World War III Question

[Fiji]

Imagine Haiti taking place in a major US city. That would be from ONE NUCLEAR WEAPON.

Now imagine twenty cities, fifty, etc.

It's even worse then that.
There's a little known book called (my dodgy memory says) Aftermath, in which 2 Brittish cities get accidentally nuked (one was London, the other, I think Manchester)
The described damage made Haiti look like a walk in the park. In the book, the Brittish economy basically crashed instantly.

Isn't US population even more centralised then that of Brittain?

I'd imagine, a douzen nukes would wipe out the US as any kind of power.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Isn't US population even more centralised then that of Brittain?

I'd imagine, a douzen nukes would wipe out the US as any kind of power.

1. I thought it was the other way around.

2. That depends where they hit. A dozen cities destroyed is one thing; a dozen nukes landing on Cheyenne Mountain sucks for Colorado Springs, but won't cause megadeaths elsewhere (beyond, in the long run, a greater risk of cancer).

 

[Jotun]

The West German troops in Berlin begin firing on Soviet troops to protect their own people.

Ther were no German troops in Berlin whatsoever. Only police units. And I would like to see a policeman firing his pistol at soldiers on foreign ground...

 

[Jotun]

My personal feeling, having grown up in the 80s, is that things were a bit closer to war than we tend to comfortably think now. Tank colummns regularly rattled past my elementary school (where we discussed nuclear war in second grade!) and sunshine meant low-level-training flights. Only afterwards I realized that these things have been part of our everyday lifes and are gone now.

On several occasions, my mother told me to come home directly if I hear anything about war being imminent. I haven't had any such conversations with my daughter yet.

And how much of that was pacifist alarmism? I am a child of the Eighties (having been born in the mid-70s) and what I can remember most distinctly about grammar school is young female teachers scaring the crap out of us children with horror stories about (nuclear) war and shit like that. Tanks exercising in the German countryside and low-level jet flying were just a sign of the times. And for all their claims to the contrary, the Warsaw Pact never was a defensive organization. I saw a handful of Soviet staff study charts for the invasion of West Germany during my time as a staff drone in the German Navy. Defensive pacts do not plan for such events...except when they are the ones attacked, of course.

 

[MacCaulay]

Ther were no German troops in Berlin whatsoever. Only police units. And I would like to see a policeman firing his pistol at soldiers on foreign ground...

You need to read the book. I was amazed at how well Steven Zaloga made a credible Third World War. The eerie thing was that it was a book about hypothetical Soviet combat abilities in 1990s, so the thing takes place in 1991 (If I remember correctly) which gives it this whole weird AH feel.

 

[Nikephoros]

1. I thought it was the other way around.

It is. Just think about the differences in population density.

A dozen nukes would wipe out the US as a power? Hardly.

A dozen nukes wouldn't wipe out the UK either. It'd be an unfathomable tragedy, yes, but it wouldn't make the UK that much less of a power.

In that scenario, expect pretty much everyone to be nuked.

 

[Cook]

The People’s Republic of China as refrained from building large stockpiles of Strategic weapons because they have reasoned that threatening to destroy one US city is just as effective as threatening to destroy them all.

 

[Hörnla]

And how much of that was pacifist alarmism

A lot. Thankfully, it was wholly unjustified.

Signs of the times was what I was talking about.

I would like to add as a general observation that a more or less common sentiment that a certain war is inevitable in the long run might help in the event of such a war, but isn't helpful to avoid it.

 

[Cook]

Tank colummns regularly rattled past my elementary school (where we discussed nuclear war in second grade!) and sunshine meant low-level-training flights.

Training exercises do not normally add to the risk of war. If anything they increase the overall deterrence and reduce the risk of someone overstepping the line.

But nevertheless the threat of war was very real.

Both sides in the Cold War used to notify the other well in advance of an exercise and would send observers to monitor the other’s military exercises. This was to prevent the fear that an exercise was actually preparations for an actual attack.

Those procedures were not always sufficient.

Google “Exercise Able Archer” for an idea of how close to war we got, not deliberately but because of misreading of the other’s actions and intent. Just one of several occasions when war by accident nearly occurred.

 

[Hörnla]

Training exercises do not normally add to the risk of war. If anything they increase the overall deterrence and reduce the risk of someone overstepping the line.

I never put that into question. But this alertness was a sign of the general threat of war, for which thorough preparations were so necessary.

I know about Able Archer (and the incident with the malfunctioning Sovjet warning system at the time). Makes the Cold War all the more chilling.

 

[gtrof]

I never put that into question. But this alertness was a sign of the general threat of war, for which thorough preparations were so necessary.

I know about Able Archer (and the incident with the malfunctioning Sovjet warning system at the time). Makes the Cold War all the more chilling.

Plus training exercises were used as an excuse for the build up of troops prior to the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 68.