I remember reading a thread here earlier saying that by the 1980s, even neutral nations are on the target list for both US and Soviet nuclear missiles, because neither superpower want any potential aid to the enemy left after the war. That said, if a nuclear war happened in say, 1983, what areas/countries of the world would be least affected from the war?
What countries/regions would be least affected by a nuclear war in the 1980s?
- Thread starter Berkeley2017
- Start date
NZ and Australia would be targeted by the Soviets since they're American allies, though most of Australia wouldn't be affected since its sparsely populated desert.
Europe and North America are glowing in the dark, so they're out. Even Iceland's in NATO, so it's gone too.
Depending on the situation, China might be a possibility though. It's not overly fond of either the Soviets or the US, and is too large (and nuclear armed) for either to decide to nuke it "just because". If you are forced to have a nuclear war, you don't want two large nuclear armed countries going after you when one is quite enough.
India performed its first nuclear test in the 1970s, so it's possible that the US might apply the same logic (the Soviets would leave India alone because it was vaguely pro-Soviet during the Cold War).
South America is another option. If the Soviets were so inclined, they might want to nuke the military dictatorships (which by the 1970s, was most of them), but on the other hand they might see it as a distraction from Europe and North America. The US, obviously, would take out Cuba.
Africa, unfortunately, has nuclear-armed apartheid South Africa, who really would be a Soviet target, and hence South Africa would go after Soviet-friendly states in the rest of Africa.
The less said about the Middle-East, the better.
Australia is an obvious Soviet target. Would anyone even bother with New Zealand, regardless of whether or not ANZUS is effective?
Depending on the situation, China might be a possibility though. It's not overly fond of either the Soviets or the US, and is too large (and nuclear armed) for either to decide to nuke it "just because". If you are forced to have a nuclear war, you don't want two large nuclear armed countries going after you when one is quite enough.
India performed its first nuclear test in the 1970s, so it's possible that the US might apply the same logic (the Soviets would leave India alone because it was vaguely pro-Soviet during the Cold War).
South America is another option. If the Soviets were so inclined, they might want to nuke the military dictatorships (which by the 1970s, was most of them), but on the other hand they might see it as a distraction from Europe and North America. The US, obviously, would take out Cuba.
Africa, unfortunately, has nuclear-armed apartheid South Africa, who really would be a Soviet target, and hence South Africa would go after Soviet-friendly states in the rest of Africa.
The less said about the Middle-East, the better.
Australia is an obvious Soviet target. Would anyone even bother with New Zealand, regardless of whether or not ANZUS is effective?
I doubt the Soviets would differentiate. If they have an ICBM or SLBM to spare, The North Island's taking at least one nuke.
Pangur
Donor
The points raised about China are fair comment and that surely adds Nepal to the list of good places to be.
India & Pakistan? I could see them being left alone by NATO and WP but may be nothing if they decide to have a crack at each other but then again India is a very large country. Same reasoning for Aussie. Sure Pine Gap would be top of the list for the USSR but frankly its in the middle of no where
India & Pakistan? I could see them being left alone by NATO and WP but may be nothing if they decide to have a crack at each other but then again India is a very large country. Same reasoning for Aussie. Sure Pine Gap would be top of the list for the USSR but frankly its in the middle of no where
I think post ANZUS they wouldnt nuke. Not so sure about beore ANZUS fails. Its hard to see bow they could afford to give it more than a light attack either way
SinghKing
Banned
What about these candidates to escape the impending nuclear holocaust-
1) Madagascar?
2) Sri Lanka (you never know)?
3) The Comoros?
4) Sao Tome et Principe?
5) The Seychelles?
6) The Guianas (region)?
7) Madeira?
8) Faroe Islands?
9) Greenland (excl. Thule Air Base)?
10) Brunei?
11) The Galapagos Islands?
12) Mauritius?
13) Easter Island?
14) New Guinea (West Papua & PNG)?
15) Timor (East & West)?
16) Hispaniola (Haiti & The Dominican Republic)?
17) Jamaica?
