this watermelon from Fukushima, it's thicker shell protect it seeds against radiation
Scud Bs weren't in wide deployed till 1964, and it was 70kt.
Scud-A was in service, 50kt, and 90 mile range, with a 4k CEP at that range, but also none in Cuba in 1962
Scud RVs are within the ability of Nike Hercules to intercept, even Hawk with some luck
Without luck, here is the airburst effect
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=50&lat=24.5818125&lng=-81.7348125&hob_ft=0&fallout=1&zm=13
Would a Scud-A launched from the OTL location of the Soviet facility in Cuba have enough range to hit Homestead AFB? In which case we could assume a simple nomenclature mistake on Amerigo's part and go with a Scud-A instead of a B. Perhaps it was deployed after the POD while the crisis kept escalating.Scud-A was in service, 50kt, and 90 mile range, with a 4k CEP at that range, but also none in Cuba in 1962
don't feel bad, in October 1962 I am a 2 month old baby living in Newport News VA.... at least I wouldn't have to worry about fallout
Something tells me that Cuba will be uninhabitable for at least a century after the U.S is finished with it.
Well, Havana is already gone, and that was before things started to get really bad.Something tells me that Cuba will be uninhabitable for at least a century after the U.S is finished with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgk9z9ZBvvE
https://vimeo.com/81455650
My issue with the "Cuban Missile War" -- which is not a reflection on this timeline, as I enjoy it -- is that it takes build up to get to atomic war after nuclear weapons have already been used in certain areas. As soon as the first nuclear incident occurs, I would argue full exchange would ensue.
I don't know about this. The build up toward full war seems very much in character for JFK, who actually ordered SIOP-63 changed so that it had more options for flexible response than SIOP-62 and who demonstrated a very flexible, calm and methodical approach to negotiating the OTL crisis. It is one thing to lose personnel and ships overseas or to have nuclear weapons detonate on the territory of allies. It is quite another thing to take a step that means weapons will detonate in Moscow or New York. Full exchange is an irrevocable step and one that eliminates all hope that the worst will be avoided. Leaders holding back from that step into the abyss seems pretty plausible to me. The USSR, after all, was devastated by the Second World War. That its leaders would hold back initially does not strike me as implausible.
This is also a much slower era than that which would follow just a few years later. In 1962, bombers were the principal means of delivery of weapons; this lends itself to a more deliberative approach to escalation. The era of massive numbers of accurate MIRVed missiles had not yet arrived.
Nuclear weapons are not a half-measure weapon. Psychologically, they can't be, which is why tactical nuclear weapons are a pipe dream. As soon as something happens, the assumption is going to be the authorities that be in Washington or Moscow authorized it, that the further attack is incoming and you have a few minutes to decide to kill off the other side before they kill you. And the thinking in a nuclear war is either you go all in or you surrender. So that's my disagreement with Amerigo.
That said, I do enjoy this and its not a reflection on the timeline. Its simply my metagame thinking in regards to 'The Cuban Missile War'. I can still enjoy it in terms of its own narrative.
Nuclear weapons are not a half-measure weapon. Psychologically, they can't be, which is why tactical nuclear weapons are a pipe dream. As soon as something happens, the assumption is going to be the authorities that be in Washington or Moscow authorized it, that the further attack is incoming and you have a few minutes to decide to kill off the other side before they kill you. And the thinking in a nuclear war is either you go all in or you surrender. Nobody wants to die, but nuclear warfare entails that everyone who can has to. That's inherent to the fact that when the arms race bluff fails -that bluff being not to act because everyone will suffer to the maximum extent- everyone does suffer to the maximum extent. By its nature, it is irrevocable immediately when it starts. So that's my disagreement with Amerigo.
That said, I do enjoy this and its not a reflection on the timeline. Its simply my metagame thinking in regards to 'The Cuban Missile War'. I can still enjoy it in terms of its own narrative.
I don't know about this. The build up toward full war seems very much in character for JFK, who actually ordered SIOP-63 changed so that it had more options for flexible response than SIOP-62 and who demonstrated a very flexible, calm and methodical approach to negotiating the OTL crisis.
Marathag
Here I am simply quoting what Amerigo put in his own TL. He said specifically that a Scud-B hit the base. However, were Scud RVs ready to deploy in 62 and were they in Cuba as far as anyone knows.
Geon