Map: JFK Cuba 'victory map' 1962

[lordroel]

Map: JFK Cuba 'victory map' 1962

A map US president John F. Kennedy pored over on the day the world almost erupted into nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis,  JFK used the map, dated October 27th 1962, to examine the locations of the nine Soviet missile sites on Cuba and decide whether or not to launch an air strike as tensions between the countries reached a climax.

The map features stickers showing the location of Soviet war planes, bombers, ships, missiles and nuclear storage sites.

Left side of the Map



Right side of the Map



Map key which summarize locations of Soviet weapons on Cuba, including MiG fighter jets and sites housing nuclear-armed medium range ballistic missiles



Map key detailed the locations of dozens of Soviet nuclear missiles.

[James G]

If SAC had been let loose with its B-52s, then almost all Cubans would have been killed. The small island was just full of targets, so many near heavily-populated areas.

[lordroel]

Apr 6, 2018 18:04:42 GMT James G said:

If SAC had been let loose with its B-52s, then almost all Cubans would have been killed. The small island was just full of targets, so many near heavily-populated areas.

Well this would be the follow up i think: What if the Cuban missile crisis led to war

[stevep]

Apr 6, 2018 18:04:42 GMT James G said:

If SAC had been let loose with its B-52s, then almost all Cubans would have been killed. The small island was just full of targets, so many near heavily-populated areas.

  Very true.  I think about that time the US nuclear arsenal was about at its largest in terms of sheer mega-tonnage.  Since then its got a lot smaller as smaller but far more accurate warheads have been deployed.  There wouldn't be very much left of Cuba if nuclear weapons were unleashed on it.  Probably followed by most of the world in short order I fear.

[lordroel]

Apr 6, 2018 22:49:40 GMT stevep said:

Apr 6, 2018 18:04:42 GMT James G said:

If SAC had been let loose with its B-52s, then almost all Cubans would have been killed. The small island was just full of targets, so many near heavily-populated areas.

  Very true.  I think about that time the US nuclear arsenal was about at its largest in terms of sheer mega-tonnage.  Since then its got a lot smaller as smaller but far more accurate warheads have been deployed.  There wouldn't be very much left of Cuba if nuclear weapons were unleashed on it.  Probably followed by most of the world in short order I fear.

I think West Berlin before the rest of the world.

[stevep]

Apr 6, 2018 23:48:03 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 6, 2018 22:49:40 GMT stevep said:

  Very true.  I think about that time the US nuclear arsenal was about at its largest in terms of sheer mega-tonnage.  Since then its got a lot smaller as smaller but far more accurate warheads have been deployed.  There wouldn't be very much left of Cuba if nuclear weapons were unleashed on it.  Probably followed by most of the world in short order I fear.

I think West Berlin before the rest of the world.

  Actually there's a chance it might survive until the fall-out hits it.  The west is unlikely to target it and if there is conventional conflict as well, which is likely as tension increased and because some people thought a full scale nuclear war was 'winnable' the Soviets are unlikely to nuke it as they expect to take it and possibly also nuking it would screw up transport links through Berlin.

[lordroel]

Apr 7, 2018 11:57:00 GMT stevep said:

Apr 6, 2018 23:48:03 GMT lordroel said:

I think West Berlin before the rest of the world.

  Actually there's a chance it might survive until the fall-out hits it.  The west is unlikely to target it and if there is conventional conflict as well, which is likely as tension increased and because some people thought a full scale nuclear war was 'winnable' the Soviets are unlikely to nuke it as they expect to take it and possibly also nuking it would screw up transport links through Berlin.

Well you might be right, but this map is fascinating as i doubt the United States would be able to mark all Soviet/Cuban targets that where in Cuba.

[stevep]

Apr 7, 2018 11:58:44 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 7, 2018 11:57:00 GMT stevep said:

  Actually there's a chance it might survive until the fall-out hits it.  The west is unlikely to target it and if there is conventional conflict as well, which is likely as tension increased and because some people thought a full scale nuclear war was 'winnable' the Soviets are unlikely to nuke it as they expect to take it and possibly also nuking it would screw up transport links through Berlin.

