uppps i over look that post, i'm very sorry
because i had no data on Netherlands NATO bases
i will incoperate that list on next version of the map
The Cuban Missile War Timeline
- Thread starter Amerigo Vespucci
- Start date
- Status
uppps i over look that post, i'm very sorry
because i had no data on Netherlands NATO bases
i will incoperate that list on next version of the map
Greetings, and a nitpick
Hi - I came across this timeline through Google (I'd recently watched Fail Safe and Dr. Strangelove, and nuclear war has held a morbid fascination for me since I spent my college years two miles from the White House during the Reagan administration. Although then, it wasn't so much fascination as a fear of being vaporized on a moment's notice...)
So this is my first post here.
I had a few comments, but I only remember one now (it took several days to get posting permission): I hate to throw off your time line, but are times Eastern (I didn't see if you actually said so)? If so, and if the laws governing daylight savings time in 1962 were the same as they were when I was growing up in the 70s, clocks would have been set back at 2 a.m. that Sunday. Which reminds me of a second nitpick (or maybe we can call it an edit): Monday was the 29th, not the 30th.
That said, good work.
Hi - I came across this timeline through Google (I'd recently watched Fail Safe and Dr. Strangelove, and nuclear war has held a morbid fascination for me since I spent my college years two miles from the White House during the Reagan administration. Although then, it wasn't so much fascination as a fear of being vaporized on a moment's notice...)
So this is my first post here.
I had a few comments, but I only remember one now (it took several days to get posting permission): I hate to throw off your time line, but are times Eastern (I didn't see if you actually said so)? If so, and if the laws governing daylight savings time in 1962 were the same as they were when I was growing up in the 70s, clocks would have been set back at 2 a.m. that Sunday. Which reminds me of a second nitpick (or maybe we can call it an edit): Monday was the 29th, not the 30th.
That said, good work.
Could we have the latest version of the timeline and all of the approved supplementary material copied to a thread in the Timelines forum? This thread is 49 pages long and I don't even know where the newest revision is! Thanks.
I agree. It's a very detailed and well done scenario, and I don't hand out compliments freely (insults perhaps).
theirishdreamer
Banned
England & Ireland
I'd just like to make a note in regards the United Kingdom, primarily England. I find the continuation of the UK as a viable state outside Scotland, Wales and parts of N.Ireland as highly unlikely, and in the medium run impossible. I think their is a significant underestimation of the effect of limited number of nuclear strikes on the British Isles.
I expect the UK government (at least high levels) to survice intact. But what your going to have is a lack of low to mid level government structures and likely the death of most of the population to strikes and radiation from Faslane down to Cornwall, followed by mass starvation and complete collapse of law and order. Your also going at UK military forces world wide either a) returning home b) going rogue or c) joining local governments aka Australia, US etc.
So you have a state with military assets, a government but lacking repair facilities, a population that now will be dominated by Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, that is no longer capable of maintain that military force. Also food shipments would be cut off due to the collpase in the world economy and UK depends completely upon importion of food to exist.
Rather than the Scenario outlined here I think the UK is more likely to end up similar to Germany or the Benelux.
In regards Ireland and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland will collpase into chaos fairly rapidly with the destruction of Belfast and a large proprtion of the Unionest population. I'd expect problems in Newry, Derry, South Armagh and major intercommunity violence. There wasnt major UK forces based in the North till the 70's, the North being self ruling. And with the loss of Belfast you've taken out that government structure.
In regards the Republic its Army is small and at the time a WW2 style army with little armour (8 tanks) a handful of Vampire planes. A movement across the border seems likely, most likely in a humanitarian capacity and in conjuction with remaining British forces to restore order.
I'd just like to make a note in regards the United Kingdom, primarily England. I find the continuation of the UK as a viable state outside Scotland, Wales and parts of N.Ireland as highly unlikely, and in the medium run impossible. I think their is a significant underestimation of the effect of limited number of nuclear strikes on the British Isles.
I expect the UK government (at least high levels) to survice intact. But what your going to have is a lack of low to mid level government structures and likely the death of most of the population to strikes and radiation from Faslane down to Cornwall, followed by mass starvation and complete collapse of law and order. Your also going at UK military forces world wide either a) returning home b) going rogue or c) joining local governments aka Australia, US etc.
