internet, phone, radio. Major power plants are disabled. Massive loss of life in the range of 20-50% of the country. Significant remainder get radiations sickness from the blasts. >Second order effects: Most electronics fail, either from lack of power, electromagnetic pulse or because lack of infrastructure makes them obsolete (every smartphone and computer for example). Financial system collapses as the basic backbone of electronic money transmission is gone. Bank accounts are inaccessible. >Third order effects: everything fails. Cars become useless because oil production and refinement has mostly stopped. Logistics fail. Utilities fail. Airports fail. Most companies cease to function and almost everyone is laid off, simply because there is nothing to pay them with. Psychological shock drives large migration of survivors.
>>64523299>https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/event/2012_10_24_Norris_Cuban_Missile_Crisis_Nuclear_Order_of_Battle.pdfInteresting...
>>64535096Mad wasn't fully established during the cuban crisis it became real once the arsenals had large number of mirv icbms especially sub launched ones for second strike. That's why americans got scared shitless of cuban missiles because they threatened shift the contemporary nuclear balance which was mainly bombers.
>>64536694>You should actually read a nuclear policy white paper from RAND or the DoDI have. You’re so full of shit your eyes are brown. As well as the rest of you
>>64536726>Even if "just" 50-100 warheads reach the United States, that's enough to wipe out every major capital and city.No it not. No target is going to get only 1 warhead. You have 50 state capitols plus DC, each of which is going to have to receive a minimum of 3 warheads. DC and the larger state capitols will need closer to 6 or 10 to guarantee a complete kill of all of the redundancies. Now go ahead and trot out the nuclear winter myth.
>>64536694>You can't actually locate most modern ICBMs because they're stored in redundant silos, truck based ICBMs, nuclear submarines and so onlol>It is VERY TRIVIAL to design a failsafe system to trigger a second strikeLmao>no country on earth has a workable national ballistic defenseKek
>>64529301penal batallions, undesirables, unfeedables, the gay>Mao's son!...the gay...
>>64536726>Which is to say even 50 warheads would be like having the damage if 50 world wars happening.Lying about warhead size? Check. Lying about the impact of nukes by equating it to a world war? Check. Lying about radiation poisoning? Check. Lying about EMP? Also check.Where do i hand over my bingo card?
>>64535133>>64536575It was also a hemispheric and traditional escalation issue. A communist Cuba was bad enough without it gaining more Soviet facilities than East Germany and continuing on a strategy as a launchpad for revolutions/invasions in the Americas.>>64536644They actually look at the immediate loss of life, shrug their shoulders and assume that merely losing a few hundred years of human development is worth it for a situational enemy that for all its faults was relatively stable relationship with the US in a completely domineering position.>>64539539>It's just all our largest and most important cities - the Republic of West Idaho will continue the torch of liberty!
>>64523299Yes, they should put those weapons in cuba again if usa keep selling missile to ukraine.
>>64539513Really? Then how does the DoD attempt to locate enemy ICBM locations? What is the expected warheads taken out for every one of our counterforce warheads? How do they expect to achieve a kill before enemy early warning detects our launch and they launch theirs?
>>64539539Each will get one nuclear warhead plus a number of decoys. You know why they won't bother with more? It's public information that there is no BMD shield. I mean, do you see hundreds of interceptors stationed outside every American city?
>>64535033Lmao no one cares what the fringe said now nor then. We all were programmed well to hate Islam after 9/11.
>>64540046So you're so shocked this (honestly) basic facts never occured to you and you have no response
>>64540052>Lying about warhead sizeTypical warheads have a ~1-2 megaton yield. This is very trivial to do - the biggest ever was 50 megatons. From a physics perspective it's very easy to make bombs that go to 100 megatons or more. The reason they don't is it is a suboptimal use of nuclear material. It is more efficient to have multiple smaller warheads
>>64539539>Kill of all the redundanciesThe redundant... Cities? Is there a backup Washington DC?
>>64543693>Then how does the DoD attempt to locate enemy ICBM locations?Space surveilance, which has massively improved since the late 80s.>What is the expected warheads taken out for every one of our counterforce warheads?At least 4, at best more than 12.>ourYou have no counterforce warheads, rajesh.>How do they expect to achieve a kill before enemy early warning detects our launch and they launch theirs?By using SLBMs from close range which cannot be detected by their incomplete satelite early warning.Why are you asking stupid disingenous questions, shitskin? None of that is new information.
