Protect and Survive: A Timeline
- Thread starter Macragge1
- Start date
Last edited:
and people wonder why it's so much fun to imagine what could happen in the United States if Things Fall Apart! notions of pocket theocracies are not so far-fetched when you could just take existing entities and add thirty to forty percent and/or extend their reach a tad.
Macragge1
Banned
The problem here is that during the Transition-to-war phase, the government planned to requisition the British Airways fleet (as well as Cross-Channel Ferries and the railways) in order to transport men and materiel to their staging posts in Europe (and also to evacuate dependents from these areas.)
Therefore, the majority of BA's fleet will have been working the route between Stansted/Gatwick/Heathrow/Large Int'l UK Airport and various airports and military bases in Europe (especially Germany) since before the shooting started. This means that as well as the aircraft scrubbed by WarPac attacks during the conventional phase, a large portion of the fleet will have been destroyed by tactical devices within Germany or strategic attacks on UK airports.
Still, as you say, there will be something of a skeleton fleet remaining. Some aircraft that were airborne during the Exchange may have been lucky enough to find somewhere to land, others may have been in maintenance away from target areas.
The real wildcards are the aircraft allocated to pick up dependents (embassy/oil workers etc) in Africa, South America and so on. Whilst these will not have been hit during the war, I can see the pilots in certain places seeing a life with a senior position in the Nigerian Air Force as better than taking a chance on finding a surviving UK. In other cases, the governing country might decide that it would quite like the fuel from the aircraft; if not the aircraft itself. This will further deplete the available stock.
Neat!
As you quite rightly point out, much of the fleet will have been used to effect the Queen's orders. Very little of it will be out anywhere exotic.
BA does it's maintainence at Cardiff Rhoose, which may be far enough away to escape the Cardiff bomb.
Oddly enough, most passenger jets don't need that much runway to land, it's the fully loaded take offs that are the problem and RAF Boscombe Down, which I think is still extant has a nice long runway, as does RAF Valley on Ynys Môn.
I don't think that BA had their base in Cardiff in 1984 I think that it came a bit later in 1986.
In any case indeed, if the plane is empty not a lot of runway is needed to land a passenger jet. 2.5km is enough for almost everything including a Boeing 747.
On literacy, I should have marked the comment with a "tongue-in-cheek" smiley. However, in this timeline, if you have a little leisure and seek for distraction, books will be your primary source for quite some time.
My impression of this timeline so far is that the US and the UK are similarly hard hit, if the US has not been hit harder.
Again, this timeline doesn’t allow you to not differentiate between the different parts of Europe. Apparently, the UK is significantly better off than most parts of Europe, except maybe Sweden, Switzerland and some regions in France and Spain.
I am also not sure what you mean with "more enlightened parts of the US". If there is such a division, those urban parts will be the more heavily nuked parts. But, I agree that lightly hit US states might (autonomously) fare “rather well”, similar to the UK in this timeline.
If you regard regular schooling as 12 years of all-day-schooling followed by a master-degree in the arts, you are of course right. If you regard it as a few years of elementary school, maybe in the evenings, to prohibit a lack of basic understanding of the world.
There will be (elderly?) people who provide this schooling once the immediate “survival phase” is over, and there will be parents who kick their kids’ backsides (and their own) to get them there. Also, again, if a nation/region/tribe will try not to fall back several centuries, but rather less than one (I agree with another poster that mid-term recovery in the UK will something like a 1910s-30s standard of living), it will have to provide schooling still. I am quite sure that already in the 1980s it was known that children learn easier than adults. If you miss to learn reading and writing when young, it will prove rather hard to learn it later on when times are easier.
I think that ruling via religion is passé. Maybe it can occur in some isolated areas which were really thrown back. That does not mean that there will not be a religious revival. Christian charity will be very important and the churches will have the opportunity to prove their worth to a lot of people, I absolutely agree in that part. This will gain them respect. But it will not turn everybody into a regular churchgoer nor into a firm believer of God. Again, there is not such an easy turning back into the Early Middle Ages, at least not in places where mid-term-recovery is possible.
Earlier on, someone mentioned football. I had been thinking about that myself. Sports are a distraction and part of British identity, and, to a certain degree, healthy. I am sure that authorities will not suppress, but rather (after the initial survival phase) encourage its recovery. It will be amateur sports, though. And there won’t be a “league” for some time. But my guess is, still, that the government will encourage county cups whose winners will fight each other in a few regional tournaments until the last four teams do the semi-final and finals in Portsmouth. Even in decades, everybody will remember how they gathered around the radios to listen to the commentary on the 1986 cup final.
