Cuban Missile Crisis Hypothetical

[LaurieAG]

So the big question is, if Cuba launched Russian missiles at US mainland targets, HOW MANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS WOULD THE US LAUNCH AT CUBA?

 

[TheVat]

Why is this, which I take to be a sixties metaphor, applicable to current events?  The US hasn't given Ukraine nukes, but rather longer range conventional missiles.  

[iNow]

6 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

So the big question is, if Cuba launched Russian missiles at US mainland targets, HOW MANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS WOULD THE US LAUNCH AT CUBA?

Surely one of sufficient yield would suffice 

[zapatos]

7 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

So the big question is, if Cuba launched Russian missiles at US mainland targets, HOW MANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS WOULD THE US LAUNCH AT CUBA?

 

Presumably none. You don't  respond to non-nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons. There would be no need.

[LaurieAG]

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

Presumably none. You don't  respond to non-nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons. There would be no need.

But remember the US is the only country who has used nuclear weapons on a country without nuclear weapon(s), it set the precedent.

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, LaurieAG said:

But remember the US is the only country who has used nuclear weapons on a country without nuclear weapon(s), it set the precedent.

I remember but thanks for the reminder. (I suspect just about everyone in the world remembers.) The US has also NOT used them in all subsequent conflicts over the following 80 years. I stand by my comment.

[TheVat]

Would OP kindly clarify what the OP is asking?  Tired of guessing.

[swansont]

21 hours ago, zapatos said:

Presumably none. You don't  respond to non-nuclear weapons with nuclear weapons. There would be no need.

In the Cuban missile crisis they were nukes. That’s why it was a crisis.

 

27 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Would OP kindly clarify what the OP is asking?  Tired of guessing.

How about answering the question that was asked, instead of trying to divine some other question.

[exchemist]

On 11/18/2024 at 11:57 AM, LaurieAG said:

So the big question is, if Cuba launched Russian missiles at US mainland targets, HOW MANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS WOULD THE US LAUNCH AT CUBA?

 

Bearing in mind @swansont's stricture, above, the answer is: zero.

Edited Tuesday at 05:09 PM by exchemist

[TheVat]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

How about answering the question that was asked, instead of trying to divine some other question.

Well, the question asked (with its original shout uppercase) was...

Quote

So the big question is, if Cuba launched Russian missiles at US mainland targets, HOW MANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS WOULD THE US LAUNCH AT CUBA?

 

...ridiculous.  Cuba doesn't have Russian missiles.  If it did, Cuba would obviously not be our retaliatory target, Russia would.  

So is the OP asking how we would participate in a 1962 World War Three?  Or is OP, based on today's headlines, making an analogy to our supplying Ukraine with ATACMs and greenlighting their use?  Legitimate question and call for clarification, imo.

[swansont]

On 11/18/2024 at 6:57 AM, LaurieAG said:

So the big question is, if Cuba launched Russian missiles at US mainland targets, HOW MANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS WOULD THE US LAUNCH AT CUBA?

 

It depends on whether you could take out the launch sites with conventional weapons. And also on how many missiles had been launched.

2 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Well, the question asked (with its original shout uppercase) was...

...ridiculous.  Cuba doesn't have Russian missiles.  

But they did when the crisis happened.

[TheVat]

Nope, still not seeing the relevance, if this is a politics forum.  Seems suitable for speculations on alternate historical timelines, I guess.  In Alt 1962, Cuba kept the missiles and Russia launched a nuclear strike again the USA.  I'm thinking, again, the standard Herman Kahn scenario would have kicked in and the US would have nuked Russia.  Sure, one could nuke Cuba, but seems like those missiles in Laurie's scenario were already launched and so Russian sites would be priority targets rather than the recently emptied silos or launch stands in Cuba.  

[zapatos]

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

In the Cuban missile crisis they were nukes. That’s why it was a crisis.

 

Yes, thanks for the reminder. I'm unsure though why you are reminding me.

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

But they did when the crisis happened.

I don't think you can assume this is about the 1962 crisis without further clarification from the OP.

35 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Bearing in mind @swansont's stricture, above, the answer is: zero.

@swansont seems to be saying this only refers to 1962, in which case your (and my) answer may not be correct.

[exchemist]

20 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes, thanks for the reminder. I'm unsure though why you are reminding me.

I don't think you can assume this is about the 1962 crisis without further clarification from the OP.

@swansont seems to be saying this only refers to 1962, in which case your (and my) answer may not be correct.

No, because the tense of the question is wrong for that. It would have read “how many missiles would have been launched” , if it was a question about 1962.

Asking how many the US “would launch” places the hypothetical question firmly in the present/near future, to my mind.

Edited Tuesday at 06:01 PM by exchemist

[swansont]

42 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yes, thanks for the reminder. I'm unsure though why you are reminding me.

Because you made a statement about non-nukes.

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because you made a statement about non-nukes.

The OP did not specify if the missiles are nuclear or non-nuclear. Why is your assumption correct and mine is wrong?

I'm not sure why you don't feel the OP needs some clarification. Surely it has confused more than one person here.

[swansont]

25 minutes ago, exchemist said:

No, because the tense of the question is wrong for that. It would have read “how many missiles would have been launched” , if it was a question about 1962.

Asking how many the US “would launch” places the hypothetical question firmly in the present/near future, to my mind.

