WI: A nuclear war in the 1960’s

mojojojo

Gone Fishin'
Recently on NPR they were playing a previously recorded interview with Robert S. McNamara http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106293462 who has recently passed away. At one point in the interview he says “You have no idea how close we were to nuclear war in the 1960’s”. Well, what would happen in there was a nuclear war in the 1960’s between the eastern-block nations and the USA? Given the nuclear arsenal that existed at the time, how devastating would such a war be? What nations would survive? Would any? Who devastated would the environment be?
 

Bobindelaware

One very disturbing scenario was Phillip Wylie's TRIUMPH, in which a nuclear war between the USSR and the US (triggered by a soviet invasion of Yugoslavia) led to massive exchanges that killed everyone in the Northern Hemisphere except for a small handful in a SuperShelter in Connecticut. Really scary scenes of destruction, fallout effects and so on . . .

Depressing as all Hell.

Bobindelaware
 

xchen08

We've had a few threads on this already, mostly relating to the Cuban Crisis. Short answer is, the U.S. "wins" depending on your definition of winning at any point in the 60s. ie, the USSR gets glassed, Europe in general gets hammered, and the USA suffers anywhere between a few million to tens of millions of casualties.

Most Northern Hemisphere nations outside of the Soviet bloc should survive as long as the U.S. is still able and willing to provide aid. The environmental ramifications are a bit annoying since the subject is so politicized that I've never been able to find a paper on the subject without an obvious axe to grind. It could be anything between nuclear winter kills us all to we have a few weeks of spectacular sunsets.
 

ryackov

No one really knows the effects of nuclear winter because we haven't blown up enough cities for us to have an idea. Although given the environmental effects of Saddam lighting up Kuwaiti oil fields in the Iraqi retreat, it wouldn't be worse than world's average temperature dropping one Celsius for a few years.
 

BlairWitch749

Banned
there was a short story on this called the two day war also

it postulated a cuban missle crises escalation bottom line was the us housed the soviets but then became pariahs for killing millions of people

it honestly depends when in the 60s you are talking about if its early 60s us advantage is more absolute

rocket technology adavanced a lot that decade
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

There was the school of thought back in the sixties that, in case of atomic exchange, only a few million would die and afterwords people would get along with their lives and rebuild and life would go on as if nothing changed. Anyone who said that the instantaneous deaths of millions of people would not leave a lasting and depressing impression on people were called "unrealistic". However, what you are looking at realistically is massive depression and social upheaval in the aftermath. Social order will be kept on a string in any areas not decimated. If the Federal government is kept in tact and can assert its authority, you'll see martial law and a hectic attempt to keep order. If central authority is destroyed, you'll see chaos and a Balkanization of authority.


ryackov said:
No one really knows the effects of nuclear winter because we haven't blown up enough cities for us to have an idea. Although given the environmental effects of Saddam lighting up Kuwaiti oil fields in the Iraqi retreat, it wouldn't be worse than world's average temperature dropping one Celsius for a few years.
Click to expand...

Firstly, burning oil fields in a small nation does not equate with atomic explosions en masse across the globe and in major quantities. Secondly, even a one degree global drop or rise in temperature will cause massive global environmental change on the level of an ice age. However, Nuclear winter was based on faulty data so such a thing may not exist after atomic exchange. Though I do believe there'd be an environmental effect of large proportions.
 

MRig

If we assume that not everyone is killed, the Southern hemisphere gets a relative jump in influence. How much or how little depends on the precise circumstances of the war.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Depends on the date.

MacNamara was probably talking about Cuba, that is very well ploughed ground here. Short version: Bad to be in DC, worse to be in Western Europe, worst to be in any city of the USSR.

If we are talking 1969 and a full exchange, now we are at Game Over. Not a city on the Planet over 25,000 avoids a weapon, biologicals get tossed into the mix along with toxins to kill the ground so no food will grow, the whole nine yards. "Survivors envy the Dead" time.
 
Hapsburg

Hapsburg

Banned
Ever read "I Have No Mouth, And I Must Scream"?
Well, pretty much the backstory of that: everyone dies. Everyone. :D
 
iori

iori

Well, it depends on who the war is between.