>>64543711>basic factsMore like scaredy rusnigger cope about being impotent despite saber rattling about their rusted shut nuclear arsenal every day of the week.
>>64543721>Typical warheads have a ~1-2 megaton yield.How's life in the 1960s, pojeet?
>>64543700>It's public information that there is no BMD shield. I mean, do you see hundreds of interceptors stationed outside every American city?Imagine proudly touting that you don't know what midcourse ICBM defense is, several posts in a row.
>>64543742>Space surveillance Which doesn't work for submarines, can't distinguish decoys (which is incredibly important because every country has ten times more ICBMs than warheads), can't see into bunkers (China has been confirmed to have a giant underground network for moving nuclear missiles), and would have a hard time even locating truck based ICBMs which can move constantly.>At least 4, at best more than 12The adversary spaces each nuclear warhead ten miles apart. Now even if you know the location of every warhead, you have at best a 1:1 kill ratio. You see why this shit was dismissed really quickly?>RajeshIndia is barely a nuclear power and NO ONE has any counterforce warheads. It's astounding that decades after US policy papers clearly removed any intention of it people still think nuclear weapons are like playing battleship with other nuclear weapons.>By using SLBMsI know you probably know nothing about rocketry, but even extreme short range ballistic missiles take 10-15 minutes to reach. This is because they are ballistic. As in a ballistic trajectory. They spend most of their time in space. >Cannot be detected The technology to detect ICBM launches from space existed decades ago. If you're at close range even OTH or standard radar will pick it up.
>>64543746My man the real copers are all Russian and American who think having a large nuclear arsenal is something to brag of. There's a reason why every other nuclear power only bothers with a few hundred. From a game theoretic perspective it doesn't matter if you have one hundred nuclear warheads or one hundred thousand. The effect is the same.
>>64543754You should actually read how midcourse ballistic missile defense works. Midcourse ballistic defense is extremely weak because it is extremely sensitive to time, trajectory, relative delta v, altitude and a large number of factors. And math doesn't work very well. Even generous estimates for launching multiple interceptors gives ~50% intercept rates. Which is to say you have to build several interceptors for every ICBM your adversary has. And in the very likely case that you fail to intercept before warhead separation, your effectiveness drops by a factor of ten.
>>64543782>Which doesn't work for submarinesUS have 50+ SSNs to track the 1-2 russian SSBNs that are outside of port, and which are decades more advanced than the loud russian rattlecans.>can't distinguish decoysWhy bring up decoys when talking about counterforce, poojeet?>which is incredibly important because every country has ten times more ICBMs than warheadsAre you having a stroke?>can't see into bunkers (China has been confirmed to have a giant underground network for moving nuclear missiles)Lmao.>and would have a hard time even locating truck based ICBMs which can move constantly.They move once a month between selected locations, move in groups and are piss easy to track for modern surveliance. The idea that they are hard to see is a stale 1980s cope.>The adversary spaces each nuclear warhead ten miles apart.Your mobile trucks die to an air burst even at 10 miles distance. Your silos die to a single warhead and are well known even before they finished construction.>Now even if you know the location of every warhead, you have at best a 1:1 kill ratioThe subhuman shitskin doesn't know what MIRV is.>You see why this shit was dismissed really quickly?I see that you're just another well poisoning nuclear alarmist coper, and not even a good one.>nd NO ONE has any counterforce warheadsLol.> but even extreme short range ballistic missiles take 10-15 minutes to reach.And against >5 minutes to detect them they leave no time to verify the attack and issue a launch order in time. What a pathetic attempt to make shit up on your part.>The technology to detect ICBM launches from space existed decades ago.And russia doesn't have the necessary amount of satelies to detect launches from the ocean, only US mainland. >If you're at close range even OTH or standard radar will pick it up.With a delay that will render them useless.
