How would a post-nuclear world look like?

FairlyUninformedGraduate

Gone Fishin'
Might the us bomb middle eastern oilfields to keep them out of Soviet hands or vice versa? Finland seems likely. And depending on how you consider them, the us would bomb north Korea and the soviets or Chinese would bomb the south, so that's two halves of a former nation. Greece perhaps gets a dose from both. Either side might also use a screen of nukes to create a dead zone to prevent or slow a conventional advance?
 
Clandango

Clandango

FairlyUninformedGraduate said:
Might the us bomb middle eastern oilfields to keep them out of Soviet hands or vice versa? Finland seems likely. And depending on how you consider them, the us would bomb north Korea and the soviets or Chinese would bomb the south, so that's two halves of a former nation. Greece perhaps gets a dose from both. Either side might also use a screen of nukes to create a dead zone to prevent or slow a conventional advance?
Click to expand...
We may need to think about how many volleys there are. I think there was something about second strike capabilities, but that the Superpowers would put focus first and foremost on destroying anyplace that could be used to store or fire nuclear weapons from, as well as places important with the military, government, or business. Which tended to be filled with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. I don’t see nuclear weapons being fired at the Middle East to deny them to the Soviets, though regular bombs? I don’t know. We will need to consider how deep the oil is and whether nuclear weapons would be able to penetrate the ground deep enough. I suppose the dozens or hundreds of oil derricks might act like wicks, helping light up the areas down below. Plus who wants to buy radioactive petroleum? It would be bound to mess up turning it into gasoline, plus I wonder if the sand would be irradiated and spread around, or just turn into glass.
 

Cryhavoc101

IanS said:
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.
Click to expand...
As a young teen I watched the first half of threads and had to turn the TV off it was soo fucking harrowing and uncompromising (and at the time it being the 80s very possible) and only saw the last half during the noughties when I found it on you tube.

To date its the most terrifying movie I have ever seen - even with the BBC Dr Who special effects the cold clinical factual delivery was if anything the most horrific aspect.
 

Insane Ranter

FairlyUninformedGraduate said:
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.
Click to expand...
This point is a good one. Look at how badly the global trade network was upset by Covid. Then multiply that by a couple of factors of 100. We still have not had the global trade network back to where it was before. Granted in the 1960s or 1980s the world is not as connected as today. There will be sections of the world that will be pretty much on their own for years if not decades.
 
Clandango

Clandango

IanS said:
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.
Click to expand...
I somehow feel people would try to avoid living in irradiated places. Given everything there would be blasted or burned, no real reason for them to stay. How long after the war is this set? I am wondering if it is like with the atomic bombings in Japan, where the survivors of the bombings were shunned as being unclean and liable to spread radiation to others and give birth to mutants and freaks. Untrue of course. Actually, what you are mentioning sounds like Fallout. Guessing that is just what people thought would happen decades back. Anyways, there is liable to be plenty of livable places, though there will be starvation for a good deal of the population. Presumably guns still work, so the police and military will form very strict rule over places. Again, depends where we are thinking for this.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
Insane Ranter said:
This point is a good one. Look at how badly the global trade network was upset by Covid. Then multiply that by a couple of factors of 100. We still have not had the global trade network back to where it was before. Granted in the 1960s or 1980s the world is not as connected as today. There will be sections of the world that will be pretty much on their own for years if not decades.
Click to expand...
In the 1960s, Global suppliers and Just In Time manufacturing wasn't a thing yet.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
FairlyUninformedGraduate said:
Might the us bomb middle eastern oilfields to keep them out of Soviet hands or vice versa? Finland seems likely. And depending on how you consider them, the us would bomb north Korea and the soviets or Chinese would bomb the south, so that's two halves of a former nation. Greece perhaps gets a dose from both. Either side might also use a screen of nukes to create a dead zone to prevent or slow a conventional advance?
Click to expand...
In WWIII, it's the Soviets who would be tossing nukes that direction, to hurt the West, and help their Allies like Iraq and Syria, while the Israelis would be sending their nukes to those two locations.
 

Monk78

Is there any chance of a limited exchange? Like 10 or so tactical devices on each side
Unwritten understanding that continental US or USSR is not hit just Europe and japan esp since that’s where the fighting forces are
 
Last edited:
Gillan1220

Gillan1220

ahmedali said:
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
Click to expand...
1983 nuclear war will be more devestating than 1962. ICBMs were young in 1962 and there was no MAD.
 
Resurgam

Resurgam

Monk78 said:
Is there any chance of a limited exchange? Like 10 or so tactical devices on each side
Unwritten understanding that continental US or USSR is not hit just Europe and japan esp since that’s where the fighting forces are
Click to expand...
No.

1) The allies of both countries would understandably freak at the idea that they can burn but the people deciding to do the burning are untouched.
2) Once one is used...
 

Peg Leg Pom

Monk78 said:
Is there any chance of a limited exchange? Like 10 or so tactical devices on each side
Unwritten understanding that continental US or USSR is not hit just Europe and japan esp since that’s where the fighting forces are
Click to expand...
Very, very unlikely. If Britain or France is hit, and they would be, they're going to use their independent deterrents to retaliate. There's no way for the Soviets to tell that missiles are coming from their SSBN's and not US boats therefore the Soviets will attack the US with strategic missiles and the US will return fire.
 

