This discussion has been closed.
Posted by kennyr (U2647470) on Thursday, 7th February 2008
Hi,
I'm doing an essay on the Cuban Missile Crisis, and am a bit confused regading one aspect of it.
I understand that the US removed its Jupiter Missiles from Europe (esp. Turkey), but did it replace these with submarine-launched Polaris Missiles?
I've read a couple of books, but haven't found anything conclusive. They all say that the Jupiter Missiles were considered obsolete in relation to Polaris Missiles, but were these "swapped" in Turkey? Or where were the Polaris Missiles stationed if not in Turkey or Italy?
Thanks,
Mark.
Polaris missiles were indeed mounted in submarines; not in Turkey, Italy nor anywhere else on land.
The Jupiter Missiles based in Turkey were cited by Kruschev as his justification for siting missiles in Cuba. When the Soviet missiles were removed from Cuba, there was no formal agreement that the similar-ranged Jupiters be removed from Turkey, but it was made known through other diplomatic channels that the Jupiters were to be removed in the near future as they duly were.
....What JFK did NOT tell Mr K was that the Jupiters were being taken away because they were no longer necessary once the submarine-based Polaris came into service, a fact which once it became clear to his Kremlin pals may have contributed to Kruschev's eventual loss of office.
where were these polaris missiles/submarines based?
Scapa Flow.
Holy Loch, not Scapa. Its to the west of Glasgow near the the r. N. Base of Faslane. Scapa Flow is the old R N War Time base, and not used during peace time. If you had ever been there, you would understand why.
Stategically, it doesn't really matter where they are based, as they cruised for extremely long periods of time in a high state of readiness for launch from close in to soviet territory if called upon.
Up to a point, Kurt.
The Polaris boats needed a European base (Holy Loch on teh Clyde, just around the corner from the RN Polaris base at Faslane,) because the shorter range of their missiles meant it was necessary to have them close to their patrol grounds somewhere off North Norway within range of Moscow.
When the longer range Trident boats came in, Holy Loch was no longer required and closed.
(It was only ever a supply ship in the middle of the Loch, with no permanent land mooring as at Faslane.)
Submarine Squadron (SubRon)14 was based at the Holy Loch.
There was another base, SubRon16, at Rota in Spain.
(It was only ever a supply ship in the middle of the Loch, with no permanent land mooring as at Faslane.)Β
One of them was the USS Canopus, the illicit substances that came from this ship had it quickly re-named as the USS Cannabis.
Trike.
I just didn't want any readers to get have the impression that the boats projected their threat from a fixed base, as their primary strategic value consists in the fact that (hopefully) at any particular time an enemy cannot locate and destroy them as they could with any fixed location weapon such as the jupiters.
Mark
Don't know when your essay was due, apologies if this is too late.
The Jupiter and Thor IRBMs were deployed as a means of getting missiles capable of reaching the Western Soviet Union into service while the ICBM force was still under development. Their vulnerabilities were recognised even before they were deployed. It had been decided early in 1961 that they would be withdrawn by the end of 1963 (indeed, JFK thought they had gone, and was irritated to discover they were still in place during Cuba, although they offered him an "easy win" during negotiations).
Khrushev pointed to the Turkey-based Jupiter force because they were USAF-manned and on a direct border with the USSR. The Italian Jupiter squadrons, and the RAF Thor squadrons were operated and mantained by the IAF and RAF, although the USAF remained in charge of the warheads.
It would be better to think of the US Polaris SSBNs as the next generation, rather than direct replacements - the NATO Theatre nuclear force (TNF) also had enhanced aircraft assets. They had forward operating bases at the Holy Loch and Rota because the missile range meant that to maintain operational tempo (boats at sea), they had to be this side of the Pond.
Out of interest, what level is the essay for?
Cheers
LW
These missiles were also liquid fuelled, so not able to be left at ready for any length of time, unlike the solid fuelled systems that replaced them.
So in a crisis, their vunerability was destablising, as in 'use them or lose them'.
So too were the Soviet SS-4/5's in Cuba, but their emplacement was supposed to be covert!
(The reason the British 'Blue Streak' IRBM was axed in 1960, was in large part due to it also being liquid fuelled).
But at the time of Cuba, the US had a great advantage in bombers, the early ICBM's (in Oct '62 the USSR had just 4 SS-6), most of all, in the technology of nuke subs with solid fuelled missiles.
There never was a 'missile' or 'bomber gap'.
This disadvantage, making nonsense of Mr K's bombastic claims, was the main motivation for putting the missiles on Cuba.
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.