So you have a state with military assets, a government but lacking repair facilities, a population that now will be dominated by Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish, that is no longer capable of maintain that military force. Also food shipments would be cut off due to the collpase in the world economy and UK depends completely upon importion of food to exist.
Rather than the Scenario outlined here I think the UK is more likely to end up similar to Germany or the Benelux.
In regards Ireland and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland will collpase into chaos fairly rapidly with the destruction of Belfast and a large proprtion of the Unionest population. I'd expect problems in Newry, Derry, South Armagh and major intercommunity violence. There wasnt major UK forces based in the North till the 70's, the North being self ruling. And with the loss of Belfast you've taken out that government structure.
In regards the Republic its Army is small and at the time a WW2 style army with little armour (8 tanks) a handful of Vampire planes. A movement across the border seems likely, most likely in a humanitarian capacity and in conjuction with remaining British forces to restore order.
Considering that about 70-80% of the population of the UK has been English for a long time, there is just no way that the population of the UK will become dominated by Scots, Welsh and the Northern Irish. In the impossible scenario where England could lose 50% of it's population as a result of the war and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland remain untouched, the English will still form a majority of over 50% of the population with none of the other groups coming close (at best the Scots would now form 25% of the population - if they lost major Scottish cities though then the situation post-war could end up being nearly the same before the war). In fact England would have to lose 80% of it's population for the proportion of Englishmen and women to start approximating the number of Scots (and this assumes that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are untouched, which is not the case). If that happened then there would be no dominant group as the English would form a plurality but not a majority and all groups would essentially be equal.
In fact with smaller populations than England, it is possible (though unlikely) that Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland could end up having a lower proportion of the population after the war vis-a-vis England - if major urban areas in those countries are taken out then proportional loss might be the same as what England suffers or even greater (if say 15-20% of the population of Scotland was concentrated in just Edinburgh and Glasgow then if those two areas get wiped out, Scotland would already have lost a significant part of it's population without even considering starvation and nuclear winter). I doubt that scenario would play out though.
If the high levels of UK government do survive as expected you aren't going to see a lot of British military forces going rogue in the country - after all there would still be an authority to report to and take orders from. Some will go rogue, but in all probability we would probably see most being used to enforce emergency measures while the UK government and the surviving local governments end up having a changed relationship as the UK government probably ends up forming "partnerships" with the local governments to restore law and order and attempt to get to grips with the problem of food. This could lead to a change in the way the UK is governed on a temporary or permanent basis where a lot more power is delegated straight to local governments (as opposed to the creation of new governments for the constituent countries), so each county, town, city, parish, etc could end up with a lot more control over affairs.
Plus what happens with the Royal Navy? If any significant forces of the RN survive then Britain will not have the same refugee situation as many of the mainland states and the RN will probably become an extremely influential force in Britain since it (and the RAF) would end up guaranteeing food supplies into the country - can't see either force breaking up and going rogue with respect to local governments.
theirishdreamer
Banned
Hmmm
My view on the problem the UK would face is based the logistics of the operation. While the UKGOV will survive intact at higher levels your going to see a complete disruption of the command and conrol structures and the elimation of most local military forces, and the failure of much of the remaining communications and transportation structures.
Herein lies the problem, most of the UK forces will survive almost undamaged outside the mainland, but the mainland will become the problem. Without imports the UK can only sustain a poplution somewhere 15-25million, now with the nuclear strikes this will drop back to medieval levels as much of the farm land will contaimation or lack of civil order will undermine the harvest for 1962 and 1963. That was the problem of WW1 & WW2, Britain can be in danger of being starved into submission, and nuclear war would trigger a collapse in the world economy in the short to medium term. Ireland would likely supply its surpluses but this would be no where near enough. The US and Canada are unlikely to be supply. Same the Soviet Union. The most likely result is the Royal Navy becoming either of two options a) resupply force bringing food to the mainland or b) an evacuation force taking the population to other Commonwealth countries.
My view is this;
Inital strikes kill a significant, but nowhere near the majority of, portion of the population, mainly in England near the primary target centres.
UKGOV survices but local structures either collapse or incapaciltated. After a few days to weeks you start seeing a breakdown in law and order across most of the country. Primarily as food supplies dwindle and lack of power supplies. I suspect the UK government will focus its efforts at restoring order in the most uneffected areas using surviving UK forces and returning world wide forces.
Id suspect N.Ireland has degenerated within the inital weeks and will equire months for Irish and local British forces to restore order. The Government will focus on restoring order on the mainland first and formost.
