Reply With QuoteInteresting. I cant wait to show this to my step dad. He was living in Cuba during the crisis and is super interested as I am in it.
A closer look at the nuclear stockpiles as the Cuban Crisis began
What Was at Stake in 1962?
A closer look at the nuclear stockpiles of the world's two superpowers as the Cuban Missile Crisis began.
BY RACHEL DOBBS | JULY 17, 2011
Read moreIn 1962, the nuclear stockpile of the United States, consisting of more than 3,500 warheads, was six times that of the Soviet Union. The most powerful weapons -- Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) -- had ranges greater than 8,600 miles and were capable of hitting targets almost anywhere within the Soviet Union from American soil. The United States had 203 missiles of this type, with a combined nuclear yield greater than 635 megatons, the equivalent of 635,000,000 tons of TNT. By way of comparison, the "Little Boy" bomb dropped on Hiroshima during World War II -- resulting in between 90,000 and 166,000 deaths -- had a yield of around 15,000 tons of TNT.
The Soviet Union had only 36 missiles capable of covering a similar distance, with a combined yield in the range of 108-204 megatons. Although much lower than the long-range missiles held by the Americans, these weapons still represented a nuclear power between 7,560 to 14,280 times greater than the Hiroshima bomb.
Interesting. I cant wait to show this to my step dad. He was living in Cuba during the crisis and is super interested as I am in it.
It would be interesting to be able to throw in a year, a conflict size/type, and a location from say 1946-1992 with a whole bunch of military/intelligence/economic data behind it to roughly guess who would have "won" and lost.
I would think that a war between the US and Soviet Union in 1962 would have been horribly, horribly lopsided in a global/strategic sense.
The Soviet Union would have probably been turned into a parking lot, The US would have probably taken some horrible, but ultimately survivable hits, Europe would have been on fire, and the US would still rule the Sea and Air world-wide.
From a Machiavellian stand point, I would think it possible that it would have ended with a highly mutated(with a couple two headed babies and sh!t) version of a post 1992 unipolar world.
1962: You wouldn't have wanted to have been on the eastern sea board of the US that is for sure. The Cuban based missiles could hit pretty much anywhere along there. Likewise much of Europe is a free fire zone and glows in the dark. You could be looking at as many as a billion deaths. Scary stuff.
Based on this article alone, I think the USSR would have been finished if they'd started something in 1962. They might have taken out the US East Coast, but our missiles in The UK, Europe, and Turkey, as well as our strategic bombers would have knocked them flat.Originally Posted by TheKiwi
Yes the USSR would have suffered worse than the US - likely to be at a bouncing the rubble stage of things. And Europe would have suffered more than the US, but less than the USSR. But looking back at this from a 2012 perspect, I am very happy that we as a species didn't have to sacrifice a billion or more people over this.
Me too. I'm glad we (as in the human race) had leaders back then who wouldn't reflexively pull the trigger. My mom and dad were both 15 years old during the Cuban missile crisis. They were years from meeting each other, and if that hadn't happened, I wouldn't be here, nor would my amazing little daughter.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Damn right. And your daughter is indeed (in a no pedo way) very cute.
No worries. She knows she's cute as a button too.
+1. How long do you think we (as in the human race) can go without pulling the trigger given the increasing and ever more diverse stockpiles?
I suggest reading a book called "When Angels Wept" by Eric Swedin. It's a "what if" the Cuban Crisis went hot scenario. Interesting read.
Considering the Sino-Soviet was in full swing, would it be safe to assume the Chinese would go about annexing a post apocalyptic USSR?
Last edited by BlackFlag; 07-19-2012 at 03:20 AM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasiliy_Arkhipov and many more clear-headed officers on both sides prevented that. Ironically it was the military will and guts, not politicians'.
That's if you just compare numbers.
Although imo the numbers suggest 1962 was right there knocking at the doorstep of mutual destruction.
Even if people away from major cities might have survived the first trike, I don't think that such a blow would leave behind Nations with a prospering future.
What about the nuclear missiles carried by Russian submarines? Article doesn't say a word about that.
Posting Permissions
