Maximum Cold War nuclear war

[Strategos' Risk]

This might qualify for the ASB forum, but I was thinking. We've seen many well-written, horrific nuclear war timelines. But they all seem to follow some general patterns- the Southern Hemisphere is untouched, Latin America and the Oceanians are the new powers, and there are always a few "haven" neutral countries. Maybe I'm mostly thinking of 1983: Doomsday, but other nuke war scenarios seem to generally follow those patterns, albeit to lesser degrees.

So, what if the NATO and Warsaw Pact forces were cynical and evil enough to account for that? Given the size of each side's nuclear stocks at peak levels, subtract the nukes assigned for historical primary/secondary/tertiary targets. Would there be any remaining nukes left? What if a deranged Soviet general decides that they can't leave the Swiss bankers or neutral Monaco running around, trying to rebuild after the final holy war between capitalism and Marxism, and so assigns quadrary targets accordingly? What if a General Ripper at the Pentagon decides that if the world is going to end, they can't let the Latin hordes take over afterwards? What if both sides decide to deprive the other of Australia and New Zealand to flee to. Also factor in the participation of other countries with nuclear weapons, such as China, India, Pakistan, Israel, even South Africa.

Anyone want to try to quantify this?

 

[AmericanCataphract]

Considering how much of the world was divided between client states of the superpowers, I'd say that the Non-Aligned Movement would be most likely to survive. I don't know the year-by-year membership of that organization, but presumably everyone not a member would be a priority target. Every other country could reasonably expect to be attacked in an all-out nuclear war, including states like Australia and New Zealand.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

I know that realistically the NAM would have survived while the two blocs destroyed each other, but here I'm talking about hypothetically what if the two blocs attacked NAM, neutral powers, and other countries that were out of the way.

 

[AmericanCataphract]

I know that realistically the NAM would have survived while the two blocs destroyed each other, but here I'm talking about hypothetically what if the two blocs attacked NAM, neutral powers, and other countries that were out of the way.

If it's that bad, small Pacific and Caribbean islands might be the only places to emerge totally unscathed. Everyone else could be plausibly targeted as a threat/ally of the enemy, and the warheads exist to hit them all.

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (good name for a rock band!) would be a good place to be in this sort of scenario.

 

[Gray Antarctica]

The thing is, first, there will be radioactive clouds from nuclear weapons detonations, then unmonitored nuclear reactors start making an even bigger mess. Destroyed reactors COULD be better than damaged ones, as damaged ones will go into meltdown, and won't be stopped, and that means a total meltdown, which would spread radioactivity farther than a nuclear power plant outright leveled by a nuclear warhead, wouldn't it?

 

[Typo]

Just get a few revolutions in South America to successes, increase nuclear proliferation all around, For All Time had the model for this. Then just get someones truly insane in the White house and the Kremlin

 

[MUC]

Switzerland and Monaco will be toasted by the fallout. You don't need to target them anyway.

 

[Dangimill]

Realistically, everyone's screwed in an all-out war due to the amount of fallout that would hit them. Even if you don't get hit directly, agriculture essentially dies in this sort of event and screws you over in the end.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

The southern hemisphere seems to always get out alright.

 

[Blue Max]

Just get a few revolutions in South America to successes, increase nuclear proliferation all around, For All Time had the model for this. Then just get someones truly insane in the White house and the Kremlin

For All Time was building for the big one. Jim Jones crazy enough to start a nuclear war; Andrei Chikatilo already starting one against Arab Nations in the Middle East.


Given that this is For All Time, you'd have the United States mostly destroyed in a massive nuclear war. Of course, it wouldn't be complete without California Governor Charles Manson throwing the state national guard into attempting to "reunite the United States" while also pursuing outright genocide against minorities.


Nuclear War in FaT probably means most of the nations of the worlds are run by absolute monsters presiding over a handful of valuable remnants. North Korea would have pioneered the design of a 250 Megaton nuclear weapon, and I suspect that Jones and Chikatilo have equally serious weapons in design.


