Cuban Missile Crisis

[Patches1]

For those of you who weren't born yet and didn't live through the Cuban Missile crisis, this is the kind of threat World faced:

Ok, yet again, another topic heading into political discussion.  Posting political stuff will get you suspended from the board.  I should not have to remind anyone of this.

Are you sure you want to continue?

[morfiend]

Heh.  Reminds me of the Radio Free Europe commercials, with the little kids in uniform performing for their bald-headed teachers.

Scared the crap out of me.  Propaganda works.  At least on kids.

- oldman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60              This is a perfect example of what you're taking about!



   

 

[Oldman731]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60              This is a perfect example of what you're taking about!

Good find.  Ah, the memories of happier times!

- oldman

[Stellaris]

The issue with Hackett's thinking was his belief that a conventional war in Europe would stay (mostly) conventional.  This is merely reflective of staff planning in the cold war, since there's little point in making plans for a conventional forces in a nuclear Armageddon, but it was absolutely delusional. If the Cuban Missile Crisis nearly launched the missiles, if KAL 007 nearly did, it's pretty inconceivable that a general war in Germany would not.

Not that staff planning today is any more realistic.  Hands up everyone who believes Afghanistan will be a stable democracy by 2014.  Or that invading it hastened the day bin Laden died by even 24 hours.

[Rich46yo]

The issue with Hackett's thinking was his belief that a conventional war in Europe would stay (mostly) conventional.  This is merely reflective of staff planning in the cold war, since there's little point in making plans for a conventional forces in a nuclear Armageddon, but it was absolutely delusional. If the Cuban Missile Crisis nearly launched the missiles, if KAL 007 nearly did, it's pretty inconceivable that a general war in Germany would not.

Not that staff planning today is any more realistic.  Hands up everyone who believes Afghanistan will be a stable democracy by 2014.  Or that invading it hastened the day bin Laden died by even 24 hours.

I dont think the two are comparable. The one would have been a conventional war between established armies, and who knows what would have happened?, while your second paragraph refers to the propaganda side show over an asymmetric conflict against fundamentalist factions in a remote 3rd world country.

When Cuba happened it was the Dawn of the nuclear Cold War and nobody knew what to do. By 1985, in Hackett's account, both sides were comfortable enough with living under MAD that I think a general war WAS conceivable, if only cause the opposite was unacceptable. Hackett merely used one possible end scenario for his book. He could have just as easily used the ending of the Soviets beating the West which triggered a theater release by NATO, which triggered a strategic release by both sides. Which I think would have happened.

However I dont know for sure. Neither do you, and neither did Hackett. At the same time I think Hackett's account of how the NATO edge in technology, which we had by '85, allowed us to stop them WAS plausible. We tended to over estimate the Reds during the Cold War but the simple truth is they just weren't as good as we were. We got to see that NATO force in its prime, if only against the Iraqi's, and it was over whelming.

[Oldman731]

We tended to over estimate the Reds during the Cold War but the simple truth is they just weren't as good as we were. We got to see that NATO force in its prime, if only against the Iraqi's, and it was over whelming.

Desert Storm utilized a NATO force that had been vastly improved since the time Hackett wrote his books.  Hackett's "war" theoretically occurred in 1982, before the Reagan reforms had had much chance to take effect, and while NATO forces were still in their late-1970s condition.  Ever read "Army in Anguish"?

The other two books similar to Hackett's that come to my mind are Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" and Ralph Peters' "Red Army."  The latter is one of my dozen or so favorite books of all time.

- oldman

[Rich46yo]

Desert Storm utilized a NATO force that had been vastly improved since the time Hackett wrote his books.  Hackett's "war" theoretically occurred in 1982, before the Reagan reforms had had much chance to take effect, and while NATO forces were still in their late-1970s condition.  Ever read "Army in Anguish"?

The other two books similar to Hackett's that come to my mind are Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" and Ralph Peters' "Red Army."  The latter is one of my dozen or so favorite books of all time.

- oldman

To a point. But remember Desert Storm also had in use many of the systems that were then becoming fielded in the time frame of T3WW. Tomahawk, TOW, Stinger, Stealth, Abrahms, Apache, A-10, F-15, F-16, F-14, ASAT, Laser, LA Class, Trident, the list goes on and on. With a few exceptions, and maybe a few newer versions, the NATO of the Gulf War was the NATO of Hackett's book. In fact Reagan got credit for many systems that were actually started, or kick started, by Carter. Also dont forget that while the book was published in 1982 the actual war was projected to be in 1985.

Hackett's account was eerily accurate for writing about a conflict 7 or more years into the future. Of course he was in position to know a lot and was a fascinating character in his own right.

[pembquist]

I remember reading hacketts book when I was 12. I thought the same thing then that I do now which is that nobody starts a war thinking they are going to lose and that things don't often go as planned. The Cuban missile crisis is an example, the 20th century world wars are too.

I thought Hastings had a good story but just a story. After Germany wiped the floor with the allies I imagine that not many people thought that invading Russia would result in the total destruction of Germany, the rape of most of her women in the east and the division of the country for 40 years. The matter of factness is what got me about his book, I just thought it was ridiculous to think that predictions more than one or two steps down the road would sync with reality.

Khrushchev was so so wrong in his thinking about how the US would respond it should be an antidote to over confidence. The remarkable lesson in leadership that comes out of the crisis for me is that Kennedy while listening to his counsel was strong enough to ignore them and realize that the solution was not about war fighting but about personalities and face saving.

