Nuked cities
- Thread starter tom
- Start date
Hmm. Interesting. Well, the first two, of course, are the cities the United States bombed in the war with Japan. The others are a bit more difficult.
Perhaps Japan became a nuclear power in the fifties or sixties, along with China. (I forget exactly when China went nuclear, but let`s put it in about that timeframe.) For whatever reason, Japan and Australia went to war in the early `80s. The war started to tilt to an Australian victory, so Japan nuked four of their cities. Japan is victorious.
But Johannesburg? Perhaps the apartheid conflict lasted A LOT longer than it did in OTL, and eventually the black South Africans obtained a nuke and decided to make the conflict incredibly violent?
Perhaps Japan became a nuclear power in the fifties or sixties, along with China. (I forget exactly when China went nuclear, but let`s put it in about that timeframe.) For whatever reason, Japan and Australia went to war in the early `80s. The war started to tilt to an Australian victory, so Japan nuked four of their cities. Japan is victorious.
But Johannesburg? Perhaps the apartheid conflict lasted A LOT longer than it did in OTL, and eventually the black South Africans obtained a nuke and decided to make the conflict incredibly violent?
tom said:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are easy. But the Australian cities... aren't. I mean, if Sydney exploded in the 80s, it would most likely have led to Britain nuking China or Russia. Then America going to help with there own nukes and then it would be MAD. So I would have to assume either a Chernobyl-like incident in Australia that would sterilize those cities or a British/NATO aircraft carrying a nuke crashes... but that wouldn't destroy all those cities.
Johannesburg? Well, it's in South Africa, and South Africa had produced 6 nukes in the Early eighties but dismantled all of them by the early 90s. But let's assume that they only dismantled 5 of them correctly. And the 6th was put into a museum.... where a freak accident caused it detonate!
tetsu-katana said:
No. Johannesburg would most likely be nuked by the whites. Compared to cities like Pretoria, Cape Town, and Pietermaritzburg, Johannesburg is much more representative of the racial porportions of the nation. The other three have a much higher percentage of whites than the national average. The blacks would not kill themselves, they'd probably lash out at Pretoria, which has a very high percentage of whites.
The problem, however, is that Johannesburg is the second largest population center in South Africa. It also happens to be pretty much the industrial and mining capital of the nation, as well. So, it's rather tricky. For the whites to destroy Johannesburg, they'd probably have to have a damned good reason.
Perhaps the conflict in Angola draws a Cuban invasion of South Africa. If I remember correctly, both the Cubans and Soviets had ties in Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Perhaps an armed invasion by Soviet backed Cuban soldiers leads to Cuban forces massing in Johannesburg (as part of pincer movement around Pretoria). By this time, the whites will have fled Johannesburg to the coastal cities of Durban, Kimberley, and Cape Town. With only blacks and Cubans left in Johannesburg, and facing utter collapse, a desperate (or maybe a rogue) Afrikaner leader might destroy a single city to save a nation. The problem with this scenario, is that it would have to occur in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Hmm, I don't know.
Well, I think if the apartheid conflict lasted until 2003, that the blacks would be brimming with so much rage they might be tempted to destroy the industrial center of South Africa, even if it would kill a lot of blacks, as well. Maybe the death of so many Africans would serve as a symbol of just how much they mean business.
Diamond
Banned
The nuked Aussie cities could have an explanation for them that you've overlooked: a home-grown terrorist outfit.
Perhaps communism is a little more prevalent in Asia and the Pacific after WWII - maybe Japan is divided a la Germany, which would probably mean a completely communist Korea, perhaps no US involvement in Vietnam, and an Australia which, by the 80s, is under internal attack from a strong brand of communism imported from 'Victorious Red Asia'. Maybe the Australian Communist Party nukes the cities hoping to cause a civil war or other implosion of government, into which they can step into and take charge?
Of course, they'd probably have a hard time after nuking millions of civilians, but...
************************
Basically, I think tom's whole list comes from an ATL where the US becomes semi-isolationist after WWII. That's not to say that the US is wholly responsible for whatever global peace and prosperity were to be found the last half century, but I think we played a major part...
Perhaps communism is a little more prevalent in Asia and the Pacific after WWII - maybe Japan is divided a la Germany, which would probably mean a completely communist Korea, perhaps no US involvement in Vietnam, and an Australia which, by the 80s, is under internal attack from a strong brand of communism imported from 'Victorious Red Asia'. Maybe the Australian Communist Party nukes the cities hoping to cause a civil war or other implosion of government, into which they can step into and take charge?
