World War 3 starts in 1966?

[Sirius]

"Your daddy may go down in history as having started World War III."
--LBJ to his daughter, June 29, 1966

"In the hours between June 29th and June 30th, Vietnam time, American planes began raining fire on fuel depots in Hanoi and Haiphong. [LBJ] risked... an errant bomb hitting some Russian ship and dragging the USSR into the war...."
--Ron Perlstein, Nixonland, p. 99.

"“It is not surprising that the J.C.S. singled out the P.O.L. target system for special attention,” the Pentagon analyst says. “NVN had no oil fields or refineries, and had to import all of its petroleum products, in refined form.... Nearly all of it came from the Black Sea area of the U.S.S.R. and arrived by sea at Haiphong, the only port cap able of conveniently receiving and handling bulk P.O.L. brought in by large tankers."
--"The Fuel Depot Issue," New York Times, 2 July 1971

What if the US bombing did hit Soviet oil tankers, causing a series of escalations that lead to WWIII occurring in 1966? Is the Soviet Union's missile capacity any better than in 1962, or would they still get crushed like what would have happened if the super powers had gone to war over the Cuban Missile Crisis?

 

[Crowbar Six]

I suspect that the Russians would make loud protests at the UN, send some diplomatic notes and just get on with it. If it was a one off that would be an end to it, if the US started to deliberately target EASTBLOC tankers or freighters then things might escalate.

In 1966 the Russians have a lot more deliverable warheads, especially tactical and theater missiles and delivery platforms. They also have more strategic assets including ICBM's and SLBM's.

 

[marathag]

warhead count

Year	U.S.​	USSR​	UK​	France​	China​
1966​	32,193​	7,089​	270​	36​	20​

This time is where WWIII starts to get messy for the USA, with the USSR finally able to get big warheads on CONUS in 20 minutes, but there is no USSR left after that.

 

[Unknown]

Watch The War Game to see how this might turn out (for Britain, at least)...

 

[Lalli]

China might join to side of NATO. It would end really badly for the country.

 

[GauchoBadger]

China might join to side of NATO. It would end really badly for the country.

Why would they? Sino-Soviet tensions haven't yet come to the boiling point.

 

[raharris1973]

China might join to side of NATO. It would end really badly for the country.

This isn't likely

Why would they? Sino-Soviet tensions haven't yet come to the boiling point.

But this isn't true. Tensions were certainly at a boil.

Both the USSR and China would feel threatened by US actions in Vietnam.

This is at the point in history where thanks to Mao's foreign policy genius, when nukes start flying, China is going to eat them from both the Americans and Soviets.

 

[Wendell]

The Chinese might well join the war....against the Soviet Union.

More seriously, I don't see this escalating into a war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R., but it might be interesting if there are consequences for internal splits with the Communist world, and exploitation of them.

 

[raharris1973]

The Chinese might well join the war....against the Soviet Union.

Nope- The Chinese were helping Vietnam at this time and would be losing more people in heavier American raids. A WWIII escalating from Vietnam would be the least likely to see the Chinese jump in against the Soviets.

A WWIII starting from a different route, say a Soviet invasion of Western Europe or the Middle East, or the Soviets backing India while US backs Pakistan, would be more likely to have China jump in against the Soviets.

 

[Pedersen]

Let's remember 1966 was the height of the "cultural revolution", i.e. Communist China's starving and killing of the Chinese and other ethnic groups of its territory.

From Wikipedia: "When Mao was informed of such losses, particularly that people had been driven to suicide, he is alleged to have commented: "People who try to commit suicide—don't attempt to save them! . . . China is such a populous nation, it is not as if we cannot do without a few people."[224] The authorities allowed the Red Guards to abuse and kill opponents of the regime. Said Xie Fuzhi, national police chief: "Don't say it is wrong of them to beat up bad persons: if in anger they beat someone to death, then so be it. [225] As a result, in August and September 1966, there were a reported 1,772 people murdered by the Red Guards in Beijing alone.[226]"

Still, would Mao - for all his Hitler-level craziness be willing to jump into ww3? If we are talking a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union hitting 100 of targets in the USA, and the US hitting thousands of targets in the Soviet Union, I suspect that even Mao would be keen to emphasize that Chinese neutrality. I suppose it is possible to construct a scenario where the US rolls up the North Korea and Far east in a conventional war, and China joining in what they believe to a Korean war part 2.

 

[Wendell]

Nope- The Chinese were helping Vietnam at this time and would be losing more people in heavier American raids. A WWIII escalating from Vietnam would be the least likely to see the Chinese jump in against the Soviets.

A WWIII starting from a different route, say a Soviet invasion of Western Europe or the Middle East, or the Soviets backing India while US backs Pakistan, would be more likely to have China jump in against the Soviets.

We're barely removed at all from the Sino-Soviet border clashes, and, though it was later, the Nixon rapprochement took place while Vietnam was still vert much an active conflict.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

What if the US bombing did hit Soviet oil tankers, causing a series of escalations that lead to WWIII occurring in 1966?

I can't see the Soviet Union committing national suicide over some tankers in the wrong place at the wrong time becoming collateral damage.

 

[Sirius]

I can't see the Soviet Union committing national suicide over some tankers in the wrong place at the wrong time becoming collateral damage.

Sure, but it could be the first in a series of rising escalations leading to war by the end of the year.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

66 = Vietnam Tankers Bombed.
67 = Arab Israeli War Soviets give more aid to the Arabs and there are incidents involving Nato and Soviet ships.
68 = Czechoslovakia resists the Soviet Invasion trouble spreads in Eastern Europe.
69 = Eastern European conflicts lead to border clashes with Nato troops. Border clashes keep escalating until full scale battles are fought. Someone panics and launches a tactical nuke. It all goes to hell and Europe is sterilised from the Rhine to the Urals.

 

[CalBear]

Very low probability.

Contrary to some opinions the Soviet leadership was no more utterly insane than the American (well, except for Andropov, who was likely a paranoid, and our boy Stalin, who sort of defines psychopath). Not going to start a war that the Soviets acknowledged would go full exchange over a couple tankers. Just like the U.S. didn't after a couple Intel aircraft were shot down over international airspace; or the Soviets didn't when the U.S. provided advanced MANPADS to the Muj, or... well, you get the idea.

Too much risk for too little gain.