107 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
107 lines
5.1 KiB
Markdown
# **Technical Assessment: Nuclear War Viability in 1957**
|
||
|
||
## **1. Objective Analysis of Strategic Conditions**
|
||
|
||
### **A. Comparative Nuclear Delivery Capabilities (1957)**
|
||
|
||
#### **United States**
|
||
| **System** | **Operational Status** | **Range/Payload** | **Limitations** |
|
||
|--------------------------|-----------------------|----------------------------|-----------------|
|
||
| **B-47 Stratojet** | 1,300+ deployed | 2,000 mi (3,200 km) combat radius | Required aerial refueling for USSR strikes |
|
||
| **B-52 Stratofortress** | 30 deployed (initial) | 4,500 mi (7,200 km) combat radius | Limited numbers in 1957 |
|
||
| **KC-97 Tanker Fleet** | 766 operational | Enabled B-47/B-52 strikes | Slow (propeller), vulnerable |
|
||
| **Thermonuclear Weapons** | Mk-15 (3.8 MT), Mk-39 (3-4 MT) | High-yield city busters | Required precise delivery |
|
||
|
||
#### **Soviet Union**
|
||
| **System** | **Operational Status** | **Range/Payload** | **Limitations** |
|
||
|--------------------------|-----------------------|----------------------------|-----------------|
|
||
| **TU-4 (B-29 copy)** | 800+ deployed | 3,250 mi (5,200 km) range | Subsonic, obsolete |
|
||
| **TU-16 (Badger)** | 500+ deployed | 1,800 mi (2,900 km) combat radius | Could not reach continental U.S. |
|
||
| **TU-95 (Bear)** | ~30 deployed | 7,800 mi (12,600 km) range | Required Arctic staging (vulnerable) |
|
||
| **R-7 ICBM (SS-6)** | Tested (not operational) | 5,000 mi (8,000 km) range | Required hours to fuel |
|
||
|
||
**Key Observations:**
|
||
- The U.S. held a **significant first-strike advantage** due to superior bomber force and forward bases.
|
||
- The USSR lacked **credible nuclear retaliation** against the U.S. mainland in 1957.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## **2. Nuclear War Planning (SIOP-344-55)**
|
||
|
||
### **A. Target Prioritization**
|
||
| **Category** | **Objective** | **Example Targets** |
|
||
|--------------|-----------------------------------|---------------------|
|
||
| **Bravo** | Neutralize Soviet nuclear forces | Bomber bases, missile sites |
|
||
| **Romeo** | Degrade conventional military | Tank divisions, army HQs |
|
||
| **Delta** | Cripple industrial capacity | Factories, refineries |
|
||
|
||
### **B. Projected Strike Execution**
|
||
1. **Phase 1 (Day 0-1)**
|
||
- Destruction of Soviet air defense networks (S-75 SAM sites, radars).
|
||
- Elimination of nuclear-capable bomber bases.
|
||
2. **Phase 2 (Day 1-3)**
|
||
- Disruption of Soviet ground forces (Romeo targets).
|
||
3. **Phase 3 (Day 3-7+)**
|
||
- Systematic annihilation of industrial infrastructure.
|
||
|
||
**Estimated Attrition Rates:**
|
||
- **50% bomber loss per mission** (S-75 SAMs, MiG-17/19 interceptors).
|
||
- After two missions, **U.S. bomber strength reduced to ~25%**.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## **3. Technological Constraints**
|
||
|
||
### **A. U.S. Bomber Vulnerabilities**
|
||
| **Threat** | **Countermeasure Attempts** | **Effectiveness** |
|
||
|--------------------------|----------------------------|-------------------|
|
||
| **S-75 SAMs (SA-2)** | Low-altitude ingress | Increased AAA vulnerability |
|
||
| **MiG-17/19 Interceptors** | ECM not yet developed | Minimal protection |
|
||
| **Structural Failures** | Toss-bombing (abandoned) | B-47 wing stress failures |
|
||
|
||
### **B. Soviet Retaliatory Capability**
|
||
- **No reliable second-strike option** until ICBMs (R-7 operational in 1959).
|
||
- **TU-95 missions would be one-way**, limiting strategic impact.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## **4. Feasibility of a "Successful" First Strike**
|
||
|
||
### **A. U.S. Advantages**
|
||
1. **Superior Bomber Numbers** (1,655 vs. ~30 TU-95s).
|
||
2. **Forward Basing** (Morocco, UK, Guam).
|
||
3. **Aerial Refueling** (extended B-47/B-52 range).
|
||
|
||
### **B. Soviet Counteradvantages**
|
||
1. **Dense Air Defense Network** (5,000+ fighters, S-75 SAMs).
|
||
2. **Geographic Depth** (U.S. bombers had to penetrate deep into USSR).
|
||
|
||
**Net Assessment:**
|
||
- The U.S. could have **decapitated Soviet nuclear forces** in 1957.
|
||
- **European NATO would have suffered catastrophic damage** from residual Soviet strikes.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## **5. Why Nuclear War Was Avoided**
|
||
|
||
### **A. Political Factors**
|
||
- **Eisenhower’s reluctance** to authorize preemptive strikes.
|
||
- **Khrushchev’s focus on missile development** over bomber escalation.
|
||
|
||
### **B. Strategic Realities**
|
||
- **No guaranteed victory**—Soviet retaliation in Europe was certain.
|
||
- **Emergence of ICBMs (1959)** rendered bomber-centric strategies obsolete.
|
||
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
## **6. Conclusion: A Narrow Technical Window**
|
||
|
||
- **1957 was the last year the U.S. could have executed a disarming first strike** without facing immediate nuclear retaliation on its homeland.
|
||
- **By 1959, ICBMs equalized the balance**, making nuclear war unwinnable for either side.
|
||
|
||
**Further Research Avenues:**
|
||
- **B-47 structural failure rates during toss-bombing tests.**
|
||
- **S-75 SAM engagement sequence analysis.**
|
||
- **Soviet nuclear command & control protocols in 1957.**
|
||
|
||
This assessment remains strictly technical, avoiding speculative judgments on outcomes. Would additional data on weapons systems or operational doctrines be useful? |