What if: A nuclear war happened in 1956?

[RanulfC]

I'm not an American, although I live here, I am in no way in favour of this scenario. But it seems too realistic to me.

There's a Star Trek fan-theory that something like this is how you get the "Terran Empire" in the mirror universe. It would in fact make sense since in the eyes of the US this would be the second time that allowing other nations to reach certain levels of parity with the US has caused a major world war and the idea of "never again" would be pretty powerful.

Randy

 

[MaxGerke01]

Going to ask you to take a step back here and maybe actually read some history and context since you seem to be under the false impression that anyone in the US prior to the late 50s and early 60s actually KNEW the USSR lacked nuclear capability to hit the US as hard as the US expected them too. Remember that the US is not getting much actual data from inside the USSR and meanwhile the leadership of the USSR is bragging about building bombers and bombs by the thousands.

Eisenhower in 1952 used the "bomber gap" to get elected but once in office he found out that the 'gap' was less than anticipated but not really well how huge that gap was only that the Russians didn't have MORE than the US. By 1956 this was a bit clearer but not as clear as we know today and by that point the US force was obviously bigger but we still didn't know how effective the USSR's air defenses were so it was quite plausible that few of OUR bombers would get through. Eisenhower proposed "Open Skies" to specifically address this issue which the Soviets rejected out of hand. Meanwhile the USSR had almost open access to American and Western plans and manufacturing.

You also assume the "Sunday Punch" LeMay had organized was a single, massive formation which it was not. It was a series of waves of attacks any one of which could be called off if needed. (Not easy but it was part of the planning) You assume that the US will keep dropping bombs until all of Russia is one big flat plate of glass but that was never the plan.

Yes once nuclear weapons were being used both sides understood that any 'war' was at that point an existential thing which the Soviets probably couldn't win but that was not known on the US side which had to assume at least parity on the part of the USSR.

Well the average American wouldnt know but they would likely find out one way or another eventually.The fact that the Soviet Union was gone overnight might clue them in of course.If the US government really had no inkling of its huge advantage over the Soviets or at the very least thought the Soviets had parity with the US then why wouldnt the plan be to plaster Russia with everything it had ? If the goal was to win and you had no idea what the enemy had or truly thought they had as much as you wouldnt you unload both barrels to be sure you hurt them as much as you were expecting them to hurt you? Did the US military brass think the Reds would go easy on them when it came down to it ? Thats definitely not what the US government was telling the American public it would do in the event of a nuclear war with the Soviets and it was certainly not what it was saying the Soviets would do to the USA.Of course the actual plans for nuclear war on the US side dont seem to allow for this flexibility of not using everything against the Soviets and again if there was no real idea of the Soviets ability other than they are at parity or possibly better why would the plan be anything other than kill them all and let god sort it out ?

It didn't stop confrontation and crisis from happening but it was seen as the ultimate 'gambit'. The part about "MAD" that stopped it from happening was articulated in the movie "Wargames" the only 'winning' move is not to play. But you can't "not play" since both sides DO have nuclear weapons, (and more nations besides) so the chances of 'someone' going nuclear and it spreading is always there. So you learn to play political games and keep the chances low.

But both sides never used those nuclear weapons they had on each other.If as a whole either side thought winning was possible not just some fringe generals here and there then why didnt anyone ever avail themselves of the chance to come out on top ?

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Sokolovsky)
He was far from 'fringe' or wishful thinking and it's no accident his book was released in the West as it was meant to be considered the "Soviet" idea of waging nuclear war.

What are we still doing here then ?If his was the dominant Soviet position what stopped them from going for it ? Oh yeah must have been that what was it called-MAD ...