Well you might be right, but this map is fascinating as i doubt the United States would be able to mark all Soviet/Cuban targets that where in Cuba.

  With the size of the warheads in use at the time I don't think they would need to.  Especially since Cuba is so close and if they thought the USSR wouldn't respond their likely to go for a carpet bombing approach.

  There is one big assumption here.  The US could go for a non-nuclear approach, relying on the sheer weight of bombs to crush the Cuba/Soviet position in Cuba before the Cubans were able to launch anything.  Especially since many missiles at the time were liquid fueled, which generally took some time to prepare for launching.  This is less likely to lead to a Soviet nuclear response, especially if not followed up by a major ground invasion.  If the US want to remove the nukes from Cuba and send a clear message that more would not be tolerated this could be an attractive approach for them as it then leaves the Soviets with the question of how to respond. 

[lordroel]

Apr 7, 2018 12:16:02 GMT stevep said:

Apr 7, 2018 11:58:44 GMT lordroel said:

Well you might be right, but this map is fascinating as i doubt the United States would be able to mark all Soviet/Cuban targets that where in Cuba.

  With the size of the warheads in use at the time I don't think they would need to.  Especially since Cuba is so close and if they thought the USSR wouldn't respond their likely to go for a carpet bombing approach.

  There is one big assumption here.  The US could go for a non-nuclear approach, relying on the sheer weight of bombs to crush the Cuba/Soviet position in Cuba before the Cubans were able to launch anything.  Especially since many missiles at the time were liquid fueled, which generally took some time to prepare for launching.  This is less likely to lead to a Soviet nuclear response, especially if not followed up by a major ground invasion.  If the US want to remove the nukes from Cuba and send a clear message that more would not be tolerated this could be an attractive approach for them as it then leaves the Soviets with the question of how to respond. 

Did you check this thread: What if the Cuban missile crisis led to war, you will see the cost of a invasion of Cuba in order to hit the targets that are on this map.

There is a link on that thread to a good website where there are documents called, Where the Soviets May React, which say.

The Joint Strategic Survey Council, an advisory group to the Joint Chiefs, reviewed possible Soviet reactions if the US were to take direct military action against Cuba. Questioning whether the USSR would start a general war in defense of Cuba, the Council concluded that the Soviets would not do so because they could not successfully launch a surprise attack and lack vital interests in the region. The Council also considered other possible Soviet reactions, including action in Turkey, Berlin, Korea, at sea, and Iran. For example, while key members of the ExCom such as McNamara and Gilpatric were concerned about a possible Soviet attack on the Jupiters in Turkey in retaliation for a U.S. attack on missile sites in Cuba, the Council tended to rule it out because it would "involve NATO" and therefore a possible cause for general war.

In an amended conclusion to their paper, the Council concluded that Soviet military reaction would be limited to small-scale actions at sea, in Iran, or a possible "IRBM accident" on Johnston Island, while Berlin reaction would be "short of direct military seizure."

[stevep]

Apr 7, 2018 12:21:34 GMT lordroel said:

Apr 7, 2018 12:16:02 GMT stevep said:

  With the size of the warheads in use at the time I don't think they would need to.  Especially since Cuba is so close and if they thought the USSR wouldn't respond their likely to go for a carpet bombing approach.

  There is one big assumption here.  The US could go for a non-nuclear approach, relying on the sheer weight of bombs to crush the Cuba/Soviet position in Cuba before the Cubans were able to launch anything.  Especially since many missiles at the time were liquid fueled, which generally took some time to prepare for launching.  This is less likely to lead to a Soviet nuclear response, especially if not followed up by a major ground invasion.  If the US want to remove the nukes from Cuba and send a clear message that more would not be tolerated this could be an attractive approach for them as it then leaves the Soviets with the question of how to respond. 

Did you check this thread: What if the Cuban missile crisis led to war, you will see the cost of a invasion of Cuba in order to hit the targets that are on this map.

