What if: A nuclear war happened in 1956?

[M79]

The thing is both the Pinetree Line and the Mid-Canada Line were also flawed in detecting possible Soviet bombers. What kind of jet interceptors did the USAF operate at this period?

F-100 Super Sabres are likely the bleeding edge with maybe a handful of slightly more advanced aircraft

If the Tu-4s and M4s could penetrate the CONUS, so too would the B-36s, B-47s, and B-52s flying into the heart of the Motherland if flying from Greenland, Great Britain, or Guam.

Tu-4 and M4 bombers are at best one-way trips, even then they might not be able to cover the entire US in range. A few might just land and defect, several will encounter mechanical problems, and some might decide not to pursue a suicide mission. Meanwhile B-36s and B-52s will reduce much of Europe from the Oder to the Urals to ash.

Europe would be wasteland as with most nuclear war scenarios. I don't think Germany would be reunified since this had the largest concentrations of NATO and Warsaw Pact troops. Not to mention, nuclear weapons would be used within German soil.

I'm not sure it would be a wasteland, it depends on how many bombs fall and where they hit. Yes it gets hit like the fist of an angry god, but since some of the nukes are US-bound, I think Germany takes the brunt. Ths would leave a divided country in ruins and not percieved as enough if a threat to do much even if allowed to reunite.

 

[MaxGerke01]

In the case of a full nuclear exchange, where Curtis Lemay gets to throw his Sunday Punch, the Soviet state is going to cease to exist (along with most of the Soviet population), and it's a lot harder for the Soviets to have any role in shaping a postwar narrative if the Soviets are not alive to have a role in the first place;

And where and when and by whom have Western Europeans and the rest of the world mostly recently seen such an action attempted ? Except this time for whatever the original reason for all intents and purposes a genocide has been carried out.Whatever the reason placed on the scales with the result the result will weigh much heavier in most eyes especially since those doing the weighing-Western Europeans will have suffered horribly in the process.What have the survivors been saved from compared to what they and humanity as a whole lost ?

the most tangible Soviet legacy the dazed survivors in Europe will be acquainted with in the years after 1956 will be the glass parking lots that Soviet bombs put in place of many of their key urban centers. In short, it's less clear to me how much opprobrium will fall on the United States for large parts of Western Europe having been incinerated by nuclear fire when it was Soviet nuclear weapons that did the incinerating?

and Western Europe had to be destroyed in order to save the world from the Soviet Union.Well not really but it was. To me I really dont see most Western Europeans believing that especially considering what the origins of the war are eventually found and broadcast to be, Whatever it was they will be likely to see the genocide of Soviets and the destruction of Western Europe as not being worth it.Hearing LeMay or whoever is left on the radio or tv bragging about how the US saved the world wouldnt help much either. US rhetoric at the time always said it had no hatred of or quarrel with the Soviet people.Reality would seem to make that claim a total fiction.

All that notwithstanding, the kind of cultural reactions that would unfold in reaction to large scale nuclear war - you know, where the dead must be tallied in 9+ figures - are frankly very difficult for us to imagine with much confidence. It's something which has never happened before, and so much more destructive than any previous conflict that there is real difficulty in trying to extrapolate from those experiences.

* * *

Some here think as long a it was "just" 3 to 5 major American cities it would be no big deal.Some think the US would come away totally untouched which of course would make the US look and smell even worse in a world of genocided Soviets and a devastated Western Europe. In Brendan Dubois Resurrection Day Western Europe-unrealisticly-was untouched by the Soviets and it still had that attitude over just what happened to the Soviets.

@Joku_ in his original post did not give us any required context to frame the discussion of this question, just a hint that Suez/Hungary is a live possibility - and admittedly, it's the most obvious one that year. Assuming some sort of escalation of the roughly simultaneous outbreaks of the Hungarian Revolution and the Suez Crisis at the end of October, an escalation that rapidly gets out of hand, maybe thanks in part to hotheaded mismanagement by Nikita Khrushchev . . . All things being equal, in Western Europe that kind of origin context seems more likely to frame a narrative hostile to the Soviets at a time when, pre-CND and pre-Vietnam and only a decade removed from liberating American armies, European opinion was still fairly pro-American.

