3 ms·

> Of course we planned a nuclear first strike against Russia. And China. And likely the entire Eastern Bloc. It would have been irresponsible for our war planne

> Of course we planned a nuclear first strike against Russia. And China. And likely the entire Eastern Bloc. It would have been irresponsible for our war planners to do otherwise, as it's one of many contingencies that may ultimately arise. There are only five comments here, but I'm relieved to see that they all more or less come to the same conclusion you do. The press (especially the national security press) would have known the same thing, so they're highly unlikely to have considered the existence of these plans to be particularly revelatory. I think that explains away UNZ's fears about the press's possible complicity with whitewashing history (in this case, anyway).

lostlogin 10y ago
Having these documents add to the story in a meaningful way through. It very much gives context to the Cuban crisis as the USSRs only decent tools appear to have been shorter range than what the US had. The US could be just as threatening to the USSR without leaving home when it took the USSR setting up in Cuba to counter the threat. This certainly gives context to me and make the USSR look less the aggressor and actually weak, forced into a corner.
- mikeash 10y ago
  For a fascinating, fictional, but well researched look into what the Cuban crisis could have turned into if it had gone hot, check out the Cuban Missile War: http://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-cuban-missile-war-timeline.65071/ http://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-cuban-miss... It does a great job of illustrating just how uneven the two sides were at the time, and how unpleasant the potential consequences were.
- etrevino 10y ago
  Well, the USSR's problem was two-fold: until Cuba they didn't have a place to put their short- and medium-ranged ballistic missiles. They did have ICBMs that could hit the US, but 1) there would be enough warning for an immediate counter strike and 2) they just couldn't deliver enough to cripple the US. The Soviet Union's concern was also that the US did have missiles in places like Turkey and Germany, which provided them decent first strike ability that-- until Cuba-- the Soviets didn't have. To my mind, though, the big differentiater was Strategic Air Command. The US had an enormous amount of bombers regularly patrolling outside of Soviet airspace. Had SAC been ordered in there would have been plenty of warning, but it provided massive second strike capability. The Soviet Union had no answer for that and never would, which is why they did opt to go heavy on the ICBMs whereas the US spread out its weaponry across the nuclear triad.

lostlogin 10y ago

Having these documents add to the story in a meaningful way through. It very much gives context to the Cuban crisis as the USSRs only decent tools appear to have been shorter range than what the US had. The US could be just as threatening to the USSR without leaving home when it took the USSR setting up in Cuba to counter the threat. This certainly gives context to me and make the USSR look less the aggressor and actually weak, forced into a corner.

mikeash 10y ago
For a fascinating, fictional, but well researched look into what the Cuban crisis could have turned into if it had gone hot, check out the Cuban Missile War: http://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-cuban-missile-war-timeline.65071/ http://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-cuban-miss... It does a great job of illustrating just how uneven the two sides were at the time, and how unpleasant the potential consequences were.
etrevino 10y ago
Well, the USSR's problem was two-fold: until Cuba they didn't have a place to put their short- and medium-ranged ballistic missiles. They did have ICBMs that could hit the US, but 1) there would be enough warning for an immediate counter strike and 2) they just couldn't deliver enough to cripple the US. The Soviet Union's concern was also that the US did have missiles in places like Turkey and Germany, which provided them decent first strike ability that-- until Cuba-- the Soviets didn't have. To my mind, though, the big differentiater was Strategic Air Command. The US had an enormous amount of bombers regularly patrolling outside of Soviet airspace. Had SAC been ordered in there would have been plenty of warning, but it provided massive second strike capability. The Soviet Union had no answer for that and never would, which is why they did opt to go heavy on the ICBMs whereas the US spread out its weaponry across the nuclear triad.