Of course, they'd probably have a hard time after nuking millions of civilians, but...
************************
Basically, I think tom's whole list comes from an ATL where the US becomes semi-isolationist after WWII. That's not to say that the US is wholly responsible for whatever global peace and prosperity were to be found the last half century, but I think we played a major part...
I quickly wrote a short timeline for this world; I don`t know how plausible this will be, because I did a minimal amount of research in a short amount of time. I`ll edit it if there are any critisms.
--------
1945- Hiroshima and Nagasaki are destroyed by two American atomic bombs. World War II ends days later as Japan surrenders to the United States.
1964- China detonates it's first atomic bomb. Japan vows to possess a nuclear weapon of it's own within five years. Negotiations between the USA, China, USSR and Japan to force Japan to end its nuclear program fail.
1967- The same year China detonates it's first hydrogen bomb, Japan tests it's first atomic bomb.
1970- Japan detonates a hydrogen bomb.
1980- Australia expresses interest in developing nuclear weapons. Japan warns the country to cease any experiments or development. The USSR and the USA say the same. Australia vows to not stop its nuclear program on threats alone, and claims that these threats are a reason the nation needs nuclear capability.
1981- A small naval skirmish erupts between Japanese and Australian battleships in the South Pacific. Both sides blame the other; although exactly who started the conflict is not known. It is suspected that the Australian ships mistakenly thought that the Japanese vessels were carrying missiles and were heading for Australia. A week later, after negotiations between the two countries break down, Japan declares war on Australia. The other nuclear powers, such as China, the USSR, the USA, and Britian, declare themselves neutral. Indonesia sides with Australia. Japan declares war on Indonesia.
1982- After a primarily naval and aerial war (it is, of course, a war fought between three island nations), Australian and Indonesian forces begin to push the Japanese back into their own waters. Fearful of a successful invasion and having to surrender for only the second time in history, Japan decides to turn the tables. A nuclear missle is launched, and destroys Perth, Australia. Australia refuses to surrender. Two more missles devastate Adelaide and Melbourne, and Australia refuses to give up. Two final missiles are fired at Brisbane and Sydney. Australia finally yields. (Japan`s situation with Indonesia from then is "forgive and forget".) Japan`s action in the war is condemned by all nuclear powers, especially the United States. Japan defends its actions by declaring that the USA had used nukes in anger, as well.
1983- Seeing the aftermath of the Japanese-Australian War and the devastation a nuclear war can cause, the USSR and the USA begin an international coalition to ban all nuclear weapons. Both nations dismantle their own nuclear programs, and threaten the other nuclear powers with war (non-nuclear, of course) unless they do the same. By 1990, 98% of all nuclear weapons in the world have been dismantled. (All former nuclear nations are allowed to keep only five atomic missiles.)
2003- Somehow, a African terrorist group gains control of a nuclear weapon and detonates it in Johannesburg, South Africa. The USSR and USA condemn the act, vowing to fight terrorism much harder.
--------
1945- Hiroshima and Nagasaki are destroyed by two American atomic bombs. World War II ends days later as Japan surrenders to the United States.
1964- China detonates it's first atomic bomb. Japan vows to possess a nuclear weapon of it's own within five years. Negotiations between the USA, China, USSR and Japan to force Japan to end its nuclear program fail.
1967- The same year China detonates it's first hydrogen bomb, Japan tests it's first atomic bomb.
1970- Japan detonates a hydrogen bomb.
1980- Australia expresses interest in developing nuclear weapons. Japan warns the country to cease any experiments or development. The USSR and the USA say the same. Australia vows to not stop its nuclear program on threats alone, and claims that these threats are a reason the nation needs nuclear capability.
1981- A small naval skirmish erupts between Japanese and Australian battleships in the South Pacific. Both sides blame the other; although exactly who started the conflict is not known. It is suspected that the Australian ships mistakenly thought that the Japanese vessels were carrying missiles and were heading for Australia. A week later, after negotiations between the two countries break down, Japan declares war on Australia. The other nuclear powers, such as China, the USSR, the USA, and Britian, declare themselves neutral. Indonesia sides with Australia. Japan declares war on Indonesia.