Generally, concerning the often quoted toil of agricultural work and reconstruction: there is less to do in agriculture during the (long?) winter – with its different problems. And concerning reconstruction: the survivors don’t have to rebuild Britain for 55 million inhabitants but for – I am not sure, has a number been given so far? – 30? 25? 15million? And where people survived long-term, structures are mostly intact.
Which brings me to London. In the longer run, London will be re-constructed. Like Dresden, like Warszaw, like Gdansk….like Münster, Würzburg, Tokyo. It will be the capital again one day. Like Berlin. But- it won’t be stretch much further than what you find on the map on the backside when you buy a London tourist guide. London at least has the potential to become a city of a million again someday in the 21st century due to its “charisma”.
I doubt that all destroyed cities will survive in name. In some cases, surviving suburbs might pick up the name and a new city centre relocated there (the 95%-destroyed city of Münster seriously considered a similar concept after 1945), but the new cities will be far smaller than the pre-war ones, simply because too many inhabitants have died. And those who survived in smaller cities will have little inclination to fill up, e.g., New Birmingham. The exception might be some cities which are built directly on coal which will create jobs in the post-war era while commuting would still be hard to afford.
Yes, a field day for archaeologists. Ghost cities whose inhabitants fled or died after the exchange. Someone mentioned Landhut? I checked…regional seat of government and a BMW-factory? Street- and railway hub behind the front? Garrison of Bundeswehr Panzerbrigade 24? Looks not so good, I am afraid.
Münster, where I lived in ’83, would be so multi-targeted (just as during WW2) due to its administrative function PLUS a multitude of British and German garrisons that it is rather boring to speculate about it. Dorsten, where I live now, might be more interesting. While not by itself an interesting target, the MUNA ammunition dump (I am not sure whether British, German or shared at this point of time) to the North, the CWH chemical industries complex in Marl to the East, the refineries in the North of Gelsenkirchen and one of the largest power-plants in Germany, Scholven, both to the South, all make interesting targets each about 3-8 miles away from the city centre. That should do it.
Democracy, I am talking here about the United Kingdom, will probably be reinstated in the mid-term. Although, it probably shall look a lot different from before. A few thoughts: I am not sure if Macragge has told us about it, but there should be someone who can act as King or Queen. Whoever tries to control Britain will have to try doing that, if only as figurehead for a few banal semantical, but maybe not that unimportant reasons called ROYAL Army, ROYAL Navy, ROYAL Air Force…HER MAJESTY’S Government etc. pp. The monarch has no power, but still a great value as a figurehead AND can turn the head of administration into the Prime Minister! Second, I think that neither the Royal inheriting the crown nor a majority of the military resp. administrative staff running surviving Britain are intent to stick to emergency rule longer than necessary. Years maybe…but decades? Suggesting that emergency rule would be upheld infinitely, implies that this is the secret wish of 1980s British military and bureaucracy.
Besides, to add legitimacy to any sort of administration, I see a high probability that a rump parliament will be established as soon as possible, even if only to nod at decisions taken elsewhere (à la “Jericho”’s ASA-Congress…or, actually, most Western Parliaments ;-)?). For the foreseeable future, there will be a “National Coalition” anyways. The longer I think of it, the way I know British sentiment, anybody trying to rule post-war Britain will do well to make it as much as possible a re-enactment of 1940-45. Though the actual situation is of course far worse, there will be plenty of propaganda alluding to exactly the myth of that historical situation “and how all turned out well in the end”. Final side-thought, and I hope to hear a little from our Brits on this; I completely forgot the House of Lords. I have no clue how much influence they had left by that time, but may it be that its role might be a bit more pronounced afterwards, or rather of the hereditary seats? And another idea… might we see a return of rotten boroughs? In the form of nuked boroughs? ;-) Loads of possibilities to manipulate…
But I have to thank to whoever pointed out that war brings out not only the worst, but sometimes also the best in people. It is nuclear war, yes, but not a zombie virus which turns every survivor into a Nazi-asshole.
Concerning the survival of knowledge. I think that there cannot be a comparison to the Dark Ages. In the 1980s, every small town in the Western world should bring up enough books in libraries, offices, businesses and private households to keep things running. And academics and engineers live and work everywhere. But I agree that there will be little high-end-research. If there is research, it will rather go into the direction of making things easier to maintain and more economic. So, the world will be stuck on 1980s tech level for quite some time.
