History Learner
Banned
So "everybody dies" played through then. *Sigh*
There's gotta be some place that survives.
It all does; Nuclear Winter has been disproven for quite sometime.
So "everybody dies" played through then. *Sigh*
There's gotta be some place that survives.
Sadly, if the missiles had flown in '83 in an all out nuclear exchange between the US and the Soviet Union, modern variations on the Nuclear Winter climatic model indicate very probably that most of the planet would be simply dead - denuded of all life more complex than lichens and microbes. So the complex societies written about in the post 1983 war TLs would simply never exist. The original nuclear winter theory that was proposed in the mid-80s was nightmarish enough. But when modern numerical climatic modeling coupled with modern computers is tasked to simulate the after effects of even "small" nuclear wars (eg an exchange between India and Pakistan involving no more than 100 bombs striking urban targets) the impact on the global environment from soot injection into the upper atmosphere is dramatic leading to possibly millions of deaths out of theater due to famines caused by darkened skies. The global impact of a war on the scale of what is assumed for the 1983 War would be nothing short of apocalyptic and unsurvivable for billions outside of the directly impacted war zone (northern hemisphere).
http://www.nucleardarkness.org/index2.php
Speaking of Argentina, I do recall the Falklands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands falling under UAR sovereignty after Doomsday. Considering this was 1-2 years after the Falkland Islands war, I don't see that happening as well. However, since the UK also collapsed, those islanders have no where to get support from since the Celtic Alliance and New Britain is too far.
Yeah. The war was so close that a peaceful, non-controversial union is impossible. The islands would probably seek the help of South Africa, Australia or even Chile before resorting to Argentina (and I doubt Argentina would try it again with the memories of the war so fresh).
But then again, South Africa becomes New Britain in this TL, so...
There will be survivors in the Northern Hemisphere. There are places that survived intact.1983: Doomsday is just an excuse to shuffle up maps and play nation games. I don't think civilization would've survived in the Northern Hemisphere at all.
Well - the only people that might survive would be those who prepared in depth ahead of time prior to the missiles flying. But the prep would have to be really deep (which means expensive) on the order of the sort of thing only extremely wealthy individuals, corporations, and nation-states all with a paranoid bent could afford. And, given the fact that worst case nuclear winter scenarios were not generally accepted in the 80s as likely (the original 1dim model that emerged in the 80s predicted severe impacts but nothing on the scale predicted by modern modeling) those that might be inclined to spend to prepare might not spend enough to ride out years without the sun.So "everybody dies" played through then. *Sigh*
There's gotta be some place that survives.
It hasn't been "disproven" but it is true that much of what is assumed as inputs to the theory to achieve the apocalyptic endpoint has been called into scientific question. The issue is this: in an an all out nuclear war between the Russian Federation (or the old Soviet Union) and the United States involving a mix of counterforce targets(strikes at military installations eg missile silos) and countervalue targets (industrial and other targets) will a substantial number of struck targets burn with the kind of energy (firestorm conditions) to inject a substantial volume of soot into the stratosphere to form a long lasting shroud? Or, put more directly, will a modern urban area - after being subjected to the energy from one or more detonated nuclear weapons - burn like Hamburg or Dresden did during the Second World War?It all does; Nuclear Winter has been disproven for quite sometime.
It hasn't been "disproven" but it is true that much of what is assumed as inputs to the theory to achieve the apocalyptic endpoint has been called into scientific question. The issue is this: in an an all out nuclear war between the Russian Federation (or the old Soviet Union) and the United States involving a mix of counterforce targets(strikes at military installations eg missile silos) and countervalue targets (industrial and other targets) will a substantial number of struck targets burn with the kind of energy (firestorm conditions) to inject a substantial volume of soot into the stratosphere to form a long lasting shroud? Or, put more directly, will a modern urban area - after being subjected to the energy from one or more detonated nuclear weapons - burn like Hamburg or Dresden did during the Second World War?
The answer to that question is not at all clear.
Further, earlier iterations of the nuclear winter theory suffered from what could be described as software and hardware limitations that rendered predictions too simplistic. And, it has been conjectured that the proponents of the theory had a political axe to grind to force the principal nuclear armed states into a position of regarding thermonuclear war as so generally apocalyptic that the only route to survival was total nuclear disarmament. To that end, it is conjectured, they offered up a theory they knew was fatally flawed in order to stampede public opinion.
If that's true then the proponents engaged in scientific fraud of the worst kind.
The aftermath of the sort of bloodletting that one might imagine for a 1983 "gone hot" would be terrible enough (in the Northern Hemisphere especially) without factoring "nuclear winter" into the picture. So terrible in fact, that most of the TLs for the aftermath written for the Alternate History website with cheery little ministates with colorful flags and a penchant for fighting other ministates in anthill wars could probably be regarded as fantasy - even some 30plus years after the big war was fought.
I offered up the nuclear winter idea with an "if" - a very big "if" - because its simply not clear that the inputs assumed for even the "modern" versions of the nuclear winter model are valid.
Dr. Small estimates that a maximum of 1,475 teragrams of material would be burned in the United States, provided all the weapons in the Soviet arsenal were successfully launched and detonated, and that all combustible material was actually ignited. Comparable figures for burned material in Europe and the Soviet Union would be proportionately less, ''because those regions simply have less combustible material in homes, businesses and industries,'' he said.
''Our estimate is based on rigorous analysis of blueprints and other records of real homes and commercial and industrial structures,'' Dr. Small said. ''We add up every possible ingredient available for burning to estimate a weighted total.''
I doubt anything resembling human civilisation could survive such a cataclysmic exchange.
I loathe the timeline as alternate history, but am fine with it as a creative writing world creation exercise.
To be fair, there would be a lot of weird things after a Black Swan event that big.........
The Associated Press teletype reports will always be the single most chilling AH work to me
https://althistory.fandom.com/wiki/Associated_Press_teletype_reports_(1983:_Doomsday)
The best part of the entire timeline is definitely how it captures the sheer utter horror of a sudden, no-warning, accidental all-out nuclear exchange. Everything that comes after is pretty much a cartoon tho as previously mentioned.
- Somehow, the Soviets targeted Australian cities despite it being out of range of most of their ICBMs and despite the fact they never had plans to target anything beyond American intelligence installations within Australia.
DO you think you will exist in the 1983: Doomsday world? Or exist as someone else or be completely butterflied away?
I’d be living in Bunbury with Perth destroyed