What nations would've survived an 80's WW3?

LeX

If major nuclear war between NATO and WTO broke out between 1980-84, what countries would have survived? Obviously not every nation would have been nuked deliberately, unless some truly crazy person tries to ensure that humanity never rises from the ashes.

I think that while small pockets of survivors would exist pretty much anywhere (except in extremely hard-hit areas, where practically every square km is nuked), many 3rd-world nations would live on. The amount of conflict in those nations would skyrocket, however, due to radiation, the lack of foreign aid, and influence.

The Middle East, if it does not fight (though its likely that WW3 would've started here), will suffer similar turmoil. Being a desert region, it would starve, with its oil useless. I can see the Middle Eastern people uniting under Islam, however, if put in such a situation. They could end up quite powerful in a postwar environment.

If China does not participate in the conflict, it would suffer from radioactive winds and famine on a scale at least ten times worse than that sustained during the "great leap forward." It is very likely that the entire nation would break up into warring states.

Developed nations that aren't particularly aligned, such as Singapore, Taiwan (not really a developed nation back then but...), Switzerland, or Sweden, might be spared the nuclear attacks but they too would suffer greatly. I can see Japan surviving as well, with maybe the hosted US bases wiped out. But such highly-populated nations like Japan and Singapore would fall into anarchy very quickly, considering they could hope to feed themselves in such a situation.

South America seems like the best place to be during an 80's WW3, since it is not so populated as opposed to most continents, its nations aren't all impoverished, and it would be far away from most of the nuking.


What do you guys think? Pick a country and describe what it looks like after the war, or comment on my statements.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

India: Neutral and developing. I could see it taking on a stronger prominence if the US and USSR (not to mention Europe) are destroyed. If there is a new super power to come out of a thermonuclear war, after a decade or so, I'd say it'd be India.
 

Wolf

Well any nation hosting a NATO or Warsaw Pact base, or at a minimum having either side's ships in port during the said crisis or having the potential to.

But pretty much the Northern Hemisphere is fucked. Mexico loses only three cities, Tijuana (from San Diego), Matamoros (from Brownsville, TX), and Juarez, (from El Paso). The rest of Mexico overburdened from American refugees, and the loss of crops.


Pending on when the war happens, any number of South American nations might receive it. Argentina's eastern coast might get a dose of radiation, depending on the direction of the wind.

As to the Southern Hemisphere. Australia is gone and South Africa might go to.
 
Fenrir_Angerboda

Fenrir_Angerboda

Hawaii's gone. Either it gets nuked or the winds bring radioactive death.

most of the pacific may survive.
maybe parts of south america, depending on the winds.
can't see much of Europe, Asia, north america, or africa surviving though.
 

Cloudy Vortex

CCA said:
New Zealand.
Click to expand...

Sorry, due to the Anzus Pact and New Zealand's possible worth as a naval base, any nuclear exchange involving the US and the Soviet Union will result in Aukland and Wellington's total annihilation at the least. Hell, you may have Russian missiles pointed at you right now, given the Kremlin's current mood.
 

Elidor

Emperor Norton I said:
India: Neutral and developing. I could see it taking on a stronger prominence if the US and USSR (not to mention Europe) are destroyed. If there is a new super power to come out of a thermonuclear war, after a decade or so, I'd say it'd be India.
Click to expand...

India was an ally of the USSR. Not a good thing to be.

IMO, Nobody can really survive an 80s WW3 as a coherent nation.
 

Snarf

Wolf said:
Well any nation hosting a NATO or Warsaw Pact base, or at a minimum having either side's ships in port during the said crisis or having the potential to.

But pretty much the Northern Hemisphere is fucked. Mexico loses only three cities, Tijuana (from San Diego), Matamoros (from Brownsville, TX), and Juarez, (from El Paso). The rest of Mexico overburdened from American refugees, and the loss of crops.


Pending on when the war happens, any number of South American nations might receive it. Argentina's eastern coast might get a dose of radiation, depending on the direction of the wind.

As to the Southern Hemisphere. Australia is gone and South Africa might go to.
Click to expand...

If I were an enterprising Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces commander, I'd save a couple of warheads for Mexico City and Guadalajara as well. Decapitate the Mexican government and upper class completely, and it will be impossible for the Americans to try and regroup by taking over Mexico.

Brazil might make it out okay: the tropical weather patterns ensure most of the fallout will stay clear (the USA, Europe, and USSR all are more heavily influenced by arctic and mid-latitude air currents and China's fallout will have largely dissipated over the Pacific by the time it can reach Brazil). Also, the climate is warm enough to offset nuclear winter somewhat.

Negatives: Brazil is a US ally (although it doesn't regularly host large force levels) and possibly could suffer from Soviet retaliation. However, get into the interior and Brazil might actually be a fairly decent place to hide out for a while. If the Brazilian government and institutions survive, it stands a very good chance of being a dominant power in the postwar world.
 

Marius

Fenrir_Angerboda said:
wouldn't the wind bring the fall out over most of africa?
Click to expand...

Depends if the nuclear exchange is largely confined to the Northern Hemisphere. If so, then I would expect, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, some of South East Asia, and perhaps Zimbabwe (in the 80s Zim was doing very well by African standards) to survive largely intact.
 

Elidor

Australia, NZ and southern parts of India are probably going to get nuked as well. Not sure if that will cause enough damage to the southern hemisphere.
 
Fenrir_Angerboda

Fenrir_Angerboda

Marius said:
Depends if the nuclear exchange is largely confined to the Northern Hemisphere. If so, then I would expect, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, some of South East Asia, and perhaps Zimbabwe (in the 80s Zim was doing very well by African standards) to survive largely intact.
Click to expand...

not sure on south america and south Africa, but i'm fairly ceritan Australia would be nuked, and the fall out would hit New zealand.

like i said earlier, best chance for survival would be the pacific islands.
 

Marius

I don't know if Australia would be nuked though, it would depend on the scope of the war. Perhaps in it became clear a war was inevitable, Australia would declare neutrality. To paraphrase Charles de Gaulle: "Would Australia sacrifice Sydney to save New York?"
 

NCW

Zyzzyva said:
General Mung Beans said:
Switzerland if it remains neutral.
Click to expand...

The fallout from points east will cause problems soon, though.
Click to expand...

True, but Switzerland had probably the best civil defense system in Europe at that time, with plenty of fallout shelters [1]. That plus its neutrality probably gives it a better survival chance than any other part of Europe. Against that it has to be said that Europe would have probably been the continent worst affected by WWIII.

Cheers,
Nigel.

[1] All new buildings since the 1960s had to be equipped with a shelter by law and the shelters were inspected annually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top