How would a post-nuclear world look like?

[FairlyUninformedGraduate]

Its a common trope that the soviets couldn't match the US nuclear arsenal in the late 60s early 70s; but they had thousands of warheads nonetheless. They had more than enough to wreak devastation, and in the 1960s, a large part of the arsenal wasnt on icbms but on constant readiness aircraft, which can launch or are already airborne as soon as things heat up. Not as many as America does not equal a totally useless arsenal; it equals only enough to wipe out hte world one time over, not two. Im fed up of arguing for the obvious truth of things on here.

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.

Exactly this. A post nuclear world involves fallout, starvation, civil wars, wars, and violence, cannibalism, opression and sickness and slow deaths for the majority of europe, the ussr, and much of the usa, as well as anywhere that hosts a lot of bases of either nation regardless of their professed neutrality or otherwise.

People need to stop pretending that nuclear wars are survivable and feasible. They are not. They are death on a scale the human race has nnever experiecned in thousand sof years. Even areas not targetted will get fallout, much of hte globe willg t fallout, and collapsed networks mean food doesnt get to where it needs to be and people starve, and squabble, and fight.

 

[FairlyUninformedGraduate]

This is like a room full of tyrannosaurs arguing about which parts of pangea will recover fastest from a direct asteroid strike, and some claiming their bit of pangea would actually emerge stronger.

 

[Resurgam]

Exactly this. A post nuclear world involves fallout, starvation, civil wars, wars, and violence, cannibalism, opression and sickness and slow deaths for the majority of europe, the ussr, and much of the usa, as well as anywhere that hosts a lot of bases of either nation regardless of their professed neutrality or otherwise.

People need to stop pretending that nuclear wars are survivable and feasible. They are not. They are death on a scale the human race has nnever experiecned in thousand sof years. Even areas not targetted will get fallout, much of hte globe willg t fallout, and collapsed networks mean food doesnt get to where it needs to be and people starve, and squabble, and fight.

Also this. Even places completely untouched by bombs are going to be dealing with so many secondary and tertiary problems that it would be a miracle if they came out recognizable.

 

[Resurgam]

This is like a room full of tyrannosaurs arguing about which parts of pangea will recover fastest from a direct asteroid strike, and some claiming their bit of pangea would actually emerge stronger.

And then musing about how long it'll be before the Rex Rockers can resume their tour and describing said tour in painstaking detail.

 

[FairlyUninformedGraduate]

And then musing about how long it'll be before the Rex Rockers can resume their tour and describing said tour in painstaking detail.

T-Rex, surely

 

[ahmedali]

this is nonsense. I am out.

It is logical that countries will commit mass suicide instead of following common sense, which is neutrality

 

[Resurgam]

T-Rex, surely

It's more that 1983 Doomsday is FULL of painstakingly thought-out pop culture pages talking about everyone from Paul McCartney to U2 surviving the war and continuing their careers and touring across the world. I've even seen people contacting the real people and asking where they were on that day so they could determine if they were killed or not saying as much.

 

[ahmedali]

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.

exactly. The possibilities of the end of civilization are greatly exaggerated, and may even destroy a few countries

 

[marathag]

Ever see the movie Threads, because that would be what a post nuclear war world would look like.

It'd be an irradiated wasteland where people are reduced to primitive hunter-gatherers, children would be born with brain damage to the point where language as we know it would break down.

Year​	USA​	USSR​	UK​	France​	China​
1966​	32,193​	7,089​	270​	36​	20​
1967​	31,411​	8,339​	270​	36​	25​
1968​	29,452​	9,399​	280​	36​	35​
1969​	27,463​	10,538​	308​	36​	50​
1970​	26,492​	11,643​	280​	36​	75​

Threads era

1985​

23,510​

39,197​

300​

360​

425​

 

[FairlyUninformedGraduate]

exactly. The possibilities of the end of civilization are greatly exaggerated, and may even destroy a few countries

I dont think you fully got Resurgam's point...

@Resurgam

 

[FairlyUninformedGraduate]

It's more that 1983 Doomsday is FULL of painstakingly thought-out pop culture pages talking about everyone from Paul McCartney to U2 surviving the war and continuing their careers and touring across the world. I've even seen people contacting the real people and asking where they were on that day so they could determine if they were killed or not saying as much.

Its absurd. Nuclear war is a terrible thing and not something most of us would bounce bck from.

 

[Resurgam]

Its absurd. Nuclear war is a terrible thing and not something most of us would bounce bck from.

Exactly. Hence why I get irritated by this trope being predominant in the forum.

 

[marathag]

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.

Except the DDR had drank deep of the Soviet Kool-Aid, unlike the Hungarian or Czechs, or 1980s Poles.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

It is logical that countries will commit mass suicide instead of following common sense, which is neutrality

Western Europe is full of US bases, Eastern Europe is full of Soviet bases. Both are well stocked with both tactical and intermediate nuclear weapons. It doesn't matter what the host countries say those bases are getting nuked before those weapons can be used.

 

[FairlyUninformedGraduate]

Exactly. Hence why I get irritated by this trope being predominant in the forum.

Agreed. Hundreds of millions would die on day 1. By day 365, billions would be dead from disease as conditions plummet for people, from starvation as food infrastructure collapses, from conventional fighting as countries turn on each other for resources.

Western Europe is full of US bases, Eastern Europe is full of Soviet bases. Both are well stocked with both tactical and intermediate nuclear weapons. It doesn't matter what the host countries say those bases are getting nuked before those weapons can be used.

Exactly. I dont see how this is a complex point - its very very straightforward. War the US means nuking US bases.

 

[FairlyUninformedGraduate]

For context, have a play here: https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/. You can select weapons with period appropriate yields fromt he dropdown or enter in a yield. Just using the bog standard missiles, not the massive experiemental ones, mind.