If it's just between the U.S. and USSR, then you'll end up with the Western/European USSR and Eastern United States completely devastated, as well as a few pockets elsewhere in the two that are hit for various reasons.

Under this scenario Europe, non-American N. America, Asia and the Southern Hemisphere would be the ones least affected, while Eastern/Asian Russia and the Western United States would come out of it the best of the warring two.


Now, if it's an East V. West type thing, well pretty much just the Southern hemisphere.
 

BlackWave

I think we may see the likes of Beunos Aeries and Cape Town become the centers of civilization assuming we get scenarios where Europe and the US become scorchmarks. This is hoping we retain some semblance of a world economy.
 

Wolf

ryackov said:
No one really knows the effects of nuclear winter because we haven't blown up enough cities for us to have an idea. Although given the environmental effects of Saddam lighting up Kuwaiti oil fields in the Iraqi retreat, it wouldn't be worse than world's average temperature dropping one Celsius for a few years.
Click to expand...

Still that would have bad effects on crop yields worldwide. And the reduced harvest will lead to anything from outright famine and starvation to malnutrition which will make the survivors more susceptible to diseases.

BlackWave said:
I think we may see the likes of Beunos Aeries and Cape Town become the centers of civilization assuming we get scenarios where Europe and the US become scorchmarks. This is hoping we retain some semblance of a world economy.
Click to expand...

But remember the US and to a lesser degree the USSR had bases in the Southern Hemisphere and both sides would want to take out each others bases.

Plus Australia and New Zealand would more certainly be destroyed.

The real wild card during a '60's nuclear war would be China.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
BlackWave said:
I think we may see the likes of Beunos Aeries and Cape Town become the centers of civilization assuming we get scenarios where Europe and the US become scorchmarks. This is hoping we retain some semblance of a world economy.
Click to expand...

in the LATE '60s? Not a chance. Any city with a seaport is going to be destroyed by one side or theother to deny refuge to the enemy. South Africa is going to get belted because it is part of the West. Major South American cities are going to get zapped because thay are part of the West.

The "Southern Hemisphere survives" fantasy is just that. The war would have been global. Bio-weapons would have been used.

No safe place.
 

Paul MacQ

Monthly Donor
Yes in this Scenario I certainly hope this Nuclear event happens early 1960 not in 69 as the Warhead build up is just massive,

Just Numbers in 1960 of Nuc's West has massive advantage
USA Shoots first
1960 Russia is a waste land. Like wise Europe The US is targeted and loses many of it's Big cities and major military bases But is actually hard to get to From Russia. Submarine Fired weapons from Russia are rear in 1960, They are going to need The bombers as a major delivery system, to the US and these have a chance of being shot down.

If Russia Shoots First
More destruction in general in 1960
Lots more Nuc's hit the US and Europe Russia still gets the worse end as second Strike from the US and better early warning systems means they get to shot allot more compared to Russia in the first scenario so is still a waste land

If the shooting happens 1969 then totally different Ball game destruction is several orders of Magnitude bigger all round
 
Last edited:
Magniac

Magniac

The key to starting this debate is finding the figures of how the numbers of ICBMs and MIRVs increased/were introduced over the decade.

Anyone have a link to this kind of data?
 
Julius Vogel

Julius Vogel

Does anyone care to explain in a little more detail why the Australia/NZ being a safe haven is such a "fantasy" especially in the OP 1960s war scenario? I asked a similar question in a similar thread a while ago but didn't get an answer( that I saw anyway)

If the war was an OP short/sharp nuclear exchange then how would NZ especially be involved? Would the nuclear winter be so bad to totally destroy a viable state/society? Pre mass foreign travel which bio weapons would have been so effective to quickly spread that far south? I am admittedly quite the novice regarding bio weapons of anykind, especially 1960s flavours.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
mojojojo said:
What bio-weapons did they have at the time?
Click to expand...

Anthranx, Small pox, Llassa Valley Fever, and some mutated versions of them.

The actual list is of course deep classified. I doubt even the U.S. has even a reasonably complete partial list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top