Nuclear War scenarios are never pretty, but I have to think that having a Jim Jones/Charles Manson/David Duke/Lyndon LaRouche/Jeffrey Dahmer/Weather Underground warlord duel is probably as bad as it can possibly get. Except, of course, for the superflu unleashed by the United States.


Given that the Soviet/American mentality at the time, the nature of the fighting would just be to kill as many civilians as possible. In that measure, they would be extremely successful.

 

[grdja83]

I'm not certain if its confirmed or just a rumor, but there was talk that Soviets had all neutral countries that could potentially be significant postwar on their target list.

And one would expect that USA maximum damage options likely included technically neutral but heavily pro Soviet countries.



Europe would likely be scorched from Island to Urals. All great conurbations of North America also. And Soviet islands of civilization throughout Siberia.
Most of both sides arsenal would go in attempt to try catch every last ICBM and bomber still on ground. Good news is those are not cities hit, bad news is a lot of those would be groundbursts.

 

[duncansa]

If there had been an allout nuclear exchange I expect the following

-the USSR would have targeted major military-industrial complexes, including those outside the US and allies, places like Johannesburg, Sydney, Buenos Aires. China would have been heavily targeted, unlikely the USSR wanted what remained of its society to be occupied by the chinese.
-with a major exchange there would have been a nuclear winter causing crop failures, world wide, for several seasons. With the infrastrucure to redistribute any remaining food reserves gone there would have been mass starvation amongst the pockets of survivors. Society would have gone back to subsistence agriculture at a fraction of the population
-meltdown of nuclear reactors would have happened particulary if there were strikes near enough to disrupt the back up systems and kill the technicians. In the west this would not have been serious as a meltdown in the reactor designs used there would limit the amount of radiation released (it should be noted that, contrary to the belief of many, meltdown would never result in a reactor core reaching criticality, a nuclear explosion cannot happen). In the USSR the poor designs used there, as per Chernobyl, would have released significant radiation, maybe resulting in some tens of deaths.

 

[LeX]

First you roast the world with 60,000 nuclear explosions
Don't forget the chemical agents for spiciness.
Now we need some bioweapons for the dressing.

Then the Reaper eats his fill.

 

[Chargeofthedarkbrigade]

You're asking what happens if the superpowers purposefully and spitefully tried to destroy the world with nuclear weapons? Doesn't that question answer itself?

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

This might qualify for the ASB forum, but I was thinking. We've seen many well-written, horrific nuclear war timelines. But they all seem to follow some general patterns- the Southern Hemisphere is untouched, Latin America and the Oceanians are the new powers, and there are always a few "haven" neutral countries. Maybe I'm mostly thinking of 1983: Doomsday, but other nuke war scenarios seem to generally follow those patterns, albeit to lesser degrees.

So, what if the NATO and Warsaw Pact forces were cynical and evil enough to account for that? Given the size of each side's nuclear stocks at peak levels, subtract the nukes assigned for historical primary/secondary/tertiary targets. Would there be any remaining nukes left? What if a deranged Soviet general decides that they can't leave the Swiss bankers or neutral Monaco running around, trying to rebuild after the final holy war between capitalism and Marxism, and so assigns quadrary targets accordingly? What if a General Ripper at the Pentagon decides that if the world is going to end, they can't let the Latin hordes take over afterwards? What if both sides decide to deprive the other of Australia and New Zealand to flee to. Also factor in the participation of other countries with nuclear weapons, such as China, India, Pakistan, Israel, even South Africa.

Anyone want to try to quantify this?

Perhaps the simplest methode would be a boomer outliving it's nation, and the captain, with no home to return to, deciding to go the sore loser route.

Perhaps he hears that he, and his kind are being measured for ropes if he ever makes port.

 

[OAM47]

Heh, that reminds me of a conversation you can overhear in Metro 2033.

Old Radio Operator: "The sub captains frantical radioed back to Moscow, waiting for orders and unable to believe it was gone. Some decided to take vengence, other's just slipped away. Eventually they stopped radioing in."