1982- After a primarily naval and aerial war (it is, of course, a war fought between three island nations), Australian and Indonesian forces begin to push the Japanese back into their own waters. Fearful of a successful invasion and having to surrender for only the second time in history, Japan decides to turn the tables. A nuclear missle is launched, and destroys Perth, Australia. Australia refuses to surrender. Two more missles devastate Adelaide and Melbourne, and Australia refuses to give up. Two final missiles are fired at Brisbane and Sydney. Australia finally yields. (Japan`s situation with Indonesia from then is "forgive and forget".) Japan`s action in the war is condemned by all nuclear powers, especially the United States. Japan defends its actions by declaring that the USA had used nukes in anger, as well.
1983- Seeing the aftermath of the Japanese-Australian War and the devastation a nuclear war can cause, the USSR and the USA begin an international coalition to ban all nuclear weapons. Both nations dismantle their own nuclear programs, and threaten the other nuclear powers with war (non-nuclear, of course) unless they do the same. By 1990, 98% of all nuclear weapons in the world have been dismantled. (All former nuclear nations are allowed to keep only five atomic missiles.)
2003- Somehow, a African terrorist group gains control of a nuclear weapon and detonates it in Johannesburg, South Africa. The USSR and USA condemn the act, vowing to fight terrorism much harder.
Easy
In Febuary of 1982 the UISR [Union Indonesian Socialist Republics, OTLs Indonesia, Phillipines, Malaysia] Sent troops into the Austrilian Empire"s [OTLs New Zealand, Solomans, Papua New Guinea, Australia, & South Africa] Protectorete of East Timor. The AE sent troops to chase them back out, And the South Pacific War began.
By Late April the UISR was on the Ropes looking at total defeat.
On May 1 1982, Labor Day, the UISR launched it secrect Nuclear tipped ICBMS Against The AE.
On May 2 the AE responed with a Massive Bio Attack based on A geneticly engineered verison of {The Spainish Lady} By the time every thing had settled over 70% of the Earths population was Dead.
In Febuary of 1982 the UISR [Union Indonesian Socialist Republics, OTLs Indonesia, Phillipines, Malaysia] Sent troops into the Austrilian Empire"s [OTLs New Zealand, Solomans, Papua New Guinea, Australia, & South Africa] Protectorete of East Timor. The AE sent troops to chase them back out, And the South Pacific War began.
By Late April the UISR was on the Ropes looking at total defeat.
On May 1 1982, Labor Day, the UISR launched it secrect Nuclear tipped ICBMS Against The AE.
On May 2 the AE responed with a Massive Bio Attack based on A geneticly engineered verison of {The Spainish Lady} By the time every thing had settled over 70% of the Earths population was Dead.
DuQuense said:In Febuary of 1982 the UISR [Union Indonesian Socialist Republics, OTLs Indonesia, Phillipines, Malaysia] Sent troops into the Austrilian Empire"s [OTLs New Zealand, Solomans, Papua New Guinea, Australia, & South Africa] Protectorete of East Timor. The AE sent troops to chase them back out, And the South Pacific War began.
By Late April the UISR was on the Ropes looking at total defeat.
On May 1 1982, Labor Day, the UISR launched it secrect Nuclear tipped ICBMS Against The AE.
On May 2 the AE responed with a Massive Bio Attack based on A geneticly engineered verison of {The Spainish Lady} By the time every thing had settled over 70% of the Earths population was Dead.
I thought they had to be plausible... ^_^ Kidding, of course. Interesting, but needs A LOT of background work.
tetsu-katana said:
Japan cannot threaten anyone. Their constitution prevents ANY offensive (oor, non-DEFENSIVE) postures. Were they to threaten any nation, especially a staunch US ally like Australia, the US and China would both land on Japan with both feet. After all, China doesn't want another power challenging its control of Asia.
tetsu-katana said:
Japan can't engage in any military actions. Their ships are generally not even allowed to sail around too freely (and if they are, they are watched closely by many, including the Japanese themselves). Japan has no ability to declare war. It's against their constitution to do it unless they are physically attacked first. The US would jump on them for that alone, not to mention the fact that they declared war on a former member of SEATO. This means that many of the former SEATO members who still an affection towards their former treaty member, including the US and UK, are going to automatically side with Australia. Were Japan to attack, they would be crushed.
tetsu-katana said:
I already commented on this. This doesn't make any sense. A) Why would African terrorists attack one of the most African cities in South Africa? (They wouldn't) If they wanted to make a statement, they'd attack Pretoria, which is the heartland of the Afrikaners. B) Why would they use a nuclear weapon? Call them what you want, but they weren't stupid. It would just swing world opinion solidly behind the white South Africans. It would hurt world opinions of black South Africans. It would kill by far a higher percentage of black South Africans than white ones compared to other cities. It would force the whites to strengthen apartheid. Not to mention that it would likely destroy the enormous black townships of Soweto and Alexandra. The list goes on and on as to why the blacks would not do this.