>>64543786Ok turdie, whatever helps you cope yourself to sleep.>>64543812>there is no BMD, look around the cities>ok there is midcourse BMD but it's too weakWhere did those goalposts go, shitskin?>Which is to say you have to build several interceptors for every ICBM your adversary has.BMD isn't meant to stop an attack wholesale, it's a backstop for the counterforce first strike so even if you missed a few missiles it'll stop them.
>>64543820>1-2 Russian SSBNsEach sub can easily carry a hundred warheads. Most adversarial submarines aren't even owned by Russia. You wouldn't use SSNs to track an SSBN because it's really obvious if sonar is used, but let's say you do>You have to destroy the enemy submarine in at most 15 minutes, in the worst case a few minutes, before it launches>This is so little time you have to be several miles from it for your torpedoes to reach in time >You have to be several miles from every SSBN at all times, so you have to (very obviously) shadow every SSBN like a rabid fan >Why bring up decoysThis is probably the biggest red flag about how uninformed you are. Decoys make up a third to half of all counterforce discourse because quite obviously, if you launch a nuclear warhead or interceptor at a decoy, you've lost something for no gain. And decoys operate at every level. There are decoy silos (silos that may be empty or have non nuclear ICBMs), decoy missiles (missiles with no nuclear warhead), decoy warheads itself in the missiles, etc. Its in fact reasonable to assume most things you are trying to intercept will be decoys. >Having a strokeIs this news to you? Did you think they sell ICBMs and warheads as a pair at Walmart? Every country very deliberately makes more launch systems than warheads, both as decoys and to overwhelm enemy systems >LmaoSo you have no response to this thing that completely invalidates what you say? >Move once a monthYou mean, you're hoping they move once a month. And the entire nuclear strategy rests on them not having enough truck drivers, or something? Even if you assume it's not going to launch, trucks will easily high tail it to some other location. It's entirely possible for them to even escape the blast radius of a warhead.>What a MIRV isYou are deeply confused. Most warheads on a nuclear missile are decoys. Even assuming you strike before they can respond, you still have masses of redundant silos.
>>64543820>Mobile trucks die to an airbust at ten milesSay your warhead is big enough to do that. So I spent fifty cents of diesel to move them fifty miles apart. What now? >Subhuman shitskinIronic given than you don't seem to be able to think much and are seething like nothing. >Turdie copeNigger one of two countries with thousands of nukes is a thirdie country.>5 minutes to detect them and leave no time to launch Man you know nothing about nuclear systems. Every nuclear system on earth has a chain of command engineered to take minutes to respond. Early warning has a direct line to each head of state. Every nuclear head of state either carries the launch codes with them everywhere or passes it to someone who does whenever they go overseas. What, you think a nuclear launch is like planning an invasion, which lots of policy meetings and legislative votes? >Russia doesn't have the necessary satellitesIt only takes a few satellites even in LEO to cover a vast area. And you're praying no other satellite they launched is actually an early warning satellite. And OTH radar can see extremely far. Literal geniuses have thought about this way before you and concluded there is no reliable way to even destroy a small portion of your enemies nukes in a counterforce strike. It's a ridiculous fiction.
>>64543700That's the best part (you) don't. But there is in fact a BMD shield and we have had one the longest of any nation on the planet
>>64543832I said there's no BMD shield protecting the cities. I didn't say there was no BMD missile. Most nuclear powers have some kind of BMD interceptor. None actually deploy them in enough numbers to make a difference.
>>64543941We already have and are ramping up our interceptor defense. (You) are currently where US planners were in 1980
>>64543934Just so you know, the "real" BMD has a grand total of 44 interceptors. 44. The far smaller and less effective SM 3 is more numerous, but was always built in mind for at best SRBMs. The physical constraints of VLS means it has far less delta v than a full fledged ICBM.
