The distance between LA and San Diego is about 55 miles.
The distance between mainland USA and Russia is about 51 miles, through the Bering straight.
Plus that’s not including big and small Diomede islands, belonging to Russia and USA, which are only around 2 miles apart.
These 2 countries almost started WW3 because of Cuba, because of Germany, because of Turkey, Israel, Ukraine and so on, yet they kept completely peaceful on their own border. The entire Wiki page for the Diomede islands says that some swimmer swam from one side to the other in 1987 and that’s about it, no other significant events during Cold war. The mainland was also never known as a place of potential conflict.
This is like that viral video where a bunch of angry dogs bark at each other as the gate is opening up, and once it’s open, they just peacefully walk away pretending that nothing happened.
IMHO there’s no tension there because there’s no one of real (national, etc) significance there anyway. Little Diomede has a small inuit village, Big Diomede has a Military presence.
The US and Russia are close across the Bering strait (not “Straight”) only in the sense they are on a Risk map.
A Russian army invading through Alaska starting across the strait would then have to cross a state the size of Libya through territory of preposterous difficulty - and then they’d just be in the Yukon, which is also enormous and not easy to travel in. It’s a logistically ridiculous proposition. It’d be easier to sail across the Atlantic.
A NATO force going to other way would have precisely as much fun.
For one the cold war was always fought by proxies, not the main nations. It was a strategy game of chess, not checkers where you bluntly go straight at your opponent. The straits themselves may not have seen any action but the Strategic Air Command has flown nuclear armed bomber right up to it on a regular basis, so have the Russians.
And then there was underground atomic testing done on Amchitka back in the 60s, not quite the Bearing Straits but pretty damn close to Russia.
Putting a load of ICBM’s is irrelevant to all those points and would mean putting them hundreds of miles closer to Siettle for example, than if they were put on Kamchatka or northern arctic coast of mainland Russia. Which means less minutes for them to travel to a potential target and less time for the other side to prepare.
The whole point of ICBMs is that you can put them far away from their targets. Putting them right on a border and susceptible to immediate attack would be stupid. If you really want to get them closer to their target, that’s what submarines are for.
The USSR had ICBM bases in the far east. None of them were as far east as Kamchatka but I don’t know that it would have mattered much if they were, beyond adding a bunch of extra costs (there is no ground connection to Kamchatka).
Then what was all the fuss during the Cuba missile crisis for? By that time the Soviets already actively used the R-16 ICBM and the older R-7 Semyorka before that, which already had more than enough range to reach all cities in USA, even if not positioned at the furthest boundaries of Russia. It wasn’t about the presence of the Soviets, but about the presence of the nukes.
Timing does matter and 10, 20 or 30 minutes makes a big difference, otherwise no one would bother with hypersonic missiles that cost so much.
“Hypersonic” missiles are slower than normal ballistic re-entry vehicles (which also move through the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds). They sacrifice speed for maneuverability or for staying below the horizon longer.
While not related to the Russian issue, Japan did invade US islands, Kiska & Attu, in the Bering Strait during WWII. So there has been “conflict” in that area.
Which is sort of the exception that proves the rule. That wound up being a strategic dead end for the Japanese, and to the extent it had any effect on the course of the war, it probably hurt the Japanese more than U.S., by diverting scarce resources from theaters of operation that actually could have made a difference.
I do not see how this proves any rule. What rule are you referring to anyway?
In my mind, never means: At no time in the past or future; on no occasion; not ever.
Thus, to say that the Bering Strait was never a zone of conflict, is factually wrong.
It is no skin off of my nose, you can say there never was a conflict in the Bering Strait if you want. I just wanted to point out that there was one at one time. Facts are facts. You can ignore them if you want to.
