2008 Thermonuclear War

[John Farson]

Sparked by this thread:

http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=252233

So, what if the 2008 Russo-Georgian War had led to a nuclear war between the US and Russia? Say, the US obliterates the Roki Tunnel, killing hundreds of Russian soldiers in the process. Russia retaliates some way, the tit for tat escalates until in late August the nukes fly. And it's not a limited nuclear war, both countries unleash everything they've got.

Presumably the UK and France also get involved and get heavily hit. Likewise, the Eastern European NATO member states get plastered by the Russians. What about elsewhere, like Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Due to gradual nuclear disarmament in the last 20 years or so it would probably not be as bad as Protect and Survive, but I reckon the death toll would still run in the hundreds of millions.

And yes, this scenario is quite unlikely, I admit, but I'm asking what if it had happened, not how likely it was.

[CaliBoy1990]

Originally Posted by John Farson

Sparked by this thread:

http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...d.php?t=252233

So, what if the 2008 Russo-Georgian War had led to a nuclear war between the US and Russia? Say, the US obliterates the Roki Tunnel, killing hundreds of Russian soldiers in the process. Russia retaliates some way, the tit for tat escalates until in late August the nukes fly. And it's not a limited nuclear war, both countries unleash everything they've got.

Presumably the UK and France also get involved and get heavily hit. Likewise, the Eastern European NATO member states get plastered by the Russians. What about elsewhere, like Iraq and Afghanistan, for example. Due to gradual nuclear disarmament in the last 20 years or so it would probably not be as bad as Protect and Survive, but I reckon the death toll would still run in the hundreds of millions.

And yes, this scenario is quite unlikely, I admit, but I'm asking what if it had happened, not how likely it was.

Well, let's just say it'd likely be the equivalent of WWIII in the late '50s or early '60s, only with Russia more evenly balanced with the U.S.; most surviving military bases destroyed, some cities would likely be badly damaged, like Houston, Dallas, Miami, D.C., and Chicago(dunno about N.Y., S.F., and L.A. though), but nothing quite on the scale of an '80s exchange(it's also possible that some stored nukes on both sides would be destroyed before they could be used, especially in the case of Russia).
How hard China gets hit by who, though, is going to depend on who they side with; it's not at all likely they'd stay out of this, especially if they're thinking about siding with their #1 trading partner, i.e. the U.S.

[Crimea]

Beijing wouldn't be a target, simply because of the ongoing Olympics, and I doubt either side would want the political fallout of nuking civilians of every other nation in the entire world.

[CaliBoy1990]

Originally Posted by Crimea

Beijing wouldn't be a target, simply because of the ongoing Olympics, and I doubt either side would want the political fallout of nuking civilians of every other nation in the entire world.

Maybe not, but keep in mind that the nukes flew in late August, in this scenario, so the Olympics would have already ended.

[RadioSilence]

The result would be very bad for all involved. Russia may not have as many nukes in 2008 as it did in 1988, but it's got large numbers of ICBMs and SLBMS, I think in the order of several hundred or more. If even "only" a hundred detonations occur on US soil that would mean tens of millions of immediate deaths and the reduction of the country to 3rd-world status. I would think that air and naval bases as well as silos would be heavily hit on both sides, so overall the number of strategic weapons used might be limited to around one or two thousand, with many either destroyed or simply not used. In Europe, main targets would be NATO (American) bases, unless the local authorities declare their neutrality and prevent the American personnel there from doing anything and even then they may still get nuked. If that happens, European Russia eats more megatons, of French and British origin.

Overall the worst loser in any case is Russia. Even if no European nukes are used, that means European nations were more or less untouched and will pretty much have its way with whatever is left after the exchange. If European targets got nuked, it means that Russia will be in even worse shape owing to the inevitable retaliation. And even in a roughly one-on-one exchange between the US and Russia, Russia still suffers more because the US will probably have more properly-functioning missiles, as well as a better-protected SSBN force and more directions from which to fly bombers at its enemy. It would'nt be entirely one-sided, however; it's not like the Russians don't have an interceptor force or decades of Cold War civil defense training.

Assuming exchange between Russia and America only, both nations get reduced to 3rd world status. America stays independent and a definite power on the continent, but it will not command power around the globe like it used it. Russia is in for more trouble, as it will have Europeans and Chinese looting the ruins. A rump Russia consisting of some core areas and the more worthless parts of Siberia would survive, and anywhere that can become its own state would probably do so. Economically the whole world takes a massive hit, but within a few decades things would be "back to normal", with China being the single most powerful nation. Europe might be more united and form a second power bloc. With the loss of the US as a relevant power, German might take the lead as the most popular language on the continent.

All in all, the scenario is possible but very unlikely.

[Shtudmuffin]

I'm interested in what might happen to China after the war (if they stay neutral). On the one hand, it will likely become the world's largest economy, because its greatest rival (the US) has been hit hard and will take ages to recover; on the other hand, since its greatest rival is also its largest trading partner, this may not be the case.

[RadioSilence]

Originally Posted by Shtudmuffin

I'm interested in what might happen to China after the war (if they stay neutral). On the one hand, it will likely become the world's largest economy, because its greatest rival (the US) has been hit hard and will take ages to recover; on the other hand, since its greatest rival is also its largest trading partner, this may not be the case.

Well it can still trade with other countries, and itself. With the US gone it would certainly enter a depression, but this doesn't really hinder it in the long run since almost everyone else will be in a depression too.

[John Farson]

Originally Posted by RadioSilence

Well it can still trade with other countries, and itself. With the US gone it would certainly enter a depression, but this doesn't really hinder it in the long run since almost everyone else will be in a depression too.