By the way, Dunois. I cannot be thankful enough for your analysis. Even though it goes a bit to the “least-bad”-side, there are a lot of interesting information and good thoughts on it. I also started to think about the North-Sea-oil and the probability to link it to a refinery again. I also wonder if it would be an apt strategy to assess whether it is possible anywhere (generally, Britain is rather benefitted with coal and oil compared to other places in Europe) to establish a hub where coal, petrol, food and energy is available on a rather good level. From this relative island of stability, efforts can more easily spread out to more and more regions?
Concerning currency. I suggest, that the black market will come up with a replacement quickly. Post-war Germany was famous for the cigarette currency.
BTW, someone mentioned a “re-introduction of private ownership” earlier on. So Great Britain turns Khmer Rouge? Come on. Even if the military or other authorities force you to hand over possessions, they are still yours. They were just taken away from you. You may bet that you even get handed a worthless piece of paper in most cases.
A little bit early for battery resources dedicated to this.
Not in relation to the Army.
After 10 years of emergency rule it is going to be difficult to unfuck the state. Quite a large number of commonwealth countries have permanently suspected constitutional government.
Interesting supposition. Given that the last electorate was universal with a reformed commons, and given that a majority of the electorate are going to be held in corvee labour, it is unlikely that the original franchise will be restored. Restoring a non-original franchise is pretty much exemplary of Emergency rule. Any franchise is likely to be riddled with rotten boroughs with a limited personal access to franchise. Instituting constitutional change without the assent of parliament is a key example of permanent emergency rule.
Also, in 1945, UK troops in the field were in mutiny about the unfairness of parliament, and parliament had been held over without election for an exceptionally long period. The results were a landslide away from the government of the day. Orwell's Lion and Unicorn writings ought to help you here.
That is an interesting assertion of universality of a socially constructed phenomena. When requisitions happen with worthless IOUs (and commonly "Babies can't work" without) and without a court for redress, to what extent can you claim this is property?
yours,
Sam R.
Tovarich
Banned
Especially if a handballing Argentinian midget plays in 1986, as per OTL, which would be a good enough excuse for the nuke to Buenos Aires that often gets mentioned in this TL
Should Trevor Baylis survive in this TL, would batteries be an issue?
Indeed, may he not have been inspired to the clockwork-radio earlier?
Quite an interesting question,what happened to Maradona?At this point Argentina is probably in chaos with the nuking of Buenos Aires.To make matters worse the country had just reinstated democratic rule following the military junta years.Raul Alfonsin would have just been democratically elected and been president for barely three months,starting in december 1983.Its hard to say what impact if any the deteriorating international situation would have had on Latin America but it can be assumed that they where the last to actually go on alert.We also don't know what happened to the argentine goverment but most likely they where in the capital and the nukes would have been targeted at the area with the main government buildings.So Raul Alfonsin probably died in the strike alongside 90% of all government officials.Taking into account that,what surviving argentine generals there where probably tried to take over and reinstate military rule.Whether they could or not is hard to say.After the strike the country was probably thrown into chaos with panic taking over in many areas.This leads to the question of whether Brazil,Chile maybe even Paraguay decided to invade.Seeing as the country is collapsing an invasion is actually justified especially if they fear instability to spread further.So at this point we would have most likely a war between Chile,Paraguay and Brazil for Argentina with what remains of the argentine military and probable civilian insurgents trying to fight off the invaders.I find it unlikely for the neighbours of Argentina to have ignored it completely especially in the current international situation.So no more Argentina and a massive South American war are most likely what is happening there.Poor Maradona will never be famous.
I have to agree with this. The Marshal Plan aid is/was such an integral part of the German economic recovery that denying it happened is about as logical as Sealion.
If pressed I could find dozens of period pictures that say (in German) that the building/bridge/whatever has been constructed with Marshal Plan Aid.
COurtesy of the Wayback Machine.
fragments of straight-ish interstate that aren't too blocked will do in a pinch
Don't expect it or the interstate to be in one piece afterwards.
However, in desperation, it's a possibility.
You only really need about 6,000ft to land a 747. Getting up again without anyone or anything in it can be interesting.
I imagine that BA's small fleet of Twotters and Supersheds at the time will be well used, neither has the range to ship people to/from Germany and both have a rough field capability. In fact, to this day, the Twotters land on the beach at BRR.