I'll point out the Soviet's had a very bad habit of "frightening" the West, (especially America) and then underestimating the response. TELLING the US that they were willing to fight a nuclear war and then that they were building the force to do so and NOT expecting America to go overboard in response isn't a really viable way to 'bluff' your way out of an arms race. Especially when the "other" is denied any way of telling what you are ACTUALLY doing.
(And recall that the USSR did this TWICE in a row! Once with bombers and then with missiles)

Randy

So are we suppose to believe that the Soviets had nothing to fear from the Americans? If neither side was truly aware of what the other side possessed what option would they have but to bluff and bluster to get the other side to think you were at parity or ahead of them ? The fact that there was no nuclear war seems to indicate that this worked because unless the Americans thought that attacking the Soviet Union would also result in the US's destruction why wouldnt they try it and vice versa ? Although I have to say the reason there were as many General Jack D Ripper types in the American military in the 1950s and early 1960s was likely because they knew or suspected that the US had a huge advantage at the time and could destroy the Soviets and be mostly unscathed. And once that advantage thankfully receded the General Jack D Ripper types went back under their rocks-for the most part.

 

[MaxGerke01]

After generations have turned over, it's quite possible and even probable that many Westerners could look at the millions of dead Soviet subjects in much the same way that many of us have looked again at the dead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the picture of the Third World War of 1956 will start being repainted in new hues. But the starting point would still be the template of 1945, relocated from the Nuremburg parade grounds to Red Square.

How do Soviet tanks cross the Elbe River? The river is deep and would serve as the natural defenses for the NATO forces in West Germany?

At the last part when you mentioned about Red Square, are you implying that NATO actually marches into Moscow and holds the trials for Soviet war criminals there?

If a nuclear war had gone as planned in 1956 -or earlier or until the mid 1960s-then the number of Soviet dead alone would far surpass what could be attributed to both the Third Reich and Soviet Union. In that case holding the war crimes trial at the Pentagon would be most appropriate.

 

[Athelstane]

If a nuclear war had gone as planned in 1956 -or earlier or until the mid 1960s-then the number of Soviet dead alone would far surpass what could be attributed to both the Third Reich and Soviet Union. In that case holding the war crimes trial at the Pentagon would be most appropriate.

Well, I mean, the USAAF killed more Japanese civilians in Tokyo on the night of March 9-10, 1945 during Operation MEETINGHOUSE than Auschwitz killed in a typical week, so...

 

[MaxGerke01]

It would be a 'New World Order' with the US running the UN for Reconstruction.

But with the 2nd World mostly in green glass craters surrounded by radioactive ashes, and Europe not much better, who becomes the Boogeyman to the USA?
'US' must always find a new 'Them'
Does the US go internal on the snipe hunt, or external, looking for old Soviet and Chinese Cells in the 3rd World?

Them would have a few faces probably.One would be Americans.Americans who didnt support what the US did in the war and those who didnt support what it did afterwards because they didnt think American society was perfect enough to impose on the rest of the world-which it most certainly was not at the time.

 

[MaxGerke01]

Well, I mean, the USAAF killed more Japanese civilians in Tokyo on the night of March 9-10, 1945 during Operation MEETINGHOUSE than Auschwitz killed in a typical week, so...

Right the US wasnt fighting a war of extermination against the Japanese-well at least as far as most Americans were concerned.

 

[MaxGerke01]

There's a Star Trek fan-theory that something like this is how you get the "Terran Empire" in the mirror universe. It would in fact make sense since in the eyes of the US this would be the second time that allowing other nations to reach certain levels of parity with the US has caused a major world war and the idea of "never again" would be pretty powerful.

Randy

At least until the US did it to any resistance on Earth and the Terrans did it to any non human resistance-but that doesnt count right ?

 

[M79]

It would be a 'New World Order' with the US running the UN for Reconstruction.

But with the 2nd World mostly in green glass craters surrounded by radioactive ashes, and Europe not much better, who becomes the Boogeyman to the USA?
'US' must always find a new 'Them'
Does the US go internal on the snipe hunt, or external, looking for old Soviet and Chinese Cells in the 3rd World?

Maybe it's too much to hope that the world looks at the insanity of nuclear armageddon and actually tries to forge a better future? A world where ordinary people or any stripe have a chance to succeed and where talent, not money or guns, allows sobmany to go as far as their work ethic and abilities will take them?

 

[marathag]

Especially when the "other" is denied any way of telling what you are ACTUALLY doing.
(And recall that the USSR did this TWICE in a row! Once with bombers and then with missiles)

K: 'We are building ICBMs like Sausages!'