The main problem becomes sustaining the military over the following years, and thats going to be a problem. There will be martial law, no elections for at least a decade and major food shortages for the medium term. Morale in the armed forces will decline. Simply because morale in armies declines when violently confronting its own civilian population. And it will have too, there'll be looters, ordinary people angry at the loss of former prosperity and the nuclear war. AND THEY WILL BLAME THE GOVERNMENT. Its a very human reaction.
Id suspect;
-mass emmigation, mainly to Ireland, South Africa and Australia
-a government become gradually more authoriatarian, not by choice but by necessity
-aging military equipment and forces, a lack of capacity to replace either
As to Ireland.
Ireland will initally come out fairly well, undamaged by any strikes and being largely self sufficient at the time.
The problem will be the North and civillian refugees from the UK.
The North because the Irish Army was tiny and underfunded at the time, there will be chaos and the Army was in no state to restore order quickly. Your looking at months to years mobilise the forces to stabilise the situation with local British forces. Also the circumsances will FORCE the Irish Gov to militarise, just to maintain order (no US, UK or Nato to take off those costs) which will cost alot and put major strain on its internal politics.
Secondly refugees and lots of them. This will further add pressure to the internal politcis of Ireland, as this won't be the immigration of the the Celtic Tiger years with economic growth in line with immigration.
This will refugees fleeing with nought but the clothes on their backs to a nation whoose economy is primarily agricultural. Irish politics was (a still is to an extent) based off the Civil War, the refugees will wreck this status quo. Oddly this will probably push Ireland into a closer relationship with whats left of the UKGOV, as stabilisation there equals stabilisation at home. Its not all bad in regards the refugees. They'll bring skills not easily available in Ireland of the time, and a gradual industrialisation of the country.
I don't see the mass flight to N.Ireland as outlined in the most recent scenario. Refugees will aim for safe zones (Scotland, Wales, Ireland, the Commonwealth), N.Ireland will chaos for some time, and with the destruction of Belfast little to recommend it to UKGOV.
My view on the problem the UK would face is based the logistics of the operation. While the UKGOV will survive intact at higher levels your going to see a complete disruption of the command and conrol structures and the elimation of most local military forces, and the failure of much of the remaining communications and transportation structures.
Herein lies the problem, most of the UK forces will survive almost undamaged outside the mainland, but the mainland will become the problem. Without imports the UK can only sustain a poplution somewhere 15-25million, now with the nuclear strikes this will drop back to medieval levels as much of the farm land will contaimation or lack of civil order will undermine the harvest for 1962 and 1963. That was the problem of WW1 & WW2, Britain can be in danger of being starved into submission, and nuclear war would trigger a collapse in the world economy in the short to medium term. Ireland would likely supply its surpluses but this would be no where near enough. The US and Canada are unlikely to be supply. Same the Soviet Union. The most likely result is the Royal Navy becoming either of two options a) resupply force bringing food to the mainland or b) an evacuation force taking the population to other Commonwealth countries.
My view is this;
Inital strikes kill a significant, but nowhere near the majority of, portion of the population, mainly in England near the primary target centres.
UKGOV survices but local structures either collapse or incapaciltated. After a few days to weeks you start seeing a breakdown in law and order across most of the country. Primarily as food supplies dwindle and lack of power supplies. I suspect the UK government will focus its efforts at restoring order in the most uneffected areas using surviving UK forces and returning world wide forces.
Id suspect N.Ireland has degenerated within the inital weeks and will equire months for Irish and local British forces to restore order. The Government will focus on restoring order on the mainland first and formost.
The main problem becomes sustaining the military over the following years, and thats going to be a problem. There will be martial law, no elections for at least a decade and major food shortages for the medium term. Morale in the armed forces will decline. Simply because morale in armies declines when violently confronting its own civilian population. And it will have too, there'll be looters, ordinary people angry at the loss of former prosperity and the nuclear war. AND THEY WILL BLAME THE GOVERNMENT. Its a very human reaction.
Id suspect;
-mass emmigation, mainly to Ireland, South Africa and Australia
-a government become gradually more authoriatarian, not by choice but by necessity
-aging military equipment and forces, a lack of capacity to replace either
As to Ireland.
Ireland will initally come out fairly well, undamaged by any strikes and being largely self sufficient at the time.