Provided, of course, that the Russians don't obliterate China during the exchange.

[RadioSilence]

Originally Posted by John Farson

Provided, of course, that the Russians don't obliterate China during the exchange.

They won't have enough usable nukes. If we assume that Russia had about 10,000 warheads total in 2008, only a minority of those would be usable in a strategic sense, a larger minority usable as tactical weapons, and most either being duds or in storage or getting destroyed by Americans would mean that Russia would have few nukes to spare, by which point it would be senseless to nuke China and give it even more reason to outright annex Siberian areas after the exchange.

[John Farson]

How would Bush, Putin and Medvedev be remembered, considering that they would have initiated the most destructive war since WWII?

[Incognito]

Originally Posted by RadioSilence

Assuming exchange between Russia and America only, both nations get reduced to 3rd world status. America stays independent and a definite power on the continent, but it will not command power around the globe like it used it. Russia is in for more trouble, as it will have Europeans and Chinese looting the ruins. A rump Russia consisting of some core areas and the more worthless parts of Siberia would survive, and anywhere that can become its own state would probably do so. Economically the whole world takes a massive hit, but within a few decades things would be "back to normal", with China being the single most powerful nation. Europe might be more united and form a second power bloc. With the loss of the US as a relevant power, German might take the lead as the most popular language on the continent.

All in all, the scenario is possible but very unlikely.

I think this would make an interesting (if dark) TL.

[Abhakhazia]

I want to make this TL now. How plausible is this, exactly?

[John Farson]

Originally Posted by Abhakhazia

I want to make this TL now. How plausible is this, exactly?

Not very, but since when has that stopped anyone?

[whitecrow]

If U.S. and Russia have a nuclear war while Europe sits on the sidelines, can you imagine the anti-Europian sentiment and the stab-in-the-back myths that will arise in North America afterwords ?

And what happens if/when E.U./NATO'd European members send peacekeepers & aid to wrecked U.S.A.?

[NoOneFamous]

Read Warday

[Alex1guy]

I'm sorry, I don't see the Georgia conflict evolving into a nuclear war. Putin isn't that stupid and neither is Bush. Putin knows the USA would wipe Russia off the face of the earth. His goal is to have Eurasian supremacy and make Russia a great power again, not reduce it ash and radioactive ruin so he wouldn't fire first. Bush isn't that stupid either, he wouldn't risk a nuclear war over a little nobody nation (sorry to any Georgians) like Georgia, which has no strategic relevance to the USA whatsoever.

At most the USA might do a show of force and Russia via airstrikes against Russian targets in Georgia, but even that is far-fetched. I don't see a war, let alone a nuclear war from this at all, you don't go from, skirmish, to airstrikes, to nuclear ICBM's, it's not practical for either side and Russia would back down and wonder why on earth the USA was being so pushy. If the USA and the Soviet Union didn't go to war over bigger things, Russia and the USA aren't going to war over this.

Nuke's aren't used to make a point, nukes are used as a last ditch weapon when you see no other alternative. Yes in WWII there was an alternative, but it was an occasion when using nuclear bombs would result in LESS deaths. There isn't anyway for the USA or for Russia, in 2008 to feel like they need to resort to nuclear weapons. Tit for tat resulting in nukes is not plausible, unless you are going for one side outright invading the other and making a beeline for the capitol, something neither side would really be willing or would be able to do. Boring I know, but them's the breaks.

HOWEVER! Let's say Putin and Bush are dumber than a sack of hammers.

Damage wise, as others have pointed, the USA is going to flatten Russia, who wouldn't be able to compete on a nuclear level. Russia nuclear arsenal, while large, is poorly maintained and bringing it out of the closet for one last dance at the last minute isn't going to do Russia any favors. I disagree that the USA will become a third world nation, some major cities might be hit, but I doubt the Russian capacity to retaliate on a major level. It depends on who fires first, if it's the USA, then Russia probably wont be able to retaliate much, if its Russia, then I see a few cities being evapourated, and strategic sites bombed, but US anti-missile shields and a better arsenal will ensure many nukes never reach US soil. Europe is slightly different, they have missile shield to some extent too and a better arsenal (albeit an American controlled one). Also, would we be looking at a land assault?

[Iori]

The United States using Nuclear Weapons in a situation it has'nt been hit first is right next to being ASB and the idea of both the United States and Russia in a war launching ALL of their nukes is well into ASB territory.

Frankly the only countries that a Nuclear War is possible between is India and Pakistan and Israel and Iran (in the future).

Nuclear weapons in the West and Russia are simply not meant to ever be used, they're meant to be used as a deterrent,

[Whodoyouthinkiam]

Originally Posted by John Farson

How would Bush, Putin and Medvedev be remembered, considering that they would have initiated the most destructive war since WWII?

That would depend on who pulled the trigger first, and for what reason, I think...

[jkarr]

i find it funny that some commnets above have mentioned " well they wouldnt want political fallout from nuking civilians and the games" and im thinking....what?

its a full exchange nuclear war....do you really think the few governmental survivors are gonna be concerened with political fallout with the millions dead, tens of millions suffereing from rampent disease, famine and such, and the destruction of infrastructure on a global scale, financial collapse, etc...i think theyll have quite a few other things on their mind at that time, than worrying about their reelection prospects

[PiratePartyist]

Originally Posted by Abhakhazia

I want to make this TL now. How plausible is this, exactly?

Please do. If the Mods think it's ASB, they will just move it. No danger of the thread being locked, you being banned or anything else.
Please do a TL about this!