I try to explain to young’uns that the human race survived past October, 1962 because Nikita Khrushchev was less of a psycho than Castro. We all, theoretically, died 49 years ago.
The rest have been gravy.
I’m probably wrong.
We all died? Not me.
I would never had been born. Seems my parents were visiting Miami when the crisis took place.
Yeah, your parents were at Ground Zero. You never were.
I, too, enjoy alcohol.
No way the human race gets wiped out in 1962.
Worst case scenario LOTS of people die but the majority of Africa, South America, and heck even the more rural parts of even the US, USSR and China survive (not that they’d necessarily be happy about it).
Explain? Bro, I envy you. I was recalling when, in second grade, we realized we weren’t likely to make it to third. When you are eight and you understand your mortality, and that of everybody you could ever know, it colors your life. We stopped caring and started enjoying what we had. I envy those who did not picture their survivors when they were in second fucking grade. Especially when they realized they’d have none.
Zoid, I was 50 miles from DC. On the wrong side of the Blue Ridge. I was toast. Then we moved eight miles from Secondary Target, O’Hare Field. I really never expected to live this long.
I read a pretty plausible-seeming alternative history story called “The Cuban Missile Crisis: Second Holocaust” that depicted almost all Soviets and Cubans as indeed being killed, while quite a few Europeans starved and of course Washington DC obliterated. But beyond that, the US was depicted as having survived handily, albeit as an international pariah. Yay, us.
But by the time of the Able Archer 83 exercises 20 years later, and the Soviet false alarm that could have led to nuclear war, I believe the USSR had as many or more warheads as the US and could have killed us as effectively as we killed them. So we all died when I was in middle school, you silly billy.
To the extent that it can be simplified in such a manner, the human race survived because Nikita Khrushchev was less of a psycho than Kennedy. Kennedy was prepared to push the potential threat from potential missiles into the realm of direct confrontation and probable war. Kruschev, thankfully, wasn’t that crazy.
Our ability to shoot down enemy missiles has increased incredibly since the 60’s. Does this mean that many more missiles would have hit in the 60’s then would now if they were launched?
I wasn’t aware it was possible to shoot down a ballistic missile even now.
(ICBM, I mean.)
As the ability to shoot down missiles has improved, the ability for missiles to not be shot down has improved as well. (As I understand it, possibly wrongly.) There are some older style missiles that can be shot down, if you are at the ready and within range. I have no idea whether 60s era ICBMs fall under this banner, but do think it likely that we don’t have our anti-missile technology deployed to save the whole nation, nor any significant percentage of it, if any at all.
Bah, the human race will always survive.
The music, on the other hand, died many, many years ago. February. Made me shiver.
Now I’ve got Don McLean singing in my head.
IIRC ICBMs are also extra-hard targets because they are moving so fast; fast enough to outrun the wavefront of an exploding antimissile warhead unless it is directly ahead.
The Nike Hercules missile system(circa 1959) utilized a nuclear warhead to destroy incoming ballistic missiles.
I do believe the Nike-Hercules was designed to stop bombers containing nuclear armaments. When they realized that missiles were becoming the vessel of choice, they dismantled the program.
That was my first reaction when I read the OP.
There weren’t that many ICBMs back in the early 60s. The Russkies would have mostly relied on long-range nuclear bombers, Slim Pickens style.
Yeah, if you lived in Washington DC you’d be in big trouble. Most of our other big cities would have been hit by city-busters too. But there were plenty of people who lived in Bumfuck Iowa who wouldn’t have been anywhere near a nuclear target. The real problem is that the transportation hubs are wrecked, so how do the Bumfuckian farmers get their wheat to the starving people in the ruined cities?
The model to picture is Japan after being flattened by years of American bombing, not the stereotypical radioactive sheet of glass. We’d be facing cities ruined, social networks torn apart, transport impossible, goods that aren’t produced locally become impossible to get. Oh yeah, and lots of people dead or dying and without safe housing or food. The number of people dying from exposure and disease would outnumber the people who died in the bombings.
Didn’t you grow up in Alaska? Is it true that you could see Russia from your front porch?
Not quite.
The Herk was a high explosive missile first. Pretty much accurate enough against anything with a man on board (making 7 G turns agile enough to spin like a huge as Katherine’s Wheel) even today.
Against the massed bomber squadron attack small nukes were mounted on them, and it was considered likely that three to one odds were easily within their tactical, and certainly strategic deterrance capability. (That’s three bombers per missile, even with best reasonable evasion success.)
But, the pre-emptive mass missile attack required a change. Larger nuke tips, and larger in place batteries of missiles with a very scary plan of battle. As soon as launches are confirmed you begin firing nukes into the upper stratosphere, and maintain a continuous nuclear explosion which will disrupt avionics, and flight worthyness of even hard target missiles.
AS PSYCHOTIC AS THIS SOUNDS, IT WAS OUR STRATEGY.
How effective it would have been is more a matter of how you define success.
Tris