Then Ike used the U-2 and Corona SpySat to determine that wasn't exactly the case, but that Boast allowed JFK to run to the right of Ike in 1960

 

[marathag]

Maybe it's too much to hope that the world looks at the insanity of nuclear armageddon and actually tries to forge a better future? A world where ordinary people or any stripe have a chance to succeed and where talent, not money or guns, allows sobmany to go as far as their work ethic and abilities will take them?

Or USA decides that only the USA can be trusted with Atomic Technology in the Future, gazing at a ruined 1/4 of the planet
That's the better Future, for the USA.
USA in charge, remaking the World, with our rules for everyone.
Pax Americana

 

[Athelstane]

Or USA decides that only the USA can be trusted with Atomic Technology in the Future, gazing at a ruined 1/4 of the planet
That's the better Future, for the USA.

Which is, basically, a scaled down version of the A5's guiding philosophy in Calbear's Anglo-American Nazi War.

 

[MaxGerke01]

Or USA decides that only the USA can be trusted with Atomic Technology in the Future, gazing at a ruined 1/4 of the planet
That's the better Future, for the USA.
USA in charge, remaking the World, with our rules for everyone.
Pax Americana

Something that JFK risked bringing about with his campaign rhetoric in 1960.Lucky for us he moved away from that with his actions in the Cuban Missile Crisis and afterwards BUT he had USS military brass acting at cross purposes as much as they could who would have loved to see this become a reality.We all dodged their bullet.
Also if the Suez Crisis was part of why the war started Id bet the Americans would blame the UK and France for triggering the whole thing with their actions and use it as an excuse to put the leash on them first and foremost.

 

[Joku_]

Except this war doesnt completely destroy Communism world wide.Unless the US wipes out China completely along with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe -people that the US previously claimed were not enemies only their governments -you have Communists there and else where in Asia and Africa.Perhaps this war does prevent Castros Communist revolution in Cuba and any elsewhere in Latin and South America but that doesnt mean there wont be sympathy for Communism there. What people will see first and foremost is that the Soviet people along with at the very least millions of Eastern Europeans and perhaps Chinese have been killed. Not to mention Western Europeans and some Americans possibly.
If thats how freedom is brought to the world I would think many of the less than free survivors worldwide as well as others in Western Europe and the US and elsewhere might say thanks but no thanks.That realization likely leads to right wing military governments in the US,Western Europe and elsewhere leading to the dystopia that such a nuclear conflict in 1956 likely leads to.Not that the killing of so many people isnt a dystopia all by itself.

Would they actually care that much at the time, though? I mean, I doubt bringing freedom to the world was that big of a thing in the 50s. It's not like the war on terrorism in 00s.

A nuclear exchange is so obviously undesirable to all involved parties that it can only really come about as a result of escalation and miscommunication. Which is why Cuba was so dangerous, and why the 1956 Suez-Hungary situation could have been. In fact, Suez-Hungary is really good for escalation and miscommunication, because there are two crises going on at the same time, involving multiple third parties, one of which is itself nuclear-armed. All you need is to box the decision makers into a position where they see nuclear use as the only viable solution to their immediate problem. In the case of 1962, Arkhipov was the person on the spot who wasn't boxed into that position. In 1956, there may not be an Arkhipov, or a Philips* in the right place to take a step back and say 'You know what, maybe we just take this one on the chin.'!

While it could happen as a miscalculation, it sounds like going to a nuclear war *could* have been both rational and immoral decision for the US in the 50s. If they believed they had a narrow window for waging a nuclear war and mostly ending up unscathed, while the war would be much worse for them later on, it could have been a rational decision given what they knew at the time. After all, they had no way to know the Soviet Union would dissolve peacefully 35 years later.

If the US achieves tactical surprise on that pre-emption, the USSR doesn't get anything off and the US is totally unscathed. If the US strikes first, but doesn't achieve tactical surprise, 8 to 14 bombers getting through is reasonably plausible. That's probably a couple of million casualties, maybe as many as 5 million - somewhat less than Japanese losses in WW2 as a proportion of the population.