The problem will be the North and civillian refugees from the UK.
The North because the Irish Army was tiny and underfunded at the time, there will be chaos and the Army was in no state to restore order quickly. Your looking at months to years mobilise the forces to stabilise the situation with local British forces. Also the circumsances will FORCE the Irish Gov to militarise, just to maintain order (no US, UK or Nato to take off those costs) which will cost alot and put major strain on its internal politics.
Secondly refugees and lots of them. This will further add pressure to the internal politcis of Ireland, as this won't be the immigration of the the Celtic Tiger years with economic growth in line with immigration.
This will refugees fleeing with nought but the clothes on their backs to a nation whoose economy is primarily agricultural. Irish politics was (a still is to an extent) based off the Civil War, the refugees will wreck this status quo. Oddly this will probably push Ireland into a closer relationship with whats left of the UKGOV, as stabilisation there equals stabilisation at home. Its not all bad in regards the refugees. They'll bring skills not easily available in Ireland of the time, and a gradual industrialisation of the country.
I don't see the mass flight to N.Ireland as outlined in the most recent scenario. Refugees will aim for safe zones (Scotland, Wales, Ireland, the Commonwealth), N.Ireland will chaos for some time, and with the destruction of Belfast little to recommend it to UKGOV.
Just read the TL on the 1st page for the first time today.... purely epic and utterly frightening and very plausible.
Neither side wanted it, yet it happened all but for miscommunication and tricks of fate.
Even Johnson's fall into tyranny is sad and understandable at the same time. Can't believe I never ran into this one before.
Neither side wanted it, yet it happened all but for miscommunication and tricks of fate.
Even Johnson's fall into tyranny is sad and understandable at the same time. Can't believe I never ran into this one before.
I agree with some of this, but not all. The main problem I see is that it is assumed that there would be "the elimation of most local military forces". I don't see how that can happen if most of the local military forces aren't targetted. The major local military sites will be targetted but that doesn't mean they contain the majority of the local military forces (for instance the major bases and facilities could contain 30% of the personnel but only account for 5% of the total local bases and facilities). In addition the police have to still be there somewhere in every town which has a constabulary and hasn't been affected by nuclear strikes (and for the ones that have been affected by nuclear strikes, some of them won't need police since they won't have people who need policing). Also all those overseas military forces that could be spared would probably be brought home if they really needed to help shore up the police and local military forces. Since the RN and RAF will probably not be totally wiped out (and this being 1962, the RAN, RAAF, RNZN and RNZAF would probably assist as well) then they could ferry the necessary forces back to Blighty. Once that is done they will probably be used to both effect the delivery of food supplies and evacuate those Britons who can leave the islands for elsewhere (since it would decrease the pressure on food supplies).
I notice some references to an undivided Yugoslavia in post-WWIII Europe, but is that realistic? Could even Tito keep the country together in such a chaotic environment, assuming he survived the war? And if he didn't survive, Yugoslavia's future as a distinct and entire nation seems even more unlikely. Given what happened in post-Tito Yugoslavia in OTL, to me it seems likely much worse would occur in the aftermath of World War III.
theirishdreamer
Banned
Hmm
Well Im not disagreeing with the retention of the Royal Navy, Im assuming it survives largely intact, or effectiveness. My problem lies on the supply side. From what I remember Britain relied heavily on the supply of food from the US and Canada, both of which will be hoarding food supplies for internal use.
I suspec the RN would be able to source some enough food supplies from nations. My view would be it probably wont be enough and wont reach there in time. As fuel supplies would also have to imported there may be a problem of transport. Which follows unto my next arguement.
In regards law and order in Britain. Your going to see a situation in a nation to suddenly go from relavtive properity to WW2 conditions overnight. Fallout will be a major problem, and the sheer scale of the destruction in such a limited land area is naturally going to cause serious problems for law and order. Just judging from recent major disasters (for example Hurricane Katrina) the reality of the situation is rarely best case scenario. You have to remember soldiers and leaders are human too.
The evacuation scenario is interesting, because it would be within the RN's operational capacity and would eleviate the situation greatly. I assume Ireland or Commonwealth nations as the evac points?
Also raises the question for the future of the TL, would many of these refugees want to return to a contaiminated UK or want to stay in the countries abroad?
