Even if they aren't nuclear each other there's a possibility of a massive war between them without any UN intervention
How would a post-nuclear world look like?
- Thread starter General Kenobi
- Start date
ahmedali
Banned
It will be a conventional war and with the same result it will end in the situation before the war
In the worst case, Iran and Afghanistan join the Indians to cut Pakistan into pieces
And at best, Pakistan might get lucky and take Kashmir
China uses Pakistan against India. If Pakistan has a few nuclear weapons, they probably would use them against India and vice versa. I can also imagine China possibly using nuclear weapons against India. China has the first above ground test by 1964. Lets say they have a bomb in 1960. Basically a pair of nukes against India, a nuke against Moscow. Pakistan started developing nuclear weapons in 1972. So it is just out of the time frame. China provided the weapons technology to Pakistan. They might also nuke Tokyo. I'd think a lot of the major cities would be destroyed.
How do you work that out? The UK is going to be attacked due to our nuclear weapons, being a base for US forces, our role in NATO and our position as a trip wire for detection of attack. You think we are just going to sit there and take it?
The V bombers will be on thier way and the Polaris subs will be warming up their missiles before you can say B (oom)
(also: Force de frappe anyone?)
Last edited:
ahmedali
Banned
Japan will survive because the Chinese will blow up the Soviets (the Sino-Soviet split has already occurred)
ahmedali
Banned
Simply, everyone, including the Warsaw Pact, will declare neutrality
Because alliances will mean nothing if the sense of survival is much more important
Even a Soviet puppet would declare neutrality in a nuclear war because they are not fools and don't care that their country might explode.
The USSR didn't have nuclear parity until the early 1970s. The best analogy (and one I've used before) is that any pre-1970s nuclear war would see the US with a black eye, Europe with its teeth kicked in, and the USSR as a radioactive wasteland. Civilization will endure and bounce back, it'll take decades to recover, but culturally there will be massive scars. Major US cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc.) will be hit or devastated and that will have repercussions on things like music, movies, TV, theater, etc.
You would arguably see a bigger de-nuclearization movement if there was a nuclear war and we saw just how devastating it was. There will probably be war even after a big exchange like a nuclear war, but it would likely be limited to non-ABC type of conflicts (ABC = atomic weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons).
If the nuclear war was in the late 1970s or the 1980s? No one wins because we all lose. Maybe the Global South would survive (barring the few odd nuclear strikes here and there), but the Global North would be utterly ravaged by nuclear war.
EDIT (17 Nov). Added a missing word.
Last edited:
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
Erm, you do know NATO and the WP exist in 1966, right? They'd be targetted, so th ats all of europe basically. There is literally no way Nato or WP countries declare neutrality just before the bombs drop. For a start, they both have huge garrisons and bases of the Us/Russia which would be hit; for another, targetting is often pre-determined and not changeable at the last minute. This just wouldnt happen.
ahmedali
Banned
NATO is useless if all its members except the United States have all declared neutrality in order to flee with their skins
Even the Warsaw Pact, however tightly controlled by the Soviets or puppets, would not attempt to commit mass suicide, which any government would do.
So, no, the whole world will not become a nuclear holocaust
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
in 1983, the world was on the brink of nuclear war. No one delcare neutrality. Cuban missile crisis - no one declared neutrality. The world does not work that way. For a start, no one would actually believe it wa simminent until it happened. For another, no one would believe that a suddenly neutrl state hosting large number of their enemy's troops is genuinely neutral. For another, missiles often had pre-set targets, and subs had specific orders to fire at certain sites, which wouldnt be changed.
ahmedali
Banned
You said it yourself this 1983
A nuclear war in 1962, for example, would not lead to the destruction of everyone, but only to the United States and the Soviet Union
The Soviet stockpile is much less then and will not try to strike Europe, but will strike the United States and attack Europe with a conventional army
The United States will empty its nuclear stockpiles on the Soviets
As for the pre-determined goals
Oh yeah people will just sit around and do nothing and wait for their death and no country will try to drop their enemies' nuclear weapons
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
A post nuclear world is:
Huge devastation in Europe, with major cities, industrial centres, and ports/airports destroyed; radiation sickness rife; birth defects and miscarriages the norm; massive refugee influxes into any safer areas, leading to armed militias for self defence. the central government all but destroyed as it has no ability to issues laws, levy taxes, or provide services in this landscape. Predominant government: Localised, wary of outsiders, paranoid and maintaining power based on access to weapons/supplies. Ruthless, be cause it has to be.