Glad to be of service, Macragge1 desserve all the help he can get from us readers!
I know very well that my analysis of things tend to lean towards the "least bad" side, but the more I think about the issue, the more my feelings about this are confirmed and strenghtened for several reasons:
-As mentionned in the earlier link, the fuel consumption of agriculture and other essential tasks is pretty low with regards to the total consumption of the entire country.
-Technical and other essential skills will still be widespread, it won't be to the pre war extent that's true, but degree holders in science and engineeing will still be available by the thousands.
-The available foodstocks are likely to be significant once properly recovered and sorted. Grain in silos is one, but stocks lying in warehouses and such everywhere in the country are another obvious source of food. Don't forget that the food needs of the country are 2 to 3 times lower than they once were too.
-Normal restrictions with regards to work practices and such won't apply anymore. Whatever workshops are left intact can now work 24/7 on fixing lorries, making basic machinery and such tasks. Pre war, these would only have worked 60hours each week at most. Similarly there is now a huge pool of available workforce to be used as needed.
There are however obstacles and these are not small at all:
-Command and control: If this breaks down, then everything else will break down with it. If the flow of information breaks down, then everything will break down with it as well. Whether the right/competent people are in charge locally will also be an issue in itself. The picture will be patchy to say the least, but on the other hand we are now in a "pure meritocracy" if you do well you will be rewarded, if you don't then angry mobs will hang you.
-Communications: Linked to the first one, if semi reliable communication can be reestablished within months then things will be greatly helped. Effective communication will also help in knowing what remains available and where it is.
-The human factor: There has already been mention of feuds between the police and the military. That kind of stuff leads to mistrust, which leads to a reluctance in working together, which leads to wastage, which leads to more deaths. Good leaders have to emerge from this mess in order to avoid this. Sadly it can equally go the other way, which Captain x and Mayor y carving their own little fiefdoms.
Except that the situation and still relatively high level of technological know how might allow these to flourish:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio
This is a debate for another subject but academics and economists are very much in agreement as to what the driving force behind the German economic miracle was. The elimination of wage/price controls and the creation of an efficient and well ordered internal market under ordoliberalist principles.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GermanEconomicMiracle.html
Foreign help whether past or present is not a reliable indicator of future economic performance. Britain got the most help from the Marshall Plan post war, plus Lend-Lease and other things during the war. Yet there was no "British Miracle" and rightly so because government policies, poor management and outdated work practices (the shipyards reverted back to their inefficient pre war ways of doing things for example ...) nipped it in the bud.
This is frightening...and inspiring
Reading this and a some other works has led me to get a screenname and join in the fun.
I can't wait to hear what happens next, and I hope this spawn some spin-offs.
Reading this and a some other works has led me to get a screenname and join in the fun.
I can't wait to hear what happens next, and I hope this spawn some spin-offs.
Argentina has good local elites who can lead their country, possibly from Cordoba.Quite an interesting question,what happened to Maradona?At this point Argentina is probably in chaos with the nuking of Buenos Aires.To make matters worse the country had just reinstated democratic rule following the military junta years.Raul Alfonsin would have just been democratically elected and been president for barely three months,starting in december 1983.Its hard to say what impact if any the deteriorating international situation would have had on Latin America but it can be assumed that they where the last to actually go on alert.We also don't know what happened to the argentine goverment but most likely they where in the capital and the nukes would have been targeted at the area with the main government buildings.So Raul Alfonsin probably died in the strike alongside 90% of all government officials.Taking into account that,what surviving argentine generals there where probably tried to take over and reinstate military rule.Whether they could or not is hard to say.After the strike the country was probably thrown into chaos with panic taking over in many areas.This leads to the question of whether Brazil,Chile maybe even Paraguay decided to invade.Seeing as the country is collapsing an invasion is actually justified especially if they fear instability to spread further.So at this point we would have most likely a war between Chile,Paraguay and Brazil for Argentina with what remains of the argentine military and probable civilian insurgents trying to fight off the invaders.I find it unlikely for the neighbours of Argentina to have ignored it completely especially in the current international situation.So no more Argentina and a massive South American war are most likely what is happening there.Poor Maradona will never be famous.
Maradona was already famous and living in Spain (playing for Futbol Club Barcelona) at the time.