Again its hard to see how the reality of this war doesnt change European opinion from fairly pro American almost overnight.It definitely depends on the reason the conflict started to begin with. But regardless of that if its perceived there was an alternative to what happened including doing nothing thats likely to be seen as better thus making the US a real stinker in most eyes including some American ones.

 

[MaxGerke01]

'Those lousy Commies got lucky, but we avenged them 300 fold'
Feeling them was that we wouldn't start WWIII, but would not only finish it, but be last ones standing

That would likely be a widespread and popular attitude in the US at the time. Outside of the US Id think not so much.Despite its victory the US still has huge problems on the horizon both internal and external with less than clear and easy solutions. OTL wasnt perfect by a long shot but its better than this.

 

[LeX]

This is actually a pretty unique and maybe not all that implausible foundation for a horrible dystopia, one where the world is dominated by a literal evil American empire for decades if not centuries. Essentially a single-player version of Orwell's 1984 world.

If the US attacked in response to a conventional war, or worse, attacked unprovoked (perhaps as an escalation of events in Hungary), it would make America the most murderous regime in history in terms of the sheer number of people killed.

We could expect half the population of Europe and Russia to die, so let's ballpark it at 250 million. China would also be targeted, and while the US might not destroy that many Chinese cities outright, the resulting starvation could probably kill a third or half the Chinese population. That's around 500 million people dead, the equivalent of 50 Holocausts or and several WWIIs in a couple months.

But it's also the biggest "so what are you going to do about it?" in history. Russia, France, the UK, China, Germany, all done as major powers. I can't see the inevitable wave of anti-American sentiment (both domestic and foreign) really affecting that fact in the short term. The US can just build more nukes, and if need be, the government can declare martial law to control demonstrators, in fact it'll probably be inevitable that democracy dies in nuclear fire.

The military in particular will be really motivated to ensure that they get good treatment in the history books and will do everything they can to ensure that nobody questions the justice of preemptively nuking the USSR and China. This makes it likely IMO that America will experience some kind of military rule for a while until the country can be convinced to "forget" that one year where we just decided to murder 500 million people because they (more like their leaders) followed the wrong ideology.

That "a while" could last quite a long time as the military will have another, more "patriotic" task: ensuring that no foreign country ever thinks about challenging America's global dominance. This means that all nuclear technology not developed by the US for the US would be banned. The military industrial-complex would be jacked up to Reagan-era levels and then some, and it would never subside. The civilian government would be bullied into fueling a pro-military cult that unquestioningly backs the MIL and its international police adventures, of which there would be an endless number.

It's possible the US nation would not easily tire of this endless war, because the nuclear exchange would normalize the use of nuclear weaponry and thus make future conflicts short episodes where the US military drops a few tactical warheads, waits for the gamma particles to decay, and then goes in to mop things up with its standing army.

The whole nightmare would probably only end in a few generations when the military establishment becomes too corrupt to remain competent and internal dissent plus various external pressures (America would probably outsource its manufacturing to cheap-labor areas eventually, creating economic competition) gives Washington a crude wake-up call. The usual pattern of fixing problems with the red button may become less and less politically acceptable as new interest groups overtake the ossified MIL.

 

[Joku_]

And where and when and by whom have Western Europeans and the rest of the world mostly recently seen such an action attempted ? Except this time for whatever the original reason for all intents and purposes a genocide has been carried out.Whatever the reason placed on the scales with the result the result will weigh much heavier in most eyes especially since those doing the weighing-Western Europeans will have suffered horribly in the process.What have the survivors been saved from compared to what they and humanity as a whole lost ?

I doubt people actually cared about genocide in the legal sense all that much at the time, especially if it's essentially bombs falling rather than death camps and stuff in the Nazi style. Remember that Colonial Empires still existed, and they used rather brutal means to put down uprisings, and fire bombings of German and Japanese cities was just a bit more than decade ago.

and Western Europe had to be destroyed in order to save the world from the Soviet Union.Well not really but it was. To me I really dont see most Western Europeans believing that especially considering what the origins of the war are eventually found and broadcast to be, Whatever it was they will be likely to see the genocide of Soviets and the destruction of Western Europe as not being worth it.Hearing LeMay or whoever is left on the radio or tv bragging about how the US saved the world wouldnt help much either. US rhetoric at the time always said it had no hatred of or quarrel with the Soviet people.Reality would seem to make that claim a total fiction.

