I'm working on a story where Britain collapses due to WWIII happening and I was wondering if the SU would probably have enough nukes to nuke 3 UK cities, but not enough to wipe out Britain, just enough to destroy 3 cities instead. I'm guessing London would be a definite, but where else would they nuke?
WWIII in 1949 which UK cities get nuked
- Thread starter anarchjoe
- Start date
Ignoring the fact that the Soviets had only a minimal chance of getting the bombs to the UK in 1949 and probably didn't have three anyway, I'd expect that Portsmouth and either Manchester or Birmingham would be targeted. I don't know the specifics of Soviet targeting strategy at this point, but they're going to go for industrial and military targets more likely than not.
Macragge1
Banned
They would certainly make a go for London, for obvious reasons.
I reckon that Newcastle and Edinburgh would be more likely targets than Manchester and Liverpool. Both are large industrial centres and one's a capital city; the big draw that they have for the Russians - as opposed to Manchester and Liverpool - is that they're on the East coast. Any 1949 nuclear attack is going to be conducted by slow, heavy bombers coming from bases in Eastern Europe or Northern Russia.
Given how scant the USSR's bombs are in this scenario, I imagine they'd rather attempt to hit cities that turn up right on landfall rather than have to cross 200 or so miles of enemy territory (all with observers, AAA, fighters etc) and back again. This is why I reckon Newcastle (much as I hate to say it) and Edinburgh are more likely targets.
I reckon that Newcastle and Edinburgh would be more likely targets than Manchester and Liverpool. Both are large industrial centres and one's a capital city; the big draw that they have for the Russians - as opposed to Manchester and Liverpool - is that they're on the East coast. Any 1949 nuclear attack is going to be conducted by slow, heavy bombers coming from bases in Eastern Europe or Northern Russia.
Given how scant the USSR's bombs are in this scenario, I imagine they'd rather attempt to hit cities that turn up right on landfall rather than have to cross 200 or so miles of enemy territory (all with observers, AAA, fighters etc) and back again. This is why I reckon Newcastle (much as I hate to say it) and Edinburgh are more likely targets.
Good points if we're assuming an air attack. One possibility that the military planners on both sides considered was a suicide attempt by a submarine or some sort of freighter carrying a nuke. This makes Portsmouth a viable target once more, in any case. Still, I like the suggestion of either Edinburgh or Newcastle as the third target.
I think the main thing we need to know for this scenario is why the Soviets have decided to nuke the British in the first place, as well as what the US is up to. It might influence the Soviet targeting decisions, or it might not. I can't say for sure.
I'm not so sure about the exact specifics as my story is mainly about Britain falling apart post WWIII but basically my idea was that the nukes don't happen immediately but rather after a long(ish) conventional war in which the the SU uses nukes as a last ditch attempt to win the war
Macragge1
Banned
I would guess that this would make the Newcastle/Edinburgh targets more likely; after all, if Britain's on a war footing it means fighter patrols and ROC observers all over the place - this would, I assume, convince the Soviets to spend as little time over enemy airspace (i.e bounce the East Coast) as possible.
EDIT: Of course, a lot of this depends on the situation in Europe at the time; if the Soviets have managed to capture airbases in the Low Countries or hell, France, an attack on Portsmouth/Dover becomes more viable. Keep in mind though that the Channel will be basically the best defended airspace on Earth, and that the Soviets will know this
So does the war begin before 1949 and the nuking occur in that year, or does the war begin in 1949 and the nuking occur at some later date? Because...
what Macragge1 says is accurate if the nuking is in 1949 and the Soviets are using Tu-4 bombers.
If it's at a later date, the Soviets may have M-4 or other jet bombers that would make them consider the cities black_angel and I listed as plausible targets. However, the capacity of the Soviets to deploy a nuclear-capable strategic jet bomber in the early 1950s will be affected by the state of their industry. Which leads me to my next question: is the United States involved in this scenario?
Maybe possibly. I know they had five by the end of 1950, so they might be able to have three by the end of 1949 if they concentrate enormous resources on it, especially if the war broke out before 1949 and they've been working on the nuclear program as a side project - though they'd have trouble doing this while sustaining a conventional war effort. Not at all feasible if the United States got involved and has been using its nukes on Soviet industry as they intended to do.
Of course, if they're doing the nuking in, say, 1952, it's a moot point.
If the war did break out before 1949 would the Soviets be able to build any bombs at all though? I would think "Soviet Nuclear Weapons Factories" would be "The" priority target in any war.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Why would Syracuse University nuke the United Kingdom? Besides, I think academic institutions achieving nuclear capability by 1949 is borderline ASB.
Depends where the nuclear facilities are. If they're in, say, Kazakhstan, the United States bomber forces should be unable to reach them until 1948-49, when the B-50 and then the B-36 are introduced. Add to that the fact that the nuclear facilities are likely to be one of the few locations in the porous Soviet air defense network of the early Cold War that they'll concentrate their radar and MiG-15s on. It's not totally unfeasible for the Soviets to defend nuclear weapons production sites in Kazakhstan or the like long enough to crank out three or so bombs. Things will be easier for the US if Iran allows its territory to be used as a bomber base.
Point is, it's not totally implausible that the Soviets could defend their weapons facilities in a war earlier than 1949. I'd be more worried about their production capacity to do that and wage a conventional war. Their economic situation in the late 1940s was a lot worse than that of the US when it was running the Manhattan Project, and the division of labor will be a major obstacle that they would have to overcome.