Admiral Matt
Gone Fishin'
Well, for this to work, Australia must have gotten itself completely isolated diplomatically. Without somehow alienating all their potential allies, there is no way the conflict could remain so localized - if Australia had any friends at all, some city outside Australia would have been nuked by one side or the other.
I suspect it would take something on the order of Australia becoming dominated by aggressive neo-Nazis or some such. It couldn't just be rhetoric, either, they'd have to be seriously persecuting/oppressing their native and asian minorities.
The more I think about it, the more I think we need a POD earlier than 1945, at least for Australia. It isn't technically required that Hiroshima or Nagasaki be bombed by Americans after all.
I suspect it would take something on the order of Australia becoming dominated by aggressive neo-Nazis or some such. It couldn't just be rhetoric, either, they'd have to be seriously persecuting/oppressing their native and asian minorities.
The more I think about it, the more I think we need a POD earlier than 1945, at least for Australia. It isn't technically required that Hiroshima or Nagasaki be bombed by Americans after all.
tetsu-katana said:
In order for the nuclear blast to occur in the first place, you obviously need a nuclear weapon. Now, it is a hell of a lot simpler for the whites to do the nuking, since they were the ones with the weapons in the first place. They would have kept VERY tight reigns on the their nuclear weapons. The time for any sort of black terrorist attack was before 1993. Unfortunately, the only real viable source for nuclear weapons for terrorists is the defunct USSR. In 1993, it would have been almost impossible to get them from Russia, as the USSR was so recently collapsed.
The problem is, then, why would the white South Africans EVER consider nuking Johannesburg? Well, I think that the best chance of this happening is when South Africa is under attack, and Pretoria, the white capital, is threatened. So, this means we're going to have an army massing inside or outside of Johannesburg. The problem now is, what army is this?
I think the best oppurtunity would be to go back two or three decades and divide South Africa. Okay. Now, say sometime in the 1980s, a different leader comes to South Africa. Rather than doing what de Klerk did, he divides South Africa into two nations, one white, one black. The black state, which would probably be comprised of the Cape and Natal, will outnumber the white state, white will probably be comprised of the Transvaal and Orange Free State, nearly 4 to 1.
The problem now is that the Union of South Africa (USA; the white state) will have plenty of oppurtunity to nuke the invading forces of the Republic of South Africa (RSA; the black state) BEFORE they get to the heartland of the USA. The only way to avoid this, as I can see, is for the USA to concede the sparsely populated Wilge River valley to the RSA at its conception. The USA will still retain Bloemfontein in the Orange Free State, but the northern Wilge River valley will belong to the RSA, moving the border just that much closer to Johannesburg. So, now we have a war in 2003, after the RSA has had some chance to build a real army. The RSA army crosses the border and, amazingly catches the USA army napping. They reach Johannesburg. The USA faces collapse if the RSA captures Pretoria, barely 100 miles away. We have nearly four divisions of Republic soldiers being faced by only two brigades of USA soldiers.
Now, the leaders of the USA make a choice, sacrifice the city of Johannesburg (including its large black population, probably the largest concentration of blacks in the entire USA) or face the loss of their nation. Not a suprise what they do, especially since they may sadly view the loss of the black population as an added little bonus. In November of 2003, a lone USAAF fighter-bomber takes off, dropping a single bomb on the jam-packed city of Johannesburg (they're careful to steer clear of the mines, however)...
Admiral Matt
Gone Fishin'
@tetsu-katana - Why not just have it nuked in response to large-scale anti-imperialist invasion and black revolt like someone mentioned earlier. That seemed to make sense and no-one brought up any serious problems with the idea - aside from it requiring Apartheid, and possibly the Soviet Union, surviving into the 21st century.
Admiral Matt said:
LoL, that's right. I did suggest that earlier. I completely forgot. Oh well, there's a second scenario that I proposed for everyone to rip apart...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsu-katana
But Johannesburg? Perhaps the apartheid conflict lasted A LOT longer than it did in OTL, and eventually the black South Africans obtained a nuke and decided to make the conflict incredibly violent?