There is a link on that thread to a good website where there are documents called, Where the Soviets May React, which say.

The Joint Strategic Survey Council, an advisory group to the Joint Chiefs, reviewed possible Soviet reactions if the US were to take direct military action against Cuba. Questioning whether the USSR would start a general war in defense of Cuba, the Council concluded that the Soviets would not do so because they could not successfully launch a surprise attack and lack vital interests in the region. The Council also considered other possible Soviet reactions, including action in Turkey, Berlin, Korea, at sea, and Iran. For example, while key members of the ExCom such as McNamara and Gilpatric were concerned about a possible Soviet attack on the Jupiters in Turkey in retaliation for a U.S. attack on missile sites in Cuba, the Council tended to rule it out because it would "involve NATO" and therefore a possible cause for general war.

In an amended conclusion to their paper, the Council concluded that Soviet military reaction would be limited to small-scale actions at sea, in Iran, or a possible "IRBM accident" on Johnston Island, while Berlin reaction would be "short of direct military seizure."

  Ah.  Slightly at cross purposes here.  I'm thinking of an overwhelming air attack possibly including continued tactical air strikes to try and keep any launch bases not yet flattened from launching.  With a warning once it starts, to both Havana and Moscow that if any nuclear weapons get launched Cuba gets totally destroyed.  Not thinking of troop landings at all although it could be awkward for their base at Guantanamo. 

[lordroel]

Apr 7, 2018 19:55:11 GMT stevep said:

Apr 7, 2018 12:21:34 GMT lordroel said:

Did you check this thread: What if the Cuban missile crisis led to war, you will see the cost of a invasion of Cuba in order to hit the targets that are on this map.

There is a link on that thread to a good website where there are documents called, Where the Soviets May React, which say.

The Joint Strategic Survey Council, an advisory group to the Joint Chiefs, reviewed possible Soviet reactions if the US were to take direct military action against Cuba. Questioning whether the USSR would start a general war in defense of Cuba, the Council concluded that the Soviets would not do so because they could not successfully launch a surprise attack and lack vital interests in the region. The Council also considered other possible Soviet reactions, including action in Turkey, Berlin, Korea, at sea, and Iran. For example, while key members of the ExCom such as McNamara and Gilpatric were concerned about a possible Soviet attack on the Jupiters in Turkey in retaliation for a U.S. attack on missile sites in Cuba, the Council tended to rule it out because it would "involve NATO" and therefore a possible cause for general war.

In an amended conclusion to their paper, the Council concluded that Soviet military reaction would be limited to small-scale actions at sea, in Iran, or a possible "IRBM accident" on Johnston Island, while Berlin reaction would be "short of direct military seizure."

  Ah.  Slightly at cross purposes here.  I'm thinking of an overwhelming air attack possibly including continued tactical air strikes to try and keep any launch bases not yet flattened from launching.  With a warning once it starts, to both Havana and Moscow that if any nuclear weapons get launched Cuba gets totally destroyed.  Not thinking of troop landings at all although it could be awkward for their base at Guantanamo. 

Here are two more maps from 1962, toghter with the first map you can see the targets that SAC might need to hit.

First map is from the CIA



Second map was also used by Kennedy and his advisors.

[lordroel]

Dammit and i wanted to buy it for myself: John F Kennedy’s ‘victory map’ of Cuba auctioned for over $138,000

[James G]

Apr 27, 2018 12:39:35 GMT lordroel said:

Dammit and i wanted to buy it for myself: John F Kennedy’s ‘victory map’ of Cuba auctioned for over $138,000

What would you have done with it should you have got it?

[lordroel]

Apr 27, 2018 16:09:03 GMT James G said:

Apr 27, 2018 12:39:35 GMT lordroel said:

Dammit and i wanted to buy it for myself: John F Kennedy’s ‘victory map’ of Cuba auctioned for over $138,000

What would you have done with it should you have got it?

Hang it above my bed dreaming happy that SAC never went full airstrike over Cuba.