That's my feeling too to be honest. Depending on how hard places like South America, Asia and Africa have been hit. I easily see attempts at resolving centuries old grievances and territorial claims by the sword. In South America if Chile has been hit but Bolivia has not, you can bet that the Bolivians will try to regain the sea access they lost in 1883 (they are still mad about it today). Venezuela might try to fullfill its claim on the Netherlands Antilles and on Guyana. Ecuador and Peru might have another go at rectifying their borders in the Amazonas region. Paraguay and Bolivia might again fight over the Chaco region. Brazil does not have any claims on its neighbours but depending on how hard they are hit, I see them flexing some muscles in the areas. Don't forget too that in the case of Brazil, petroleum won't be as much of a problem as it is elsewhere because of their national ethanol programme, which was in full swing then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_in_Brazil
In the Middle East I bet you that whatever is left of Israel is at war with its Arab neighbours once again. Once again, they are likely to loose and to get Cairo, Damas, Baghdad and such nuked in the process as part of the Samson option. India and Pakistan are probably having another go at each others, only with A bombs this time. South East Asia might be relatively ok, but Thailand and Singapore have in all likelyhood been hit due to their strategic importance. As for China well as the pilot says in Red Dawn "they were once a billion screaming Chinese".
In Africa I think that its likely that all the countries which depended on some form of food aid will implode in war and conflict. Zaire will go bust and its insane president Mobutu won't help recovery at all. Angola and Mozambique were in the midst of civil wars and at war with South Africa. They will implode too when the various factions start fighting each other for whatever food stockpiles are left. The Sahel region was suffering famine after famine then and this time there won't be any help from the West. Nevertheless I am tempted to say that some countries might be able to survive and even thrive to a degree in these circumstances.
-Zimbabwe: Remember that this before Mugabe started expropriating white farmers, so the country will be a net food exporter. His iron grip on the country will be of use too if he is able to think about his people first.
-Ivory Coast: The country was well run during the 80s and early 90s, agriculture was performing rather well. The cacao exports to the west are not an option anymore though. Houphouët-Boigny strong hand might help in preventing anarchy from taking over.
-Gabon: A net oil exporter wil a likely intact infrastructure from extraction to refining. The French forces there will probably ensure "cooperation" for the time being. If lucky the country might even get a pick of educated refugees fleeing from France.
There is one potential problem with landing a large aircraft on a road - unless the road is built to the same sort of standards as a runway then the landing attempt will end in a very nasty accident.
informationfan
Banned
some questions
i start to read your timeline...
maybe some of the questions hat been answerd
You describe the full nuclear war, the losses of life are really "low"
London lost 560.000 people out of 7 Mio? right - that is below 10%
You spoke about megaton-bombs, so real heavy bombs.
10 1-megaton-bombs would not only destroy most buildings, it would destroy ANYTHING in the city... so if not only 566.000 people lived in london the moment it got hit your numbers are 10 times to low
another question
you spoke about chemical and biological weapons - who used em and - more important at what time?
you wrote about the tactical nuclear weapons used by the americans at fulda - after that it wasn´t long untill the world had gone.
If biological weapons are used, they are used all over the frontline - so you destroy the whole continent, the us of a, asia - maybe you are lucky with uk, but only in this case
also, you did not mention the nuclear power plants - they are first class targets by sovjet missles - nothing is "more" fun as to destroy a nuclear power plant and give away all the radiation
so you have around 50-60 european powerplants, the us of a is as smart, add around 50 russians and you have now 10.000 tons of burned uranium, polluting the world.
also, you describe the "cleanwashing" effect of the british weather - sorry no.
the whole island will be seriously radiated.
if you remember the 1986 tschernobyl-accident, the radiation came WEST, even with western winds.
Why? because in the stratosphere, the wind directions are different
all these nice mushrooms and air detonations have a price to pay
Oh, i forgot the US of A, here you have enough nuclear power plants to make the thing even "better"
a full world war III is game over - the russians knew it.
So if they attack, they do so to kill the enemy (knowing they die too)
no place to hide, no place to run.
Some people live longer, most die fast
the best place was in central europe - it was over very fast.
If we ignore the direct losses (around 60% of the people in britain), they soon die by radiation.
Also, all the fires will lead to cold dark times - really cold. The experts were uncertain, if "only" 6 Months or 3 years of the nuclear winter... so in february you wiped out the human mankind... 6 months say no sun untill july.... the rest of the people starve... if you find a place for agricultur...