No. Johannesburg would most likely be nuked by the whites. Compared to cities like Pretoria, Cape Town, and Pietermaritzburg, Johannesburg is much more representative of the racial porportions of the nation. The other three have a much higher percentage of whites than the national average. The blacks would not kill themselves, they'd probably lash out at Pretoria, which has a very high percentage of whites.
The problem, however, is that Johannesburg is the second largest population center in South Africa. It also happens to be pretty much the industrial and mining capital of the nation, as well. So, it's rather tricky. For the whites to destroy Johannesburg, they'd probably have to have a damned good reason.
Perhaps the conflict in Angola draws a Cuban invasion of South Africa. If I remember correctly, both the Cubans and Soviets had ties in Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Perhaps an armed invasion by Soviet backed Cuban soldiers leads to Cuban forces massing in Johannesburg (as part of pincer movement around Pretoria). By this time, the whites will have fled Johannesburg to the coastal cities of Durban, Kimberley, and Cape Town. With only blacks and Cubans left in Johannesburg, and facing utter collapse, a desperate (or maybe a rogue) Afrikaner leader might destroy a single city to save a nation. The problem with this scenario, is that it would have to occur in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Hmm, I don't know.
Hey guys, ever ead VORTEX by Larry Bond ? It's all about a Cuban invasion of South Africa in the late 80s, after a power-mad racist ultra-nationalist Afrikaner, Karl Vorster, comes to power and totally transforms SA into a police-state, leading to his invasion of Namibia and the Cubans retaliating by invading SA itself from Mozambique. Anyways, cut a long story short, there's 1 scene where Vorster orders the use of 1 of SA's tactical nuclear weapons against 1 of the 3 Cuban armoured columns striking out for Pretoria. Therefore, it'd be perfectly feasible for Afrikaner extremists to employ a nuclear device well within their own borders IMHO.
Hmmm, the Aussie cities getting nuked in 1982 ? I agree with your scenarios, Adm Matt and DuQuense, as the most feasible scenarios for such a POD.
Originally Posted by tetsu-katana
But Johannesburg? Perhaps the apartheid conflict lasted A LOT longer than it did in OTL, and eventually the black South Africans obtained a nuke and decided to make the conflict incredibly violent?
No. Johannesburg would most likely be nuked by the whites. Compared to cities like Pretoria, Cape Town, and Pietermaritzburg, Johannesburg is much more representative of the racial porportions of the nation. The other three have a much higher percentage of whites than the national average. The blacks would not kill themselves, they'd probably lash out at Pretoria, which has a very high percentage of whites.
The problem, however, is that Johannesburg is the second largest population center in South Africa. It also happens to be pretty much the industrial and mining capital of the nation, as well. So, it's rather tricky. For the whites to destroy Johannesburg, they'd probably have to have a damned good reason.
Perhaps the conflict in Angola draws a Cuban invasion of South Africa. If I remember correctly, both the Cubans and Soviets had ties in Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Perhaps an armed invasion by Soviet backed Cuban soldiers leads to Cuban forces massing in Johannesburg (as part of pincer movement around Pretoria). By this time, the whites will have fled Johannesburg to the coastal cities of Durban, Kimberley, and Cape Town. With only blacks and Cubans left in Johannesburg, and facing utter collapse, a desperate (or maybe a rogue) Afrikaner leader might destroy a single city to save a nation. The problem with this scenario, is that it would have to occur in the late 1980s or early 1990s. Hmm, I don't know.
Hey guys, ever ead VORTEX by Larry Bond ? It's all about a Cuban invasion of South Africa in the late 80s, after a power-mad racist ultra-nationalist Afrikaner, Karl Vorster, comes to power and totally transforms SA into a police-state, leading to his invasion of Namibia and the Cubans retaliating by invading SA itself from Mozambique. Anyways, cut a long story short, there's 1 scene where Vorster orders the use of 1 of SA's tactical nuclear weapons against 1 of the 3 Cuban armoured columns striking out for Pretoria. Therefore, it'd be perfectly feasible for Afrikaner extremists to employ a nuclear device well within their own borders IMHO.
Hmmm, the Aussie cities getting nuked in 1982 ? I agree with your scenarios, Adm Matt and DuQuense, as the most feasible scenarios for such a POD.
Melvin Loh said:
Yeah. I've read it. It's a good book and I guess it does qualify as AH now. I really enjoyed it. I thought Cauldron (about a modern war in Europe) and Red Phoenix (about a 2nd Korean War), both written by him, were also good.