1983 Able Archer Crisis- question

[Dayton3]

In November 1983, NATO was practicing a nuclear release exercise called "Able Archer".

I've read a number of articles (mainly by John Prados) that the Soviets, worried that the exercise was cover for a potentially real surprise nuclear attack by NATO (because the Soviets often used exercises as cover for actual military operations) actually became worried enough that near the end of Able Archer, A Soviet bomber regiment in East Germany had actual nuclear weapons loaded aboard for a possible strike against NATO targets.

IIRC, a Soviet bomber regiment (I think that is what they called them at the time) normally had 21 aircraft.

Being based in East Germany, I assumed the aircraft were probably SU-24 Fencers and that each were probably armed with two nuclear weapons in the 50-200 kiloton range.

From what I've read about Soviet doctrine at that time, they would probably have assigned at least two SU-24s to each target, meaning that the Soviet force would've been targeted on 10 different sites in West Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, or United Kingdom.

Can anyone tell me if I've assumed incorrectly anywhere and if they have any more information about the Able Archer Crisis?

[TopHatter]

I presume you've already read this one, but I'll throw it out there anyway:

[Soul_Killa]

I presume you've already read this one, but I'll throw it out there anyway:

Great read...but I am amazed and frightened at the thought of Nuclear War. Man...Pershing II missiles could reach Moscow within three to four minutes? That's insane, no wonder the Soviets were panicking, hell anybody would panic, lose their minds, and die from the anticipation of being vaporized:(
Thank god nothing happened.... Even though the Soviets would have burned out in a nuclear war against NATO, a wise person just can't take the chance, no chance at all...crazy stuff is real.

[Dayton3]

In fairness though, the Soviets already had 200 SS-20s with 600 warheads that could reach European NATO targets in a similiar time frame.

[Dayton3]

What surprised me from what I've read in John Prados writing was that even in 1983, the Soviets had no equivalent to the U.S. "football" that allowed an American president to launch a nuclear strike within minutes if necessary.

The Soviets apparently would've had to launch a nuclear first strike via careful planning through their regular (though top secret) communications channels.

One wonders if U.S. intelligence would've detected those preparations to launch a nuclear strike and been able to preempt the Soviets.

[Officer of Engineers]

The Strategic Rocket Forces were only 20% standby launch. The rest required a warning order of 10 days. Moscow believes that any such development would require months of political wrangling and thus plenty of warning.

By contrast, SAC was 80% standby.

[Soul_Killa]

In fairness though, the Soviets already had 200 SS-20s with 600 warheads that could reach European NATO targets in a similiar time frame.

Well yes, but NATO could take out Moscow, the Soviet capital. By comparison, the Soviets, I reckon, would not be able to take out Washington D.C., at least not in the same time frame.

[Dayton3]

^That reminded me of something.

Of course, to take out Washingon D.C. in an under 10 minute time frame, the Soviets would've had to use SLBMs launched from the western Atlantic.

In fact, in 1983, the Soviets "claimed" to have redeployed SSBNs into the western Atlantic to do just that though few American experts believed they would actually do so as it would make the precious submarines very vulnerable to land based antisubmarine warfare from the U.S.

But.

That reminded me of something.

On the History Channel special a couple of years ago on Able Archer, several former Soviet officials spoke.

One seemed to drift off topic and talk about a plan by the Soviets to put a Soviet submarine with a 100 megaton weapon aboard as close to the U.S. coast as possible in order to destroy or disrupt command and control operations in Washington D.C. (implied that the sub would be a suicide mission).

I wonder if the Soviets ever actually tried to implement such an idea? We know that Tsar Bomba (the 53-57 megaton weapon detonated over Nova Zemyla in the early 1960s) was capable of 100 megatons if all three stages were used and that it was small enough to be carried by a special TU-95 Bear.

If it was portable enough to be carried by a TU-95, then it could certainly be mounted as a fixed installation on a nuclear sub or even a diesel submarine.

[Dayton3]

The Strategic Rocket Forces were only 20% standby launch. The rest required a warning order of 10 days. Moscow believes that any such development would require months of political wrangling and thus plenty of warning.

By contrast, SAC was 80% standby.

Was that because so many of the SRFs ICBMs were liguid fueled on up into the 1980s? Even the much feared SS-18 Satans.

Or did it have to do with guidance system issues?

[Officer of Engineers]

Money. It's expensive keeping rockets on standby mode.

[Johnny W]

^That reminded me of something.

Of course, to take out Washingon D.C. in an under 10 minute time frame, the Soviets would've had to use SLBMs launched from the western Atlantic.

In fact, in 1983, the Soviets "claimed" to have redeployed SSBNs into the western Atlantic to do just that though few American experts believed they would actually do so as it would make the precious submarines very vulnerable to land based antisubmarine warfare from the U.S.

The Russian Yankee class SSBN did deploy regularly to an area near bermuda known as the Yankee box.

[Johnny W]

Money. It's expensive keeping rockets on standby mode.

I thought it was because the fuel they used was highly corrosive, so they couldn't keep them all continuously fueled? Don't remember where I heard that, but I was under the impression if they kept them fueled for any significant length of time, eventually the fuel would start to corrode parts of the missile.

[Officer of Engineers]

The US kept the TITANs and ATLAS on standby. You can keep liquid fuelled rockets on standby but it's dangerous, required heavy maintenance, and a constant watch ... ie money.

[Johnny W]

The US kept the TITANs and ATLAS on standby. You can keep liquid fuelled rockets on standby but it's dangerous, required heavy maintenance, and a constant watch ... ie money.

Makes sense I guess. Thats definitely a job I wouldn't want.

[Soul_Killa]

The Russian Yankee class SSBN did deploy regularly to an area near bermuda known as the Yankee box.

So it would be a tit-for-tat capital-for-capital? U.S. launches a nuclear warhead at Moscow, and the U.S.S.R. launches their nuclear warhead at Washington DC? This considering all in the same time frame?