2-5 million casualties would be quite a lot for 8-14 fission bombs. I mean, didn't nuclear bombings in Japan kill around 100k per bomb, and those cities were much more densely packed than US.

 

[Joku_]

No nuke was blown over a city, making it burn and spread radioactive ash around...
Current simulations of a India-pak war, with only a few hundred devices similar in scale to a Nagasaki bomb, would already cripple the world and cause billions of deaths over decades.
Come on, the entire middle east and north Africa is under serious food security risk due to a small conflict in eastern Europe, what you think will happen when the sun is dimmed and every major food producer in the north continents have radioactive dust and a nuclear winter to worry about?
No green revolution yet in India or China.
Australia and Brasil would probably the last "intact" food exporters and would probably close all exports and imports.

Nuclear winter is AFAIK based on rather iffy assumptions about firestorms and the amount of soot lifted to the stratosphere.

Also, the current food security crisis is caused by the globalized hyper-efficient system having got a wrench thrown to the wheels by covid and the Russians. At the time there was no such hyper-efficient global market operating at peak output, so it would be much more robust.

 

[MaxGerke01]

The more I think about it I realize the perfect sci fi ending for this timeline is that this nuclear war and destruction of the Soviet people attracts the attention of Klaatu and Gort and the US gets an opponent who can punch back way harder than it can.Would be interesting to see how that would pan out if the US doesnt get totally destroyed. Of course the galactic power represented by Klaayu might be merciful enough to just destroy the US weapons.

 

[MaxGerke01]

Would they actually care that much at the time, though? I mean, I doubt bringing freedom to the world was that big of a thing in the 50s. It's not like the war on terrorism in 00s.

No argument that most of the American public at the time which would include the US military devalued human life they considered different which is a big part of the reason why such a war could have happened and of course they would take the wrong lesson from it.All you have to do is consider how a good 10 percent of the American population was being treated at the time to understand how twisted for many if not most Americans the American idea of what freedom was then....

 

[Athelstane]

No argument that most of the American public at the time which would include the US military devalued human life they considered different

As opposed to other national publics?

You're really working hard at pushing certain political buttons in this thread.

 

[MaxGerke01]

As opposed to other national publics?

Most at the time no.Although there was one that was probably farther along with seeing that differently because of their national philosophy. However they had just been wiped out in a nuclear war.Shows what they knew.

You're really working hard at pushing certain political buttons in this thread.

Well if the political buttons involve justifying or actually supporting a nuclear war in 1956 or in any year or standing in stark opposition to that I guess Im pushing away. Such a war is never warranted and if possible it was warranted even less in 1956 due to the nuclear imbalance and also the impulses of the still very much less than perfect society that had the nuclear advantage.Being an American in this world likely means you arent a good guy for a long time ....

 

[Athelstane]

Although there was one that was probably farther along with seeing that differently because of their national philosophy. However they had just been wiped out in a nuclear war.

Wait, are you talking about the Soviet Union?

If you are....we *are* talking about a regime which, in 1956, had managed to kill 40 million plus (I'm using Conquest's estimate) of its own citizens over the previous 25 years. How much valuation of human life does that show?

 

[Mark E.]

But with the 2nd World mostly in green glass craters surrounded by radioactive ashes, and Europe not much better, who becomes the Boogeyman to the USA?
'US' must always find a new 'Them'
Does the US go internal on the snipe hunt, or external, looking for old Soviet and Chinese Cells in the 3rd World?

In OTL 1992, it was an internal snipe hunt. In 1977, a Canadian engineer told me "The US was born in revolution and never had it bred out of them." There is a part of the population that has a certain "anxiety enthusiasm." When the USSR broke up in 1992, Rush Limbaugh directed the anxiety to the Clintons. It did not sound so destructive that year, but once several "enablers" kicked it, it would devolve into the polarization we saw in later decades.

In 1956, China was too far back in military development to cause alarm, and if it stayed communist, could have become a boogeyman. Conversely, it could have been parts of Latin America.