>>64543888>Each sub can easily carry a hundred warheads.And each sub can be easily sunk with a single torpedo.>You wouldn't use SSNs to track an SSBN because it's really obvious if sonar is usedThis nigger doesn't know about passive sonar, lmao.>You have to destroy the enemy submarine in at most 15 minutes, in the worst case a few minutes, before it launchesNo you don't, lol. You can sink it days ahead because it doesn't call home while on patrol, and even if it did then it can be just another kursk and isn't a cause for a launch.>Decoys make up a third to half of all counterforce discourseDo you know what counterforce is, shitskin?>Every country very deliberately makes more launch systems than warheadsUtterly delusional.>So you have no response to this thing that completely invalidates what you say?What response would there be to something this idiotic?>You mean, you're hoping they move once a month.With space surveilance you simply know that, and >You are deeply confused. Most warheads on a nuclear missile are decoysDo you think ICBMs carry only a single warhead and decoys? Really?>Even assuming you strike before they can respondThat's what counterforce is.>you still have masses of redundant silosThere's nothing redundant about them, do you know what the word even means?
>>64543926>So I spent fifty cents of diesel to move them fifty miles apartNow i send a missile at each one and still kill 3+ warheads that are housed inside of each missile. But that's not actually feasible because those missile trucks are designed to sit together around a single command vehicle, which is also where the crews of the launchers live. >Ironic given than you don't seem to be able to think much and are seething like nothing.Incredible shistkin projection on full display.>Every nuclear system on earth has a chain of command engineered to take minutes to respond.And receiving a warning, making a launch decision and ordering it will take more than 10 minues to do, guaranteed. >It only takes a few satellites even in LEO to cover a vast area.There's no need to make up headcannon, the insufficiency of russian early warning constellation is a well published topic.>And you're praying no other satellite they launched is actually an early warning satelliteIf only the EW satelites could be easily discerned in their function by their type from their size, shape, position and communication. >Literal geniuses have thought about this way before you and concluded there is no reliable way to even destroy a small portion of your enemies nukes in a counterforce strike.Lmao at the thirdie squealing lies.
>>64543958>The far smaller and less effective SM 3 is more numerous, but was always built in mind for at best SRBMs.Who's gonna tell him?
>counterforce warheads don't exist, they're not real, puccia stronk behind hundreds of decoys, lalalala can't hear you
Remember that time when Ukraine destroyed a russian early warning OTH radar station a year or two ago, opening a massive gaping hole in their radar coverage? I wonder how many years it'll take them to rebuilt it.
>>64544094It wasn't one but TWO radars actually, completely cucking russian early warning in the southern Europe.
>>64544094Not an OTH radar, just a conventional line of sight one. Russians have only one OTH radar site operational, if it can be called as such, with another one in the making.
>>64544094
>>64536644>f hundreds or thousands of nuclear warheads exploding over American cities.Civilian catastrophe for sure. Everything military on the other hand is sealed, hardened, filtered, dispersed and protected. A single surviving carrier group could dismantle any country on earth after they'd be left pants down with a dozen shitty Mig-29s or SU-35s.Then that country would become the new US or 100% enslaved colony. Unless they understand they have to Nuke themselves too.
>>64543728Disingenuous dumbass is being disingenuous. One warhead does not guarantee a complete kill on any urban area, dipshit. Some of the critical governmental infrastructure will survive. It’s designed that way, with multiple redundancies. The WH alone will need a direct hit ground burst to guarantee that the Sit room has been taken out. Same with the Pentagon. That means that both of those buildings get at least 3 warheads each to achieve a workable PK. Plus another 3 for the Capitol, and another 3 for Greenbrier. Wow, will you look at that. Nearly a quarter of your 50 warhead strike has gone into just 1 spot. Meanwhile, POTUS boarded Kneecap 3 minutes after the first launch was detected and is headed to New Mexico or New Hampshire.
>>64540318>the Republic of West Idaho will continue the torch of liberty!You really have no idea how the American government works, do you? You wouldn’t be posting such stupid shit if you did
>>64540318>>64543693>>64543700Damn, boy. You sound mad. Three replies to the same post? Come on, you can do better than this.
>>64535133>end the world because a bunch of red balloons got too close to a NORAD siteChkd, obligatoryhttps://youtu.be/Fpu5a0Bl8eY
Sorry about misreading the chain, I know anon's probably going to reply to my deleted post. Anyways China has a pitifully small number of nukes and basically is going to trade its entire country for a chance to cripple the USA for decades. Its a gay as fuck gambit for any Chinaman with a brain.
>>64523299From european perspective, it was bloody hilarious how hard USA soiled its pants at the prospect of having to exist somewhere near soviet missiles.