18) Puerto Rico?
19) Trinidad and Tobago?
20) Cape Verde?
21) Kiribati?
22) Saint Helena and Tristan da Cunha?
23) French Caledonia?
What happens in these regions and nations? Which among them would probably still get destroyed, and which would stand the best chance of not being caught in the crosshairs?
Last edited:
Realpolitik
Banned
For everybody saying China, remember that China and the Soviet Union nearly went to nuclear war in 1969.
Ancien Regime
Banned
China's getting glassed. If anything I'd rather be in North America, hell there are places in Europe I'd rather be like some of the European neutrals. I think Protect and Survive had China getting about 500 strikes solely because NEITHER power trusts them and they're a nuclear state and I agree with that.
Same logic applies to India.
Argentina will likely eat a nuke from a British nuclear sub if they get thirsty for the Falklands though I think most South American capitals will be fine. Maybe Brazil eats one.
Same logic applies to India.
Argentina will likely eat a nuke from a British nuclear sub if they get thirsty for the Falklands though I think most South American capitals will be fine. Maybe Brazil eats one.
Faroe Islands have strategic value. (At least it did in WW2, the British used it to strengthen their influence in the Atlantic. They also build an airfield there, to reach Nazi-occupied Denmark)
Brunei is very rich because of fossil fuels. Superpowers are going to fight over it and they might nuke it in order to prevent all that fuel falling in the hands of the enemy.
Antartica (as an area) has gotta be my pick for least affected. Plus, a whole continent with no change in human population! Got to be the winner here.
Riain
Banned
While Australia is a US ally with some important nuclear targets the practicalities of intercontinental nuclear warfare would mean that Australia would only get the dregs of the Soviet arsenal. As such large sections of Australia, including major cities such as Adelaide, would most likely not be hit at all.
I think given the operational waters of Soviet SSBN subs at the time, I don't think there will be many Soviet nuclear strikes in the Southern Hemisphere, with the possible exception of Australia (since the US military could take advantage of Australian military bases).
You have to remember that the number of nuclear warheads of all sorts DOES NOT equal the number of targets that could be hit. Many of the warheads are nuclear armed torpedoes, nuclear mines (land and sea), warheads for air defense missiles (both SAM and air to air), "backpack" nukes etc. On top of that many nukes are warheads for IRBMs or other "theater" nuclear weapons, and also there are more gravity bomb nukes than can be carried on nuclear capable aircraft all at once. Now you get in to the fact that some targets will get more than one warhead/weapon, and that there will be some second strikes against targets where the first strike did not do the job for one reason or another (missile or warhead failure, aircraft shot down, a "miss", etc).
Don't forget that some of the delivery systems such as aircraft will be destroyed early on, so even if there is a bomb for them to drop they aren't there to do it. Likewise subs may be sunk before they can fire any or all of their missiles. Likewise missiles kept in reserve may be destroyed, and also bases where nukes are kept are going to be targets so "reserve" nukes will be destroyed in some numbers.
The key thing the US & USSR are going to try and do is destroy military targets that can hurt them, as well as certain key industrial and political targets. For sure China will get hit, and by both sides. Some neutrals who could represnt a close threat, such as Sweden and Switzerland will be hit by the USSR, and of course Cuba by the US. Priority for hitting Australia and New Zealand even with ANZUS is low, as neither country can do much to damage Soviet interests during the war or even in a post war scenario - perhaps hitting a few bases that can support or would support US nuclear capable forces but very limited.
Hitting South America or Africa is a waste. No threat there and post war the USSR hopes to survive with enough left over "toys" to be top dog. South Africa might get one on Pretoria, or its nuclear establishment but not more.
Any ICBMs fired first or second strike are going to be used against US or NATO, with maybe a few to use against ANZUS or S. Africa but I doubt it. SLBMs would be used primarily against US to hit key targets with minimal warning, or SSBNs hiding away for very delayed strike or post war force reconstitution. IF the USSR wants to hit S. America, Australia, NZ bombers would do the job, however the issue there is range/refueling.
