1983 Apocalypse

Dead world. Probably not.

But a realistic case is something like 80% of Americans Die, roughly equaled by Soviet Losses. As Able Archer was a NATO training exercise, We can expect greater devastation in NATO/Warsaw Pact. You must figure that the world political situation is going to need days to use the bomb--the last of which are going to be laced with shrill screams for a people to evacuate. The more warning people have before the attack begins, the more people are likely to survive. If people have months the figure is going to be lower--cities might build municipal bomb shelters that could survive the attack, and there might be large enough food stockpiles to keep 1984 from being an unparalleled disaster. On the other hand, if one side actually all-outs the other with total surprise (like the Soviet Union's system goes offline for 24 hours and the USA takes advantage and nukes the hell out of it), that one side is going to get slaughtered. I don't know that this is really possible, although it MIGHT happen.

1984 is going to compound those losses with worldwide outbreaks of disease and famines. Humanity would probably survive such a war, but it will take humanity roughly 50 years to rebuilt all that it has lost. Mankind is tough, resourceful and undoubtedly a few people will survive the attacks. Indeed, between the resources of survivors from the extended nuclear area (of which there will be many) combined with nature's own resilience suggest that lessons will be learned.

By 1994, humanity would probably be back on its feet again. But it would be on a slipshod basis, with a hard life for the survivors and large patches of hopeless countryside. Eventually, nature takes care of things and washes radioactive fallout and other poisons into the oceans--not that this makes things better for some, but better for most.

The real question is how many nukes? Are the USA and the Soviet Union going to deploy ALL of their nuclear weapons, or just enough to disable their opponent?

Finally, I'd expect humanity to make a full recovery in roughly 2034--such a late date that much of the radioactive fallout will be gone and highly irradiated areas are safe to live in once again. With any hope, the crisis will bring humanity together for its own survival. It seems a trend of humanity to work together--even with former enemies--when the situation demands it. If humanity survives the crucible of nuclear war, the Cold War divisions will fall and large scale war at last becomes unpalatable.
 
Ouch. Reagan in USA, Able Archer in progress, Andropov in Kremlin... evil empire, bombing in 5 minutes...

Though, with such a limited USA first strike, Soviet leadership might decide to wait for at least long enough to see where in the name of are those nukes targeted, with radar failing to detect anything, and no further launches... If USSR is on launch on warning and does exactly that the moment those phantom missiles are detected... world ends. Any limited option or restraint would lead to detecting the falsehood of information and a stand down.
 
Dead world. Probably not.

But a realistic case is something like 80% of Americans Die, roughly equaled by Soviet Losses. As Able Archer was a NATO training exercise, We can expect greater devastation in NATO/Warsaw Pact. You must figure that the world political situation is going to need days to use the bomb--the last of which are going to be laced with shrill screams for a people to evacuate. The more warning people have before the attack begins, the more people are likely to survive. If people have months the figure is going to be lower--cities might build municipal bomb shelters that could survive the attack, and there might be large enough food stockpiles to keep 1984 from being an unparalleled disaster. On the other hand, if one side actually all-outs the other with total surprise (like the Soviet Union's system goes offline for 24 hours and the USA takes advantage and nukes the hell out of it), that one side is going to get slaughtered. I don't know that this is really possible, although it MIGHT happen.

1984 is going to compound those losses with worldwide outbreaks of disease and famines. Humanity would probably survive such a war, but it will take humanity roughly 50 years to rebuilt all that it has lost. Mankind is tough, resourceful and undoubtedly a few people will survive the attacks. Indeed, between the resources of survivors from the extended nuclear area (of which there will be many) combined with nature's own resilience suggest that lessons will be learned.

By 1994, humanity would probably be back on its feet again. But it would be on a slipshod basis, with a hard life for the survivors and large patches of hopeless countryside. Eventually, nature takes care of things and washes radioactive fallout and other poisons into the oceans--not that this makes things better for some, but better for most.

The real question is how many nukes? Are the USA and the Soviet Union going to deploy ALL of their nuclear weapons, or just enough to disable their opponent?

Finally, I'd expect humanity to make a full recovery in roughly 2034--such a late date that much of the radioactive fallout will be gone and highly irradiated areas are safe to live in once again. With any hope, the crisis will bring humanity together for its own survival. It seems a trend of humanity to work together--even with former enemies--when the situation demands it. If humanity survives the crucible of nuclear war, the Cold War divisions will fall and large scale war at last becomes unpalatable.


No, I think you're being too optimistic with that assessment.

All the world trade lines are going to be knocked out by the war. You'll have to consider how they'll be set up again. If there is no international travel by 2034, a unified humanity is not going to occur (not to mention the loss of global communications).

There are at least three wild cards in this scenario that I can think of: China, India, and South Africa. With global trade networks down, China and India will only be able to feed themselves for about the next year (and certainly lots of people are going to starve in 1983-84, regardless). The solution might be to take somebody else's food...maybe China would try to invade Japan, southeast Asia, Australia, and India? That might lead to a massive war in South Asia between the world's two largest countries...

South Africa? The Boers would either be overthrown by the rebellious majority, or they'd have to play extremely dirty, as did Stalin or the government of Ethiopia during the famines of 84-85 in OTL. Apartheid SA might use chemical weapons against rebels, and use famine to starve the rest out.

In fact, China might use this same tactic to win a war against India...
 
Top