“if Cuba launched Russian missiles” Launched is past tense. There was only one Cuban missile crisis. It happened in 1962.

People screw up grammar all the time. It usually doesn’t cause such issues.

 

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

The OP did not specify if the missiles are nuclear or non-nuclear. Why is your assumption correct and mine is wrong?

Cuban missile crisis. Right there in the title.

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

Cuban missile crisis. Right there in the title.

Dig in your heels. I'll move on.

[iNow]

Were there nuclear tips on the missiles Cuba launched in this scenario? Or were they non nuclear kinetics?

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, swansont said:

 

But they did when the crisis happened.

Not quite. They were on their way to Cuba but better sense prevailed.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Not quite. They were on their way to Cuba but better sense prevailed.

President Kennedy doesn’t agree

“The characteristics of these new missile sites indicate two distinct types of installations. Several of them include medium range ballistic missiles, capable of carrying a nuclear warhead for a distance of more than 1,000 nautical miles.

…

This urgent transformation of Cuba into an important strategic base -- by the presence of these large, long-range, and clearly offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction -- constitutes an explicit threat to the peace and security of all Americas“

http://wp.stu.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/08/Kennedy-Speech-Cuban-Missile-Crisis.pdf

 

The Soviets agreed to remove the missiles. Can’t remove something that isn’t there.

Recon photos showing the missiles and also them being loaded onto ships for removal in November

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/photos.htm

38. November 5, 1962: Low-level photography documents loading of Soviet missiles at the main Mariel port facility for return to the USSR.  On the dock are vehicles later identified by NPIC as nuclear warhead vans.

[LaurieAG]

For all of those who missed this word in the title.

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

 

hypothetical

/hʌɪpəˈθɛtɪk(ə)l/

adjective

adjective: hypothetical

1. based on or serving as a hypothesis.

   "let us take a hypothetical case"

   • supposed but not necessarily real or true.

     "the hypothetical tenth planet"

      

• Logic

  denoting or containing a proposition of the logical form if p then q.

noun

noun: hypothetical; plural noun: hypotheticals

1. a hypothetical proposition or statement.

   "officials refuse to discuss military policy except in coy hypotheticals"

[toucana]

6 hours ago, LaurieAG said:

For all of those who missed this word in the title.

Dictionary

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more

 

hypothetical

/hʌɪpəˈθɛtɪk(ə)l/

 

adjective

adjective: hypothetical

1. based on or serving as a hypothesis.

   "let us take a hypothetical case"

   • supposed but not necessarily real or true.

 

So - which hypothetical scenario is involved here ?

i. If Cuba were to launch *non* nuclear Russian supplied cruise missiles at the US mainland ?

ii. If Cuba were to launch Russian made missiles armed *with* nuclear warheads at the US mainland?

Two very different scenarios - neither of them remotely plausible, or worth any serious discussion.

It is worth noting, even at the height of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, that the USA never once considered launching any form of missile strikes on Cuba, even though American U2 surveillance flights had detected 9 launch sites for Soviet missiles with thermonuclear warheads being prepared on Cuban soil. The American military options were confined to conventional airforce and naval bombardement, followed by an amphibious invasion: or a naval quarantine blockade of Cuba.

It later emerged that in addition to the IRBM missiles, the Soviets also had up to a dozen 9K52 Luna-M (Russian Луна, - ‘Moon’ ) short range artillery rockets armed with 2 Kiloton tactical nuclear warheads. The presence of these weapons code named Frog 7 by NATO was wholly unknown to American intelligence, or to US secretary of defense Robert Mcnamara.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K52_Luna-M

These tactical nukes were under the control of Soviet forces on Cuba whose commanders were tasked with defending the Cuban missile sites, and they had command authority to launch them on their own initiative, without consulting the Kremlin in an emergency. If America had proceeded with the large scale amphibious invasion of Cuba recommended by JFK’s generals, then their invasion force could have been devastated with multiple tactical nukes, and WW3 would have ensued.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, toucana said:

It is worth noting, even at the height of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, that the USA never once considered launching any form of missile strikes on Cuba, even though American U2 surveillance flights had detected 9 launch sites for Soviet missiles with thermonuclear warheads being prepared on Cuban soil. 

But an invasion was rejected for the fear that the Cubans would launch missiles.

And that’s the scenario being offered - that they launched missiles.

[toucana]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

But an invasion was rejected for the fear that the Cubans would launch missiles.

And that’s the scenario being offered - that they launched missiles.

Nope - The nuclear missile sites on Cuba were wholly under the control of Soviet technicians and military commanders. Cuban officers had no command authority or launch codes for the IRBMs, only the Kremlin could have authorised their use against the USA.

The American invasion plan was rejected for a number of different reasons. The writer David Spanier explains one of them in his book Total Poker (1977) citing David Halberstam’s account of how General David Shoup, Commandant of the US Marine Corps at the time addressed this topic in briefings :

Quote

First he took an overlay of  Cuba and placed it over the map of the United States. To everybody’s surprise Cuba was not a small island, along the lines of say Long Island at best. It was about 800 miles long and seemed to stretch from New York to Chicago. Then he took  another overlay with a red dot and placed it over the map of Cuba. “What is that ?” someone asked him. “That gentlemen represents the island of Tarawa” said Shoup, who had won a Medal of Honour there, “and it took three days and eighteen thousand Marines to take it”.  (David Spanier - Total Poker  p75).