IMHO there would be lots of places "untouched" by a nuclear war in the 1980s. However for many of them, even if not too badly affected by fallout and "nuclear winter" it would be a disaster. Absent food imports from US/Canada/Australia many countries would have severe famines, of course this would mean higher disease rates and many of the "Unaffected" countries do not/cannot manufacture much in the way of medicines and there will be no imported vaccines or antibiotics for some time. You would expect many countries to dissolve in to anarchy with fighting to garner limited supplies of necessaries, warlordism, etc.
A nuclear exchange in the 1980s would be a disaster for most of the world, however there would be large areas outside of Europe/North America/China that would not see much if any direct impacts of nuclear weapons. Both sides had plans (however unrealistic) for a post war existence with remaining nuclear forces. If after the major war the "winner" needed to nuke somebody to make a point who could stop them? For example, a relatively untouched but subservient Brazil is much more valuable in rebuilding the USSR than one that has been hit with descent in to chaos.
Don't forget that some of the delivery systems such as aircraft will be destroyed early on, so even if there is a bomb for them to drop they aren't there to do it. Likewise subs may be sunk before they can fire any or all of their missiles. Likewise missiles kept in reserve may be destroyed, and also bases where nukes are kept are going to be targets so "reserve" nukes will be destroyed in some numbers.
The key thing the US & USSR are going to try and do is destroy military targets that can hurt them, as well as certain key industrial and political targets. For sure China will get hit, and by both sides. Some neutrals who could represnt a close threat, such as Sweden and Switzerland will be hit by the USSR, and of course Cuba by the US. Priority for hitting Australia and New Zealand even with ANZUS is low, as neither country can do much to damage Soviet interests during the war or even in a post war scenario - perhaps hitting a few bases that can support or would support US nuclear capable forces but very limited.
Hitting South America or Africa is a waste. No threat there and post war the USSR hopes to survive with enough left over "toys" to be top dog. South Africa might get one on Pretoria, or its nuclear establishment but not more.
Any ICBMs fired first or second strike are going to be used against US or NATO, with maybe a few to use against ANZUS or S. Africa but I doubt it. SLBMs would be used primarily against US to hit key targets with minimal warning, or SSBNs hiding away for very delayed strike or post war force reconstitution. IF the USSR wants to hit S. America, Australia, NZ bombers would do the job, however the issue there is range/refueling.
IMHO there would be lots of places "untouched" by a nuclear war in the 1980s. However for many of them, even if not too badly affected by fallout and "nuclear winter" it would be a disaster. Absent food imports from US/Canada/Australia many countries would have severe famines, of course this would mean higher disease rates and many of the "Unaffected" countries do not/cannot manufacture much in the way of medicines and there will be no imported vaccines or antibiotics for some time. You would expect many countries to dissolve in to anarchy with fighting to garner limited supplies of necessaries, warlordism, etc.
A nuclear exchange in the 1980s would be a disaster for most of the world, however there would be large areas outside of Europe/North America/China that would not see much if any direct impacts of nuclear weapons. Both sides had plans (however unrealistic) for a post war existence with remaining nuclear forces. If after the major war the "winner" needed to nuke somebody to make a point who could stop them? For example, a relatively untouched but subservient Brazil is much more valuable in rebuilding the USSR than one that has been hit with descent in to chaos.
Unlikely without confirmation from someone certainly in a position to know I think - that was a big argument for the anti-nuclear movement in the 80's, but I've always found it a bit wishful. We didn't stop being part of the West or become pro-Soviet in 1985, we just barred nuclear weapons and power/propulsion from our turf. Lange made a point of declaring we would still fulfil our defence obligations (ANZUS not being the only western defence alliance/agreement we were and are part of) so if the Soviets had targeted us pre 1985, I don't think the ANZUS rift of 1985 and the anti nuclear legislation passed in 1987 would have made any difference to their policy after that date.
Last edited:
Antarctic settlements are totally unsustainable without external support though, so any win is a bit pyrrhic
