4 ms·

The answer is that they had both aircraft-tracking radar and "early warning" radar designed to pick up incoming ICBM re-entry vehicles by that time, so it would

by mpyne 13y ago

The answer is that they had both aircraft-tracking radar and "early warning" radar designed to pick up incoming ICBM re-entry vehicles by that time, so it would have been fairly easy to verify that a single nuclear detonation around a militarily and strategically innocouous site was an accident. But don't let that stop you from panicing.

smtddr 13y ago
Oh they'd know. The real question is would they have told the public it was an internal accident? Or do some wonderful media-spin and blame whatever country they feel like going to war with...
- Dove 13y ago
  No one "felt like" going to war during the Cold War. Avoiding war was the top priority in everyone's mind. And I mean everyone -- leadership, public, on both sides. That's why it was a cold war. If anyone on either side had wanted a hot one, they could have started it easily a dozen times over.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >No one "felt like" going to war during the Cold War. Avoiding war was the top priority in everyone's mind. And I mean everyone -- leadership, public, on both sides. "Noone" felt like going to war with the big other superpower. As for places of strategic interest, they absolutely LOVED going to war over them, Korea, Vietnam, tons of Latin America, etc etc.
Osiris 13y ago
I would be highly skeptical that the President would have told the American people "Oops, our bad. That was just an accident". It's very likely that the government would have blamed the attack on someone other than the U.S. even with the evidence in their hands that it was an accident. Seriously, can you imagine a U.S. President admitting to the public that the military just 'accidently' killed millions of people?
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  An even bigger threat than "the President goes to war to cover up an accident" is what happens with the chain of escalation when the Soviets notice the detonation and go to high alert in case the US thinks that it was a Soviet attack (since the Soviets are less likely than the Americans to know it was a US bomber accident, and therefore not necessarily confident that the US will not think that it was a successful sneak attack of some kind.)
- jevinskie 13y ago
  So they blame the USSR and say they started a nuclear war? I don't think that would work out better.
- Dove 13y ago
  In 1961, JFK would have been president. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, when an American U-2 was shot down and the pilot killed, he chose not to retaliate. Not to. Just let the Russians shoot down one of ours, and did nothing. He did the right thing, too. It was an already tense situation, and letting it escalate into all out war . . . no one can say where it would stop. Whatever you think of current politicians, JFK was a great man. There's no way, no way at all, he would have started a global hot war out of sheer pride. But beyond that, it was a very different time. The US really was in mortal combat, which is not something this generation has witnessed. "We will find those terrorists" was a popular message on 9/11. "The Russians hit us for real and we have to hit back," during the Cold War, would not have been. It would have sounded like the end of the world. The political temptation would not have been to make an accident look like a real strike, but -- if anything -- to make a real strike look like an accident.
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    Interesting phrasing. Wouldn't Cuba be the one expected to react? A spy plane was sent at them and they kill it and the US is the wronged party? Don't get me wrong, I don't side with Cuba over the enormously provocative way they behaved, but I don't fell sorry for the US either. The Turkey part of the saga is just as bad.
bsullivan01 13y ago
Not necessarily. What if the 'evil empire' had smuggled a small one in US soil?
coldtea 13y ago
>But don't let that stop you from panicing. Yes, because radars at the time were so advanced that nothing could go wrong. They were made by the same guys that lost 2 bombs near a major metropolitan area. Yay for engineering!

by mpyne 13y ago

smtddr 13y ago

Oh they'd know. The real question is would they have told the public it was an internal accident? Or do some wonderful media-spin and blame whatever country they feel like going to war with...

Dove 13y ago
No one "felt like" going to war during the Cold War. Avoiding war was the top priority in everyone's mind. And I mean everyone -- leadership, public, on both sides. That's why it was a cold war. If anyone on either side had wanted a hot one, they could have started it easily a dozen times over.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >No one "felt like" going to war during the Cold War. Avoiding war was the top priority in everyone's mind. And I mean everyone -- leadership, public, on both sides. "Noone" felt like going to war with the big other superpower. As for places of strategic interest, they absolutely LOVED going to war over them, Korea, Vietnam, tons of Latin America, etc etc.

Osiris 13y ago

I would be highly skeptical that the President would have told the American people "Oops, our bad. That was just an accident". It's very likely that the government would have blamed the attack on someone other than the U.S. even with the evidence in their hands that it was an accident. Seriously, can you imagine a U.S. President admitting to the public that the military just 'accidently' killed millions of people?

dragonwriter 13y ago
An even bigger threat than "the President goes to war to cover up an accident" is what happens with the chain of escalation when the Soviets notice the detonation and go to high alert in case the US thinks that it was a Soviet attack (since the Soviets are less likely than the Americans to know it was a US bomber accident, and therefore not necessarily confident that the US will not think that it was a successful sneak attack of some kind.)
jevinskie 13y ago
So they blame the USSR and say they started a nuclear war? I don't think that would work out better.
Dove 13y ago
In 1961, JFK would have been president. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, when an American U-2 was shot down and the pilot killed, he chose not to retaliate. Not to. Just let the Russians shoot down one of ours, and did nothing. He did the right thing, too. It was an already tense situation, and letting it escalate into all out war . . . no one can say where it would stop. Whatever you think of current politicians, JFK was a great man. There's no way, no way at all, he would have started a global hot war out of sheer pride. But beyond that, it was a very different time. The US really was in mortal combat, which is not something this generation has witnessed. "We will find those terrorists" was a popular message on 9/11. "The Russians hit us for real and we have to hit back," during the Cold War, would not have been. It would have sounded like the end of the world. The political temptation would not have been to make an accident look like a real strike, but -- if anything -- to make a real strike look like an accident.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  Interesting phrasing. Wouldn't Cuba be the one expected to react? A spy plane was sent at them and they kill it and the US is the wronged party? Don't get me wrong, I don't side with Cuba over the enormously provocative way they behaved, but I don't fell sorry for the US either. The Turkey part of the saga is just as bad.

bsullivan01 13y ago

Not necessarily. What if the 'evil empire' had smuggled a small one in US soil?

coldtea 13y ago

>But don't let that stop you from panicing. Yes, because radars at the time were so advanced that nothing could go wrong. They were made by the same guys that lost 2 bombs near a major metropolitan area. Yay for engineering!