[GScholz]

The Gulf War is not really comparable to a NATO/WP conflict. Arabs are nitwits when it comes to warfare, their Soviet equipment were/are the monkey versions without advanced systems like night vision, targeting computers and modern ammo. They had/have almost no proper command and control abilities.

A better comparison is the Kosovo/Serbia campaign in 1988-99 where NATO attacked the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), a former Soviet satellite republic. They proved very skillful in avoiding detection and destruction by NATO air power while inflicting embarrassing losses on their attackers. Perhaps most so the shoot-down of an F-117 stealth. After Milosevic accepted the international peace plan to end the fighting in Kosovo, the Serbian army withdrew from Kosovo largely intact; after months of bombing by NATO.  The official losses were 462 soldiers killed, and 299 wounded. Most of the targets hit in Kosovo were decoys; Newsweek gained access to a suppressed US Air Force report that stated the real numbers of destroyed vehicles were 3 tanks not the 120 claimed, 18 APCs not 220 as originally claimed, and 20 artillery pieces, not the originally claimed 450. After months of bombing.

Fighting in Europe is worlds apart from fighting in the desert.

[Oldman731]

Fighting in Europe is worlds apart from fighting in the desert.

True that.  There are a lot more foreigners in Europe.

Nonetheless, the NATO armies, designed from the start to fight in western Europe, did just fine in the desert, too. 

Jungles, now, those might be another matter....

- oldman

[fuzeman]

Real scary thing is one day zack's generation will be in 'control.'

Mr. President, Kim Il Dim Wit is on the hot-line and wants to talk to you.
Put him on hold. I dont recall who he is and I have to look him up on wiki. Does he have a FaceBook page?

[Rich46yo]

I never said they were "comparable". I simply stated it was NATO in its prime.

I think we lost 2 or 3 fixed wing aircraft over Serbia to hostile fire. One was a 117 that we stupidly flew during the day and along the same route time and again. Yes Im aware of some of the claims by the Serbs and get a good laugh out of them. We ended up forcing the Serbs out of Kosovo using air power alone. Actually the Iraqi's were a bigger threat to our air power then the Serbs were.

Hardly "embarrassing".

The Gulf War is not really comparable to a NATO/WP conflict. Arabs are nitwits when it comes to warfare, their Soviet equipment were/are the monkey versions without advanced systems like night vision, targeting computers and modern ammo. They had/have almost no proper command and control abilities.

A better comparison is the Kosovo/Serbia campaign in 1988-99 where NATO attacked the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), a former Soviet satellite republic. They proved very skillful in avoiding detection and destruction by NATO air power while inflicting embarrassing losses on their attackers. Perhaps most so the shoot-down of an F-117 stealth. After Milosevic accepted the international peace plan to end the fighting in Kosovo, the Serbian army withdrew from Kosovo largely intact; after months of bombing by NATO.  The official losses were 462 soldiers killed, and 299 wounded. Most of the targets hit in Kosovo were decoys; Newsweek gained access to a suppressed US Air Force report that stated the real numbers of destroyed vehicles were 3 tanks not the 120 claimed, 18 APCs not 220 as originally claimed, and 20 artillery pieces, not the originally claimed 450. After months of bombing.

Fighting in Europe is worlds apart from fighting in the desert.

[GScholz]

Actually what forced Milosevic to negotiate was when NATO started bombing political, economic and civilian targets in Serbia itself. TV and radio stations, power plants, water and sanitation facilities, bridges. Even the Chinese embassy got hit.

Here's a copy of the Newsweek article: http://one-six-one.fifthinfantrydivision.com/airpwr.htm

[Stellaris]

Ignore arguments of technology, training, or era.  There are three possible outcomes to a general conventional war in central Europe during the cold war.

1)  The Warsaw pact loses.
2)  NATO loses.
3)  Stalemate

Imagine the Warsaw pact loses.  Deep strikes paralyze their command and control, Poland surrenders, the Ukraine front collapses.  Only nuclear weapons can stop NATO from taking Moscow.  What do you think Andropov would do?

Now imagines NATO is loses, 5th Guards tank army has overrun Germany, Soviet troops are coming through Strasbourg and tomorrow they'll be in Paris.  Do you think the French will not use their nuclear weapons to prevent this?  If they don't, will the USA allow a million cut-off American soldiers to be taken prisoner before using nuclear weapons to cover their evacuation?  That evacuation will be across the English Channel.  Would a British submarine captain (with sole launch authority, remember) hesitate to use a nuclear SUBROC round to stop a quad of Oscar class subs getting within their 500km Granit missile range of the rescue.  For that matter, would not a German artillery officer simply commandeer his US issued W48s (and the US PAL officer if necessary) when the first Soviet recce forces clear the western end of the Fulda Gap?

The best possible outcome is a stalemate - but if the conventional forces are stalemated then nuclear weapons are the way to break it.  And you'd better use yours first...


Here's General Rair Simoyen of the Red Army, when asked if a conventional war might not mean nuclear war.   "No side will accept defeat until it uses all the weapons it has,"

And here's General Curtis LeMay, when he was told that a pre-emptive strike at the opening of the was not US national policy,   "I don't care, it's my policy. That's what I'm going to do."


The main purpose of conventional forces on both sides in Central Europe was to allow the politicians to pretend they had a strategy that somehow didn't involve destroying the world.  The soldiers went along with it, because what else could they do?

[GScholz]

Pretty much.

I live in a town that would have been nuked within days of the opening shot, if not on day one. The Soviets would have nuked it if they couldn't capture it. If they did capture it, NATO would have nuked it. The plans were already drawn up.