Could a Cuban Conflict Have Split NATO and Ended in Limited War?

Delta Force

Banned
I'm thinking warfare between the Soviet Navy and USN in the waters around Cuba, and perhaps fighting between American and Cuban/Soviet air defense units, aircraft, and ground forces on Cuba itself, all the way up to nuclear weapons use in/around Cuba and the American South. While the United States would be able to fight a nuclear war with the Soviet Union and come out with less relative damage, escalation to general war would threaten further nuclear strikes against the United States and widespread destruction in Europe and Japan, which would definitely not be in the interests of the United States.

Would it have been possible to have kept a lid on a Cuban Conflict and kept it from boiling over elsewhere? I know the European members of NATO and I think Canada as well were not interested in fighting a war over Cuba. Could the Soviets have split NATO over a Cuban Conflict?
 
Would it have been possible to have kept a lid on a Cuban Conflict and kept it from boiling over elsewhere?

Given that there were nukes on Cuba whose commanders had the authorization to use them if they were running the risk of losing them? And with American policy being to launch an all out nuclear in response to any Soviet nuclear strike anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere? I doubt it.
 
I'm with ObsessedNuker on this one. Soviet troops were present on Cuba and had been given permission by the Kremlin to use tactical nukes on the landing sites should the Americans attempt an amphibious invasion. Even if the Americans threw tactical competency out of the window entirely and tried an airborne invasion, they would be torn to shreds by Soviet SAMs. Plus, those tactical nukes would probably be used on American ships trying to support the invasion with shore bombardment.

Given how tense the situation was OTL, the smallest provocation could spook either side, especially the Soviets.
 

Delta Force

Banned
I'm with ObsessedNuker on this one. Soviet troops were present on Cuba and had been given permission by the Kremlin to use tactical nukes on the landing sites should the Americans attempt an amphibious invasion. Even if the Americans threw tactical competency out of the window entirely and tried an airborne invasion, they would be torn to shreds by Soviet SAMs. Plus, those tactical nukes would probably be used on American ships trying to support the invasion with shore bombardment.

Given how tense the situation was OTL, the smallest provocation could spook either side, especially the Soviets.

Defensive tactical nuclear strikes wouldn't really change the strategic balance and might be viewed in a much different light. If the weapons are used in Cuba as opposed to against USN ships at sea or targets in the United States it can't really be argued as an offensive action. The Soviets could even try a strategy of obfuscating the situation by claiming that the United States attacked Cuba with nuclear weapons without provocation, especially if they don't retaliate with strategic weapons. It might even confuse President Kennedy and other American decision makers for a while, as there was no intelligence regarding Soviet tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba. It was only known later in the Cold War when Soviet documents were released.
 
Defensive tactical nuclear strikes wouldn't really change the strategic balance and might be viewed in a much different light. If the weapons are used in Cuba as opposed to against USN ships at sea or targets in the United States it can't really be argued as an offensive action. The Soviets could even try a strategy of obfuscating the situation by claiming that the United States attacked Cuba with nuclear weapons without provocation, especially if they don't retaliate with strategic weapons. It might even confuse President Kennedy and other American decision makers for a while, as there was no intelligence regarding Soviet tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba. It was only known later in the Cold War when Soviet documents were released.

I feel like that kind of confusion in Washington will give a lot more credence to the LeMay wing of hawks (i.e the crazies). I really can't see any way, with the tensions being as high as they were, for any boots setting foot on Cuban shores not causing WWIII.
 
You're forgetting one thing: The Soviets in Cuba had tactical nuclear release authority, but that was revoked on 22 October (just before JFK's speech). Read the book Operation Anadyr; one of the coauthors is Gen. Anatoly Gribikov, who was a General Staff Officer in Cuba at the time. He reproduces a cable from Moscow to the Soviet Commander in Cuba, Gen. Issa Pliyev. The cable instructs him to have his forces prepared to fight, but without the missiles and without the tactical nuclear weapons. A second cable, sent after the U-2 shootdown on 27 October, reiterates the restrictions and expressly forbade any tactical nuclear use without permission from Moscow; and they were to confirm receipt of the message.

