Could the Sino-Soviet border conflict have gone nuclear?

[Alberto Knox]

In 1969, the USSR and PRC entered a border dispute which saw brief military engagement. For further details:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict

The idea of nuclear war was considered by the Soviet leadership but was ultimately rejected. My question is, could events have escalated to the point of nuclear war and, if so, how?

 

[Onkel Willie]

If one side let's it escalate into a full scale conventional war, the step to nuclear war could be made. My bet is that the Soviets let it escalate since they have a stronger and better army upon which the Chinese mobilize their massive numbers. This leads to a tug of war in Manchuria and Mongolia. Eventually, the Red Army uses a tactical nuke and then the gloves come off. The result is that China is wiped off the face of the Earth with the USSR having 10.000 nukes, ICBMs, strategic bombers and SSBNs. China didn't have ICBMs in '69 nor did they have strategic bombers and SSBNs. Their nuclear stockpile was only made up of 50 nukes and thus the USSR loses Siberia, presuming that China gets the chance to use all its nukes.

 

[Orry]

I would have to look it up but I seem to recall the Americans dropped strong hints to the Russians that they would retaliate if the Russians made first use of nukes.

 

[Onkel Willie]

I would have to look it up but I seem to recall the Americans dropped strong hints to the Russians that they would retaliate if the Russians made first use of nukes.

There's always the possibility that it was a bluff of course. As much as supporting China is a valid geopolitical move, I don't see many people liking the idea of going to war over a communist country. If Mao, pushes Moscow's buttons too much, I could see the USSR land like a tonne of bricks on him although not completely destroying China while the US calls for sanctions which the USSR vetoes in the UN Security Council.

 

[gmavrom]

Thre were rumours that Nixon had found out that the Soviets were going to Nuke and destroy china in 1969 and he threatened tooside with the Chinease

 

[Orry]

That was the story I heard

 

[marked56]

does the prc even have nukes? let alone the ability to fight back if nukes are used? their strength in numbers is gonna mean little if their all radioactive dust.
and why would america care seeing as both were communist countries

 

[Sir Chaos]

Thre were rumours that Nixon had found out that the Soviets were going to Nuke and destroy china in 1969 and he threatened tooside with the Chinease

Well, if the Soviets expended a sizeable fraction of their nuclear arsenal on China, it would have made sense to do something while the nuclear threat to the US was temporarily decreased.

 

[anon_user]

does the prc even have nukes? let alone the ability to fight back if nukes are used? their strength in numbers is gonna mean little if their all radioactive dust.
and why would america care seeing as both were communist countries

1) Yes, the PRC did have nuclear weapons, though not many.
2) They operated a small number of transportable DongFeng-2A MRBMs - 50 were deployed in 1970.
3) The US was playing China against the USSR to help extricate itself from Vietnam, exacerbate the Sino-Soviet split, distract the Soviets, and generally improve its geopolitical situation in East Asia. As for the American public, if the Soviets use nukes first, the US may be sympathetic to the Chinese, although probably not to the point of war.

 

[Han]

and why would america care seeing as both were communist countries

In the case of a nuclear war between the USSR and PRC, American allies such as South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan would most likely be adversely affected by the war. Also there were US troops stationed in East Asia that would probably be wrecked by the nuclear warfare.

 

[marked56]

well unless the soviets nuke the jilin,liaoning,yunnan or guang xi provinces,it wouldent affect the americans,aside from a refugee crisis

 

[Gridley]

Well, if the Soviets expended a sizeable fraction of their nuclear arsenal on China, it would have made sense to do something while the nuclear threat to the US was temporarily decreased.

You mean they only would have had 5,000 warheads to hit us with instead of 10,000? Yeah, making the rubble bounce less would really make a difference.

To the OP: yes, it could have gone nuclear, but I can't think of a likely scenario.

I agree that the feared impact of fallout to our Asian allies would make the US very interested in preventing a nuclear exchange.

 

[Cash]

The Sino-Soviet border clashes were relatively minor compared to the fighting that was going on internally in China at the time. The last thing Mao wanted was a major war with another Communist nation. A few skirmishes are fine to serve as a rally point for various factions that had been at each other's throats in the Cultural Revolution, which was in full swing at the time and had deeply divided the armed forces. A war with an external foe would have been a disaster.