Monk78

Peg Leg Pom said:
Very, very unlikely. If Britain or France is hit, and they would be, they're going to use their independent deterrents to retaliate. There's no way for the Soviets to tell that missiles are coming from their SSBN's and not US boats therefore the Soviets will attack the US with strategic missiles and the US will return fire.
Click to expand...
What if UK and France are not hit either
And since likely WP will be hit first they can notify the NATO powers we will only be hitting in retaliation FRG Belgium Italy japan etc so feel free to hit Poland Czech etc but not ussr
 
Gillan1220

Gillan1220

marathag said:
Destruction was only assured for the USSR before 1965, after that, they had to ability to hit CONUS. By 1977, devastation for all involved.
Click to expand...
Correct. The SAC's nuclear SIOP meant 200+ nuclear devices to be detonated on the USSR and another 60+ on the PRC.

Apart from missiles in Cuba, were there missiles in the USSR that could hit the CONUS? Technically, the Soviets had the ability to hit the CONUS since 1947 when the Tu-4 Bull entered service.

Coincidentally, 1977 was also the year the movie Damnation Alley was released.
 
marathag

marathag

Banned
Gillan1220 said:
Apart from missiles in Cuba, were there missiles in the USSR that could hit the CONUS? Technically, the Soviets had the ability to hit the CONUS since 1947 when the Tu-4 Bull entered service.
Click to expand...

From
The Cuban Missile Crisis:
A Nuclear Order of Battle October/November 1962
by Robert S. Norris

A Presentation at the Woodrow Wilson Center


Soviet ICBMs
The most authoritative figures on ICBM availability come from Strategic Rocket Forces historian Lt. Col. Sergei Karlov. He concluded that there were 42 ICBMs deployed during the crisis. These included six SS-6s (R-7) and 36 SS-7 (R-16). Four of the SS-6s were on open launch pads at Plesetsk and two were reserve missiles at Baikonur that were not on permanent duty as they were intended for space exploration. During the crisis the two Baikonur SS-6s were made ready by being fueled and attaching a warhead.

A topic for further research is to understand the alert procedures of the Strategic Rocket Forces in particular the Soviet military in general. Were there Soviet counterparts to the U.S. Defense Readiness Conditions (DefCon) and were they activated during the crisis? Were the ICBMs “combat ready,” able to be fired with assigned targets?

The SS-6 was the first Soviet ICBM. It was a one and one-half stage cryogenic, liquid-propellant missile capable of delivering a 10,000 lb reentry vehicle, (with a 2.8 megaton warhead) to a range of 9000 kilometers and had a CEP of five kilometers. They were too large to fit in silos and were fired from reinforced concrete launch pads. It took twenty hours to prepare for launch and could not be kept on alert for more than a day. The liquid fuel for the missiles was corrosive and toxic, could leak, and was potentially dangerous.

The majority of the Soviet ICBM force during the crisis was the 36 SS-7s (R-16), 26 in silos and 10 on open launch pads. The SS-7 Saddler was a two-stage storable, liquid-propellant ICBM capable of delivering 3500 lb reentry vehicle to a range of 12,000 kilometers with a CEP of 1.0-1.25 nm. It was deployed in soft and hard sites. Reaction time under normal conditions was three hours for soft sites and five to fifteen minutes for hard sites.

American estimates at the time were slightly higher. As of 30 June 1962 the U.S. estimate was 32 at soft sites. The CIA estimated that the Soviets had 60-65 ICBMs operational. Later assessments reduced the number to 44 operational with six training launchers with some operational capability, close to Karlov’s figure.
..
Soviet Bombers

Secretary of Defense McNamara testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committees on September 5, 1962 that the Soviets had about 165 long-range bombers and tankers and about 950 medium-range bombers and tankers.

“[T]hey could put about 200 bombers, we believe, over North America today.”

This is close to a later estimate: "By the end of 1962 Long Range Aviation had about 100 Tu-95 [Bear] and 60 3M [Bison B] bombers, which could deliver about 270 nuclear weapons to U.S. territory."

It is unclear how many of these bombers were on some stage of alert, whether they were on the tarmac, with weapons loaded and crews aboard and target folders at hand. More is needed to be known about the status of these aircraft.

In conclusion, Soviet strategic forces totaled some 300-320 weapons (all but about 40 of them bomber weapons), with the potential of hitting the United States. If war had broken out and Soviet Bear and Bison bombers attempted to fly over the North Pole to attack North American targets they would have been met by formidable U.S. and Canadian air defenses. Air defense interceptor aircraft, many (or perhaps all) armed with nuclear Genie or Falcon air-to-air missiles would likely have prevented any Soviet bomber from reaching its target.

(The same situation would have been the case for the any of the Beagles flying from Cuba.)

As noted above the U.S. had over 3,500 fully generated weapons at the ready to use against the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union may have had around 300 weapons ready to use against the United States. While that is a ratio of about dozen-to-one, given the difficulty of Soviet bombers to carry out their missions, the actual ratio is probably higher
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top