The first document is also available here: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621022 Malinovsky's Order to Pliyev.pdf

And the second: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621027 Ciphered Telegram No. 20076.pdf
 

Delta Force

Banned
You're forgetting one thing: The Soviets in Cuba had tactical nuclear release authority, but that was revoked on 22 October (just before JFK's speech). Read the book Operation Anadyr; one of the coauthors is Gen. Anatoly Gribikov, who was a General Staff Officer in Cuba at the time. He reproduces a cable from Moscow to the Soviet Commander in Cuba, Gen. Issa Pliyev. The cable instructs him to have his forces prepared to fight, but without the missiles and without the tactical nuclear weapons. A second cable, sent after the U-2 shootdown on 27 October, reiterates the restrictions and expressly forbade any tactical nuclear use without permission from Moscow; and they were to confirm receipt of the message.

The first document is also available here: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621022 Malinovsky's Order to Pliyev.pdf

And the second: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/621027 Ciphered Telegram No. 20076.pdf

Might things have thus had a chance of being contained to Cuba, the high seas, and Berlin?
 
Maybe not even Berlin. Under those circumstances, Khrushchev wants to avoid anything that would result in the conflict spreading. Which limits the war to Cuba and adjacent waters.
 
IMHO if the Cuban Crisis had gone down the crapper, for example a Soviet sub fires at USN ships - whether conventional or nuclear torpedoes, I don't think the USSR will avoid fighting in Europe of things are not calmed down very quickly. In any case NATO treaty specifies an attack on one is an attack on all.
 
The biggest problem I see is the Soviets know that any military advantage they might possess declines with time. IIRC, the Soviets only had something like 36 ICBMs capable of reaching the US versus 200 some American ICBMs. I believe the bomber forces had comparable disparities. In addition, those ICBMs all used liquid fuel and so they required several hours of preparation before use, making them vulnerable to first strike.

With conventional forces, in Europe they needed to clean up before American reinforcements arrived, which as a result of the Berlin Wall crisis in 1961, I believe were still either called up or had only recently been deactivated. So both time and firepower work against the Russians.

With Berlin, during the 50s something like 15% of East Germany's population emigrated to the West via West Berlin. The wall was built to stop the tide and led to US forces being placed on alert. So, while I am not fresh on the details, I believe the tension in Berlin was sufficient to start a war on its own. War in Berlin is war in Europe.

With these circumstances facing the Russians, it would be very difficult to refrain from going all out and maximizing whatever advantage you have. And that means Russian tanks crossing in to West Germany and widespread strategic strikes. And with both countries, you have isolated leaders having to resist pressure to attack from their peers.

So, while its possible that greater war could be avoided, it just seems really improbable. Just my 2 cents.
 

Delta Force

Banned
The Soviet Union would definitely be hit hard if it decided to fight NATO, certainly harder than the United States before the late 1960s/early 1970s. However, they could devastate Europe and Japan in the event of a nuclear war. The Soviets could try to get Europe and Japan to put pressure on the United States instead of starting a nuclear war that would see them destroyed in both relative and absolute terms.
 
Keep in mind that the U.S., Britain, and Canada were prepared to start operations to close the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap to Soviet subs....And De Gaulle had put the French Military on their equivalent of DEFCON 2 as well. U.S. Army Europe was also on a war footing, so either Khrushchev goes further, or he limits the conflict to the Caribbean. Knowing how inferior his strategic-strike capability is, he has no choice.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Keep in mind that the U.S., Britain, and Canada were prepared to start operations to close the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap to Soviet subs....And De Gaulle had put the French Military on their equivalent of DEFCON 2 as well. U.S. Army Europe was also on a war footing, so either Khrushchev goes further, or he limits the conflict to the Caribbean. Knowing how inferior his strategic-strike capability is, he has no choice.

That's what I was thinking, in terms of the Soviet Union wanting to avoid a larger escalation due to a nuclear strike deficiency. I suppose a good question would be how to avoid having the hawks in the United States decide to hit the Soviet Union first, especially once American and Soviet forces start fighting in and likely around Cuba. President Kennedy seems unlikely to order a first strike, so the question then becomes how the superpowers would come to a final resolution without escalation to general war, especially general nuclear war.
 
Top