So in the 60s, the USSR, among its thousands of warheads, had over 200 of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-16_(missile)

A 3 mt warhead.

So lets see what happens if ONE reaches New York (modern population figures)

Estimated fatalities:
2,743,450
Estimated injuries:
4,234,020

Say half the russian missiles are intercepted or fail.

100 of these strikes globally.

Now remember that this was a fraction of their full arsenal. If you believe in a god or gods, pray to them this never happens.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Also let's not indulge in the fantasy concept of a limited nuclear exchange that's often seen. Once the first bomb goes off it would take a miracle for it not to escalate into a full strategic exchange. That may not be what's intended by either side but counter strike would follow counter strike, each more devasting than the last until the strategic weapons are launched and it's all over.

 

[FairlyUninformedGraduate]

Also let's not indulge in the fantasy concept of a limited nuclear exchange that's often seen. Once the first bomb goes off it would take a miracle for it not to escalate into a full strategic exchange. That may not be what's intended by either side but counter strike would follow counter strike, each more devasting than the last until the strategic weapons are launched and it's all over.

Yes. Once the first missiles fly and bombs drop things spiral. Retaliation follows retaliation. One side, in desperation decides to destroy their enemies. As their strategic missiles launch, their enemies launch theres.

To quote the film "War Games":

The only way to win, is not to play.

 

[BlueTrousers]

Western Europe is full of US bases, Eastern Europe is full of Soviet bases. Both are well stocked with both tactical and intermediate nuclear weapons. It doesn't matter what the host countries say those bases are getting nuked before those weapons can be used.

Which is why 'declaring neutrality' is useless. If a country is armed by one of the superpowers, and has that power's forces - including theatre and strategic nuclear weapons - based within its territory, any declaration of neutrality will be worth the paper it's written on. You'd need to demonstrate that neutrality - fully withdraw from alliances and eject foreign forces - to be credible. And even that might not be enough. In some nuclear war plans, neutral powers were to be hit anyway to stop them becoming a problem later. There was apparently at least one country that would have been nuked by the US and the USSR.

I don't believe a full-scale nuclear exchange would be an extinction-level event. Threads has been cited - and while I've not seen the film, what I've heard suggests to me that it's broadly representative (possibly slightly pessimistic, but only slightly) of conditions in Europe. The inherent dispersal of the United States and the Soviet Union would mean that the survivors weren't as badly off as in Europe, IMO.

Most underdeveloped countries can be effectively destroyed by one nuclear weapon. Generally, the capital city is also the principal port, the hub of the transport system, and where most of the industry is located. Take that out, and the country cannot function as a single entity any more. But even that isn't always necessary. In a lot of cases, the biggest concerns would be famine and the total disappearance of trade. Simply not being nuked isn't enough to keep you out of trouble in a meaningful nuclear war.

With an exchange in the 1966-1970 period? Most of the 'Green Revolution' stuff has been killed. Perhaps literally, because Norman Borlaug and his colleagues are likely now atomised and somewhere in the upper atmosphere. The resulting climate disruption will mean worse harvests, just as less-developed countries were starting to feel the crunch of feeding their population in OTL. And, even if someone does have high-yielding rice, or a surplus of pesticides, or something - there's no global trade network any more. The ports have been destroyed. The ships are derelict through lack of maintenance. So, as is invariably the case in any famine, people will starve not because there isn't food, but because it can't be got to them.

Similarly, communities built around resource extraction will now have no income. What use is a copper mine if nobody's buying copper? And even if they are, where are you buying the machinery from? The factories that built it are now irradiated ruins.

 

[FairlyUninformedGraduate]

Which is why 'declaring neutrality' is useless. If a country is armed by one of the superpowers, and has that power's forces - including theatre and strategic nuclear weapons - based within its territory, any declaration of neutrality will be worth the paper it's written on. You'd need to demonstrate that neutrality - fully withdraw from alliances and eject foreign forces - to be credible. And even that might not be enough. In some nuclear war plans, neutral powers were to be hit anyway to stop them becoming a problem later. There was apparently at least one country that would have been nuked by the US and the USSR.

I don't believe a full-scale nuclear exchange would be an extinction-level event. Threads has been cited - and while I've not seen the film, what I've heard suggests to me that it's broadly representative (possibly slightly pessimistic, but only slightly) of conditions in Europe. The inherent dispersal of the United States and the Soviet Union would mean that the survivors weren't as badly off as in Europe, IMO.

Most underdeveloped countries can be effectively destroyed by one nuclear weapon. Generally, the capital city is also the principal port, the hub of the transport system, and where most of the industry is located. Take that out, and the country cannot function as a single entity any more. But even that isn't always necessary. In a lot of cases, the biggest concerns would be famine and the total disappearance of trade. Simply not being nuked isn't enough to keep you out of trouble in a meaningful nuclear war.

With an exchange in the 1966-1970 period? Most of the 'Green Revolution' stuff has been killed. Perhaps literally, because Norman Borlaug and his colleagues are likely now atomised and somewhere in the upper atmosphere. The resulting climate disruption will mean worse harvests, just as less-developed countries were starting to feel the crunch of feeding their population in OTL. And, even if someone does have high-yielding rice, or a surplus of pesticides, or something - there's no global trade network any more. The ports have been destroyed. The ships are derelict through lack of maintenance. So, as is invariably the case in any famine, people will starve not because there isn't food, but because it can't be got to them.

Similarly, communities built around resource extraction will now have no income. What use is a copper mine if nobody's buying copper? And even if they are, where are you buying the machinery from? The factories that built it are now irradiated ruins.

This is the part people seem to struggle with. If global trade collapses, and infrastructure is destroyed, modern civilisation becomes unsustainable for the vast majority of people.