The Soviets had hardened the border with minefields, tank traps, and even old World War II T-34s buried up to their turrets as pillboxes. They wouldn't have needed nukes to defeat the Chinese, and the Chinese didn't have the nukes to defeat the Soviets.

Eliminate or redirect the Cultural Revolution to create a more unified China focused on an external foe -- perhaps a revisionist USSR -- and there's an opportunity for larger conflict and the use of nukes.

 

[Rediv]

The Sino-Soviet border clashes were relatively minor compared to the fighting that was going on internally in China at the time. The last thing Mao wanted was a major war with another Communist nation. A few skirmishes are fine to serve as a rally point for various factions that had been at each other's throats in the Cultural Revolution, which was in full swing at the time and had deeply divided the armed forces. A war with an external foe would have been a disaster.

The Soviets had hardened the border with minefields, tank traps, and even old World War II T-34s buried up to their turrets as pillboxes. They wouldn't have needed nukes to defeat the Chinese, and the Chinese didn't have the nukes to defeat the Soviets.

Eliminate or redirect the Cultural Revolution to create a more unified China focused on an external foe -- perhaps a revisionist USSR -- and there's an opportunity for larger conflict and the use of nukes.

That's a really good point. Most scenarios for an escalation of the Sino-Soviet conflict have the Chinese making the first move, but I don't really see what they could gain from starting a war, whereas they'd have a whole lot to lose.

In 1969, like Cash said above, the Chinese need their army to keep the peace within their own borders and establish order after the turmoil of the Cultural Revolution.

But also, a war would have tipped the internal balance of power all the way in the PLA's favor, and by 1969-70 Mao was already getting wary of the PLA's growing dominance in society and starting to get suspicious of his number-two man and defense minister Lin Biao. And despite Mao's penchant for rash and callous decisions, I really don't see him jumping into a war that couldn't possibly turn out well for him.

 

[marked56]

You mean they only would have had 5,000 warheads to hit us with instead of 10,000? Yeah, making the rubble bounce less would really make a difference.

To the OP: yes, it could have gone nuclear, but I can't think of a likely scenario.

I agree that the feared impact of fallout to our Asian allies would make the US very interested in preventing a nuclear exchange.

like i said,unless the ussr spammed china with nukes,and i mean on the border provinces alone,there isnt that much chance of nuclear fall out on americas allies

 

[WarBastard]

Well, if the Soviets expended a sizeable fraction of their nuclear arsenal on China, it would have made sense to do something while the nuclear threat to the US was temporarily decreased.

No it wouldn't, as the USSR would still have retained the capacity to effectively destroy the US.

 

[marked56]

how exactly? a nuclear war would have meant no cuban missile crisis,besides wouldent the ussr be busy 'mopping' up in china?

 

[The Red]

The problem is that the Soviets had complete Nuclear and Conventional superiority over the Chinese. Thus the most common scenarios of NATO/WP facing military collpase so makes use of tactical and then strategic nuclear weapons isn't going to happen. Neither is a massive first strike by one side because they're paranoid that the other is preparing to do it. The Soviet Union has the capability to defeat the PRC using Conventional Weapons and thus they will.

The best scenario is if Mao for some reason goes insane with rage after his defeat in the border war and launches an all out invasion into Siberia, causing one jumpy Soviet commander to launch tactical nuclear weapons when he is being overrun (both NATO and WP guidelines advised firing tactical nukes if they are surrounded and unable to escape), resulting in hundreds of thousands of Chinese deaths. Despite Soviet apologies and offers for a cease fire, Mao has now gone totally beserk and orders nuclear strikes against Vladivostock and other Soviet targets, killing hundreds of thousands more. This leads to a limited Soviet retaliation of around 50 nukes on Chinese cities. Millions die, China collapses into anarchy.

If the Soviet Union decides to try and conquer. China for some insane reason, Mao might also use nukes.

 

[marked56]

i didnt know china had nukes at that time,also were the ruskies planning to just march their troops through a nuclear wasteland?

 

[The Red]

i didnt know china had nukes at that time,also were the ruskies planning to just march their troops through a nuclear wasteland?

They didn't want to invade China at all, which is why when China gave them an excellent caussus belli they were happy to just humiliate them.