The WP countries are even worse. As above, but with multiple strikes per target, and even smaller assets hit. A lawless wasteland of roving deserters, gangs, and refugees amid poisoned land. predominant government: Warlords and gangs, the remanants of the military, apocalyptic cults; Cannibalisim, summary killings, disease and disfigurement are common.
US: Major cities and infrastructure destroyed. State governments assuming power to safeguard the resources of their states, especially those less affected. Predominant government: Decentralised, with huge authority for governors and the national guard; central government control loose int he extreme. Probably highly isolationist.
Asia: US bases in Japan hit, causing panic and fallout acorss japan. The korieas in self imposed conventional warfare devastation. China hit repeatedly, major cities destroyed. Government reverting to local structures.
Australasia: Parts of Australia hit, but much untouched.
Huge devastation in Europe, with major cities, industrial centres, and ports/airports destroyed; radiation sickness rife; birth defects and miscarriages the norm; massive refugee influxes into any safer areas, leading to armed militias for self defence. the central government all but destroyed as it has no ability to issues laws, levy taxes, or provide services in this landscape. Predominant government: Localised, wary of outsiders, paranoid and maintaining power based on access to weapons/supplies. Ruthless, be cause it has to be.
The WP countries are even worse. As above, but with multiple strikes per target, and even smaller assets hit. A lawless wasteland of roving deserters, gangs, and refugees amid poisoned land. predominant government: Warlords and gangs, the remanants of the military, apocalyptic cults; Cannibalisim, summary killings, disease and disfigurement are common.
US: Major cities and infrastructure destroyed. State governments assuming power to safeguard the resources of their states, especially those less affected. Predominant government: Decentralised, with huge authority for governors and the national guard; central government control loose int he extreme. Probably highly isolationist.
Asia: US bases in Japan hit, causing panic and fallout acorss japan. The korieas in self imposed conventional warfare devastation. China hit repeatedly, major cities destroyed. Government reverting to local structures.
Australasia: Parts of Australia hit, but much untouched.
FairlyUninformedGraduate
Gone Fishin'
There were still more than enough nuclear munitions to hit major cities and bases. By 1970, Russia had over ELEVEN THOUSAND nuclear weapons: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_nuclear_weapons_stockpiles_and_nuclear_tests_by_country (the table at the heart of the article) and see below for a graph
As for the pre-set targetting, soldiers follow orders. So do sailors and airmen. And with ballistic missiles, the people in the firing bunker may not even have more than a code to enter to launch the missile on its pre-set targets.
See the below image: US bases were all over the world. The soviets would hit them, and the countries they were in.
In other words - if you are trying to hit the US and its assets, youa re hitting all these targets.
By 1970 the USSR has enough bombs to do this.
A nuclear war in 1962 would result in a badly damged Europe, a utterly devastated Soviet Union, and a relatively lightly damaged America. China may or may not be ruined as well. In 1962, the Soviets simply didn't have the means to destroy the United States. It's even possible that if the United States launched first the Soviets would not get any ICBMs launched, most of their bombers would be caught on the ground, and their only means of retaliation would be a handful of subs that were extremely vulnerable while preping their missiles for launch because they had to sit on the surface to do so.
ahmedali
Banned
It is unlikely here until Europe is blown out
I even bet that the people of China will be exposed to a nuclear explosion more than Europe
(By the Soviets themselves because the Sino-Soviet split actually occurred at this point)
ahmedali
Banned
Exactly
Even Europe would also survive because the Soviets could choose a conventional war that would destroy Europe but would not nuclearize them.
Japan (and Korea) has US bases which will be targeted by the Soviets. It won't be as badly off as Western Europe but it's not going to be a happy place to be.
As someone said, Threads gives you a good idea despite being set a decade plus later.
What people on this forum seem to want in stuff like the equally decade-plus-later 1983 Doomsday - a world full of quirky survivor states, a rich pop culture, and an increasingly recovering global civilization - is beyond laughable.
What people on this forum seem to want in stuff like the equally decade-plus-later 1983 Doomsday - a world full of quirky survivor states, a rich pop culture, and an increasingly recovering global civilization - is beyond laughable.