Depends on how bad Western Europe is hit. If US gets lucky and manages to hit Soviets before most of their bombers take off, even Western Europe might get away with 10-20 nukes hit or perhaps even less. A decade after WWII that could easily be seen as more of the same.

However, if Western Europe is hit with 100+ Soviet nukes, people are going to be a lot more angry.

Some here think as long a it was "just" 3 to 5 major American cities it would be no big deal.Some think the US would come away totally untouched which of course would make the US look and smell even worse in a world of genocided Soviets and a devastated Western Europe. In Brendan Dubois Resurrection Day Western Europe-unrealisticly-was untouched by the Soviets and it still had that attitude over just what happened to the Soviets.

Again its hard to see how the reality of this war doesnt change European opinion from fairly pro American almost overnight.It definitely depends on the reason the conflict started to begin with. But regardless of that if its perceived there was an alternative to what happened including doing nothing thats likely to be seen as better thus making the US a real stinker in most eyes including some American ones.

Again, focus on genocide is probably a bit anachronic.

Anyways, I agree that it's going to depend on how this is going to start. I suppose these two options would be one of the most likely ones:
1) US tries to press the issue in Hungary using nuclear threat. Then this either escalates out of hand, or Soviets decide to call the American bluff, only for it to not turn out to be a bluff.
2) Khrushchev botches up response to Suez crisis, making it escalate to a WWIII.

 

[BlueTrousers]

Btw, how did the US plan their bomber fleets to survive Soviet air defences? Did they have any cruise missiles or such paving the way at the time?

The same way they did in WW2, basically: speed, altitude, and ECM. In 1956, it had a pretty good chance of working. There'd be losses, but that was expected.

In 1956 the US was a country that hadnt had any kind of of non domestic violence within its borders for nearly 100 years so the idea that as long as it was "just"a few cities destroyed there would be no impact otherwise seems wishful thinking .They had icewater in their veins compared to most today but still. Also the idea that Western Europeans just shrug their shoulders and say -oh well that wasnt much worse than WW2 also seems totally American wishful thinking.

The USSR had 426 nuclear weapons by the end1956, delivered almost exclusively by strategic bombers (there were 24 R-5 medium-range missiles by the end of 1956, and that was it)- which the Western powers had a pretty good chance of destroying on the ground, and a pretty good chance of intercepting any survivors. Civil defence was probably around its peak, and thermonuclear weapons weren't widely deployed.

There's a very good chance that the US doesn't get hit at all, if it's able to destroy the handful of bombers on the ground. This was a real possibility, US intelligence capability was likely sufficient to detect advanced warnings of a Soviet strike and pre-empt it. If it does get hit, it'll be limited numbers - the entire Soviet interncontinental bomber force at that time was no more than 19 Tu-95 and 34 M-4, less any that aren't launched or are destroyed in flight - and they'll have wiped out the USSR in exchange. They'll think they've won.

Western Europe will definitely be hurting. But, again, it'll be atomic, not thermonuclear, and civil defence is at its height. The comparison will definitely be to WW2 - it'll be worse, but only as a matter of scale. Again, 426 weapons - less those allocated to the intercontinental bombers - of which a substantial number are likely to be unavailable on The Day for use or intercepted before delivery. Moreover, they'll have the satisfaction of seeing that the USSR has been wiped out for it. They'll need to rebuild, but they'll see the USSR as having been the aggressor and the USA as having defeated them. They may not be happy about it, but they'll see it that way anyway.

Unless the US plan is to nuke itself to total victory what next ?

If they've just seen their plan to nuke global Communism into non-existence work? Yeah, that probably is their plan for dealing with problems in the future. You will not want to anger this version of the USA. Is it dystopian? Yeah, probably.