Well Im not disagreeing with the retention of the Royal Navy, Im assuming it survives largely intact, or effectiveness. My problem lies on the supply side. From what I remember Britain relied heavily on the supply of food from the US and Canada, both of which will be hoarding food supplies for internal use.
I suspec the RN would be able to source some enough food supplies from nations. My view would be it probably wont be enough and wont reach there in time. As fuel supplies would also have to imported there may be a problem of transport. Which follows unto my next arguement.
In regards law and order in Britain. Your going to see a situation in a nation to suddenly go from relavtive properity to WW2 conditions overnight. Fallout will be a major problem, and the sheer scale of the destruction in such a limited land area is naturally going to cause serious problems for law and order. Just judging from recent major disasters (for example Hurricane Katrina) the reality of the situation is rarely best case scenario. You have to remember soldiers and leaders are human too.
The evacuation scenario is interesting, because it would be within the RN's operational capacity and would eleviate the situation greatly. I assume Ireland or Commonwealth nations as the evac points?
Also raises the question for the future of the TL, would many of these refugees want to return to a contaiminated UK or want to stay in the countries abroad?
Katrina isn't that good an example. It is a better example of the problems of bureaucracy (which wouldn't be a problem here as that would just be overlooked given the scale of the problem), ineptitude and just a general disconnect from the situation (which would happen in a country like the USA where the disaster is localized to a limited area and doesn't directly affect a great many other people - it's effects in terms of people fleeing were widespread but not the damage itself). Better examples to look on would probably be the Mississippi floodings (affected much more people in many states in the US and consequently lit more of a fire under the government's behind) and the North Sea floods.
chaotic environments have a way of boosting dictators. Since Yugoslavia isn't massively bombed (if bombed at all - I can't remember), it survives mostly intact but now with a population that is going to be very fearful and at the same time sympathetic to lots of refugees pouring in. If there is chaos in the bordering countries and the Yugoslav population know about it (which is bound to happen, no way censors are going to censor that info since it works for the regime and it would be pointless anyway as it would be global news already) then what happens is that the Yugoslav population will be fearful of chaos spreading into Yugoslav (hence being fearful of some refugees and any bands of looters, raiders, bandits, etc that might follow after them or with them - whilst at the same sympathetic to some refugees, probably especially the Slavic refugees). Think of how Bush's popularity flew through the roof after September 11 and then just extend that for a good decade or three. No way will Tito have any trouble holding Yugoslavia together in this scenario - he would probably be the most popular person in Yugoslavia (for his image of providing protection and stability) for a long time to come.
Quite a timeline.
The casis belli, all too frighteningly plausible.
Your research regarding the targets, priority and weapons used is impeccable.
The exchanges, destruction and casualties fit with most of the models I've seen of an exchange in 1962.
The situation in itself is terrible enough but for myself, the horror is compounded by seeing the exact day that my then 17 year old father, still in Navy boot at North Island, would have been vaporized...and that the overall timeframe ends 1977, the year I was born.
The casis belli, all too frighteningly plausible.
Your research regarding the targets, priority and weapons used is impeccable.
The exchanges, destruction and casualties fit with most of the models I've seen of an exchange in 1962.
The situation in itself is terrible enough but for myself, the horror is compounded by seeing the exact day that my then 17 year old father, still in Navy boot at North Island, would have been vaporized...and that the overall timeframe ends 1977, the year I was born.
This thread is too long and I'm too busy atm to read all of it, but I did read the first entry, and I have a minor quibble with the issue of the US losing its superpower status after the war. While China, undamaged and with a huge population, would certainly gain prominence in this world, America is still largely undamaged (the vast majority of the population survived at least the initial attacks), and still possess a large industrial base (even with several major industrial centers annhilated). In fact, America might end up being even MORE of a superpower than before because China and Europe will likely require substantial aid to modernize/rebuild (the Sino-Sovit split, IIRC, had not fully set in yet--and even so, China didn't really take off until trade liberalization), and with the USSR and most of Europe blasted from the face of the Earth the US is the only remaining country with enough technical, industrial, and agricultural capacity to do so. That is, if the US doesn't go back to '20s and '30s style neutrality, which is quite possible, though even in that event US companies will probably still be important in the post-war world.
You taking about Mariner 2? That one proved that Venus was very hot, so no, unless everyone just forgets about it, no jungle Venus (ofc, people knew before the Mars flybys that nothing lived there--probably--and yet there was still speculation. Also, there's always scifi...)
- Status