Vistulange wrote:Hurtful Thoughts wrote:Didn't the US basing of nuclear SRBMs in Turkey nearly start WW3, though?
Since that prompted Cuba to get some as well... the rest was kinda fictionalized in NS-lore.
TFW America has detonated enough nuclear weapons over the years that using stock footage is still easier than using CGI.
Kind of. Admittedly, the scholarly consensus there is, uh...a little trickier. I'd explain further, but this isn't the thread for it; nor do I have the time to dig up a bunch of articles, or worse, go down to the university library to borrow books, real books.
But I'm mostly being nitpicky. The essential, key takeaway of the readings I've done on the topic is that it wasn't really the MRBMs that were a problem. Let me be more specific: the MRBMs, both in Cuba and in Turkey, didn't present any new existential threat to the two sides. By the time the crisis rolled around, both sides already had successful ICBM launches—both sides had operational ICBMs in 1959—so the only difference was "does our country get bathed in nuclear fire in 5 minutes, or 20 minutes" which isn't really a difference. Instead, it was more of a prestige issue, i.e., "can't be having Soviet missiles in our backyard" and vice versa. That's also why Khrushchev got removed, they extrapolate, because the issue wasn't precisely an issue of the missiles being removed—it was that the Soviets were publicly humiliated in doing so, whereas the US quietly withdrew the Jupiter missiles from Turkey.
Anyway, it was a close call, but I think the scholarly community agrees that the priority on both sides was "how do we not end the fucking world tomorrow".
It was actually closer to 40 minutes, maybe much as an hour and a half, excluding SLBMs launching suicidally close.
Plus, with a few guided missiles/jamming, you can open a channel through the IADS large enough to send a few cruise missiles in unnoticed. Theoretically making a decapitating strike feasible.