100% kills are
germany
poland
netherlands
belgium
russia
cssr
japan
korea
france
uk (sorry guys - no survivings)
israel
us of a
90% game over (sadly, the long dying)
spain
italy
greece
turkey
mexico
75%
india
china
australia
middle east (oil fields 100%, people 75%)
egypt and the rest of northern africa
50%
canada
southern america (just to remember, the russians will not let em go)
central africa
40%
southern africa
if you want a nuclear world war, you got it.
in 1983 both sides had more as 10 times the weapons to kill any human being - so you have firepower for 20x the world population - just by direct hits
you have not included the losses by dam´s or powerplant radiation, petrochemcical fire or biological weapons
just remember, biological weapons mean, they start it all over the world, not only at a single place
so russian agents spread it in all important western areas.... most is gone by the nasty bombs, but it is enough to kill another 10-15% of the survivors
so you have 30% kills by the nuclear day
20% by the direct consequences - injuries, first radiation doses etc
5% by biological weapons
10% by second hand radiation and poisons freed by accident/war consequences
5% by uproar
10% by starvation in the nuclear winter time
15% by starvation in the time after nuclear winter (many die by radiation)
so you have 5% survivors after 3-4 years, without infrastructure, civilisation or a chance for better times.
or short: game over world
i start to read your timeline...
maybe some of the questions hat been answerd
You describe the full nuclear war, the losses of life are really "low"
London lost 560.000 people out of 7 Mio? right - that is below 10%
You spoke about megaton-bombs, so real heavy bombs.
10 1-megaton-bombs would not only destroy most buildings, it would destroy ANYTHING in the city... so if not only 566.000 people lived in london the moment it got hit your numbers are 10 times to low
another question
you spoke about chemical and biological weapons - who used em and - more important at what time?
you wrote about the tactical nuclear weapons used by the americans at fulda - after that it wasn´t long untill the world had gone.
If biological weapons are used, they are used all over the frontline - so you destroy the whole continent, the us of a, asia - maybe you are lucky with uk, but only in this case
also, you did not mention the nuclear power plants - they are first class targets by sovjet missles - nothing is "more" fun as to destroy a nuclear power plant and give away all the radiation
so you have around 50-60 european powerplants, the us of a is as smart, add around 50 russians and you have now 10.000 tons of burned uranium, polluting the world.
also, you describe the "cleanwashing" effect of the british weather - sorry no.
the whole island will be seriously radiated.
if you remember the 1986 tschernobyl-accident, the radiation came WEST, even with western winds.
Why? because in the stratosphere, the wind directions are different
all these nice mushrooms and air detonations have a price to pay
Oh, i forgot the US of A, here you have enough nuclear power plants to make the thing even "better"
a full world war III is game over - the russians knew it.
So if they attack, they do so to kill the enemy (knowing they die too)
no place to hide, no place to run.
Some people live longer, most die fast
the best place was in central europe - it was over very fast.
If we ignore the direct losses (around 60% of the people in britain), they soon die by radiation.
Also, all the fires will lead to cold dark times - really cold. The experts were uncertain, if "only" 6 Months or 3 years of the nuclear winter... so in february you wiped out the human mankind... 6 months say no sun untill july.... the rest of the people starve... if you find a place for agricultur...
100% kills are
germany
poland
netherlands
belgium
russia
cssr
japan
korea
france
uk (sorry guys - no survivings)
israel
us of a
90% game over (sadly, the long dying)
spain
italy
greece
turkey
mexico
75%
india
china
australia
middle east (oil fields 100%, people 75%)
egypt and the rest of northern africa
50%
canada
southern america (just to remember, the russians will not let em go)
central africa
40%
southern africa
if you want a nuclear world war, you got it.
in 1983 both sides had more as 10 times the weapons to kill any human being - so you have firepower for 20x the world population - just by direct hits
you have not included the losses by dam´s or powerplant radiation, petrochemcical fire or biological weapons
just remember, biological weapons mean, they start it all over the world, not only at a single place
so russian agents spread it in all important western areas.... most is gone by the nasty bombs, but it is enough to kill another 10-15% of the survivors
so you have 30% kills by the nuclear day
20% by the direct consequences - injuries, first radiation doses etc
5% by biological weapons
10% by second hand radiation and poisons freed by accident/war consequences
5% by uproar
10% by starvation in the nuclear winter time
15% by starvation in the time after nuclear winter (many die by radiation)
so you have 5% survivors after 3-4 years, without infrastructure, civilisation or a chance for better times.
or short: game over world