Anyways, I agree that it's going to depend on how this is going to start. I suppose these two options would be one of the most likely ones:
1) US tries to press the issue in Hungary using nuclear threat. Then this either escalates out of hand, or Soviets decide to call the American bluff, only for it to not turn out to be a bluff.
2) Khrushchev botches up response to Suez crisis, making it escalate to a WWIII.

You can plausibly have a combination of both, since the crises were simultaneous. It's entirely possible that the US in this timeline will blame France, Israel and the UK for causing the war, attributing it to their independent actions against Egypt destabilising relations between the US and USSR. In this case, and noting the dystopian aspects, it's quite possible that a comparatively unscathed US uses redevelopment aid to Western Europe as the 'carrot' part of a carrot-and-stick approach to bring them solidly into the US orbit. De Gaulle will be seen as dangerous for advocating French freedom of action, since French freedom of action was, in part, responsible for the war. US support to Israel may never reach the levels of OTL - and without Soviet-backed Arab forces, it may not need to. The UK more-or-less willingly entered the US orbit after 1956 anyway, but expect to see this exaggerated. Decolonisation is likely to be pursued even more aggressively - not only will the US make it a condition of aid, but the UK and France probably can't afford to fight colonial wars!

The good news is, there probably won't be the fiasco in Vietnam we all know and love. There'll still be a war in Vietnam, but without China and the USSR the dynamics will be very different. This might be where the US discovers that chucking nukes at problems doesn't make them go away. But the US might equally decide that, without global Communism as a threat, they aren't really that bothered one way or the other.

 

[MKD]

This has all gone very Dr Strangelove! I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

 

[Catsmate]

No realistic way to do that, they would have to use Bears. Not many of the Atomic capable models of them were in service. The Bisons didn't have the needed range, even one way, and the slightly improved 'B' model with range for a one way trip wasn't flying til 1958

Submarine launched missiles.

 

[BlueTrousers]

Submarine launched missiles.

Seven submarines with nine missiles in the entire Soviet fleet. Two P-5 cruise missiles, and seven R-11 ballistic missiles. Not all will be available, and not all that are available will actually work. They're certainly there, but hardly a major factor.

This has all gone very Dr Strangelove! I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

You're not wrong! Of course, Dr Strangelove was parodying the exact kinds of attitudes that really were held by senior figures during this timeframe.

 

[Joku_]

This has all gone very Dr Strangelove! I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

It doesn't sound like the Soviets had any way to kill that many Americans, and probably not even that many citizens of NATO countries.

 

[Joku_]

Submarine launched missiles.

Seven submarines with nine missiles in the entire Soviet fleet. Two P-5 cruise missiles, and seven R-11 ballistic missiles. Not all will be available, and not all that are available will actually work. They're certainly there, but hardly a major factor.

According to Wikipedia, nuclear version of R-11 entered service in 1958, and in 1959 as a SLBM.

 

[BlueTrousers]

According to Wikipedia, nuclear version of R-11 entered service in 1958, and in 1959 as a SLBM.

In which case, the AM611 boats were carrying conventional warheads - makes sense, they were doubtless testing the concept out!

 

[marathag]

However, if Western Europe is hit with 100+ Soviet nukes, people are going to be a lot more angry.

With 100+ nukes, Survival will be a bigger issue. And most of the anger would be directed at the Soviets. Their bombs, after all.
Yes, It would be all _Threads_ at first, but US Aid coming in afterwards

 

[MKD]

It doesn't sound like the Soviets had any way to kill that many Americans, and probably not even that many citizens of NATO countries.

well sitting on one of those NATO countries I am more worried about that than how the USA escapes untouched!

 

[marathag]

The good news is, there probably won't be the fiasco in Vietnam we all know and love. There'll still be a war in Vietnam, but without China and the USSR the dynamics will be very different.

With Zero aid coming from the now Annihilated countries, you bet things would be different. After the spasm that was WWIII, the US would very little patience for 2nd World aligned countries that weren't bombed as part of WWIII. I'd guess at minimum, the US would demand the banning of any Communist Party in order to have any relations with the USA

 

[marathag]

You're not wrong! Of course, Dr Strangelove was parodying the exact kinds of attitudes that really were held by senior figures during this timeframe.

Many people thought that Jack D Ripper was a parody of LeMay.
They were wrong.
It was SACs General Power.
And he may have been almost that insane. The World was very lucky during the CMC that he didn't use his predelegated Command Authority to Start WWIII.
SAC had bypassed all the PAL controls that JFK and McNamara had installed. They didn't have any of the control they thought they had over SAC

 

[Athelstane]

Seven submarines with nine missiles in the entire Soviet fleet. Two P-5 cruise missiles, and seven R-11 ballistic missiles. Not all will be available, and not all that are available will actually work. They're certainly there, but hardly a major factor.

None of these were operational until 1959, yes?

 

[Conveyancer]

I wonder how much more likely a nuclear conflict coming out of some balls-up related to Suez/Hungary might have been if somehow Stalin was still around in 56?

 

[Athelstane]

I wonder how much more likely a nuclear conflict coming out of some balls-up related to Suez/Hungary might have been if somehow Stalin was still around in 56?

I suppose it depends on Stalin's state of mind. Usually, he was a canny operator in foreign policy, appreciating the limits of what he could get away with.

Whereas Khrushchev was a more impulsive personality, more of a risk taker.

That probably makes Khrushcheva reasonable focal point for speculative alt-history exercises in a war breaking out in 1956 - certainly more than Eisenhower.

 

[Athelstane]

And where and when and by whom have Western Europeans and the rest of the world mostly recently seen such an action attempted ? Except this time for whatever the original reason for all intents and purposes a genocide has been carried out.Whatever the reason placed on the scales with the result the result will weigh much heavier in most eyes especially since those doing the weighing-Western Europeans will have suffered horribly in the process.What have the survivors been saved from compared to what they and humanity as a whole lost ?

and Western Europe had to be destroyed in order to save the world from the Soviet Union.Well not really but it was. To me I really dont see most Western Europeans believing that especially considering what the origins of the war are eventually found and broadcast to be, Whatever it was they will be likely to see the genocide of Soviets and the destruction of Western Europe as not being worth it.Hearing LeMay or whoever is left on the radio or tv bragging about how the US saved the world wouldnt help much either. US rhetoric at the time always said it had no hatred of or quarrel with the Soviet people.Reality would seem to make that claim a total fiction.

Some here think as long a it was "just" 3 to 5 major American cities it would be no big deal.Some think the US would come away totally untouched which of course would make the US look and smell even worse in a world of genocided Soviets and a devastated Western Europe. In Brendan Dubois Resurrection Day Western Europe-unrealisticly-was untouched by the Soviets and it still had that attitude over just what happened to the Soviets.

Again its hard to see how the reality of this war doesnt change European opinion from fairly pro American almost overnight.It definitely depends on the reason the conflict started to begin with. But regardless of that if its perceived there was an alternative to what happened including doing nothing thats likely to be seen as better thus making the US a real stinker in most eyes including some American ones.

I think it would be helpful to step back and think about just what the range of possibilities is here. Because I can't help but think (no offense) that you're sliding into the temptation to worst-case this, at least in regards to American behavior. As if someone sneezes wrong at the Potsdamer Bahnhof and Curtis Lemay instantly decides to dump the entire U.S. deterrent on the USSR before breakfast, and surviving GSFG commanders decide to spoilsport by splitting as many atoms east of the Seine as they can, followed by Thomas Powers leading the Rockettes in a victory parade down the Canyon of Heroes.

But more likely, a conventional war would precede any nuclear strikes. And there's a large range of possibilities where any nuclear warfare ends up limited, not least due to Eisenhower's known aversion to crisis escalation - not least because, thanks to U-2 flights which had begun in July 1956, Ike was getting a fair idea of just how limited the Soviet nuclear deterrent (or its ability to deliver it, at any rate) really was. For example, I can readily imagine a scenario where, some tactical nukes having been exchanged on the front line in West Germany, Ike orders a limited set of nuclear strikes on Soviet airbases in Eastern Germany and western districts of the Soviet Union where warheads were believed to have been stored, to force Khrushchev (or some figure replacing him) into a cease fire. The civlian dead and destruction in such a scenario would be far more limited.