1983: Doomsday - What are your opinions on this fictional world after a nuclear exchange in 1983?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you don't know what that 1983: Doomsday is, check this link https://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/1983:_Doomsday.

Stanislav Petrov was at the Nuclear Bunker at the time and was instead replaced by somebody who actually believed the United States launched nuclear warheads straight to Soviet Russia which made the Soviet Union to launch it's nuclear warheads to America. In reality, this never happened, but the alternate timeline of 1983: Doomsday shows what the other results reveals.
 
I think it's too optimistic. I doubt anything resembling human civilisation could survive such a cataclysmic exchange. Australia and the Celtic Federation in particular seem a bit idealistic.
 
ASB in the extreme. Some highlights:

- The existence of massive, relatively highly populated entities in Europe, most obviously in the Germanies when in all reality there should be nothing much more than city states at best in the case of Germany.
- Despite real issues with reliability and accuracy in Soviet strategic forces, as well as the obvious constraint of only having about 1,300 ICBMs and a few hundred SLBMs, the ex-United States was butchered enough it only has about 30 million people in CONUS. This is rather weird, given the above point.
- Despite American nuclear parity and exceptional second strike capabilities in the form of USN Boomers and SAC Bombers, major Soviet cities in Siberia weren't hit for some reason and the USSR survived as a major global power. Despite being focused in Siberia, somehow the Soviets also still have more people than CONUS does as of the present in the ATL.
- Somehow, the Soviets targeted Australian cities despite it being out of range of most of their ICBMs and despite the fact they never had plans to target anything beyond American intelligence installations within Australia.
- Despite Sat communications and doing things like re-establishing LORANN, for some reason the U.S. government in exile in Australia never learned about surviving State governments in the West, despite the plot hole of establishing Reagan did have communication with them prior to his disappearance and Bush somehow knew about it; this suggests Bush was apparently an Australian puppet in shutting down said government in exile.
- As an addendum to the above, Mexico had survived and the U.S. was well aware of this, yet somehow they didn't know about surviving State Governments/entities in places such as Texas and along the Gulf Coast.
- The 101st Airborne somehow survived intact, relocated to West Virginia because Fallout 76 is better in real life apparently, and then randomly became a Communist dictatorship in the mold of North Korea in terms of Anti-Americanism despite all the soldiers and officers have previously served in the U.S. Army faithfully and had taken oaths to the Constitution. Besides apparently attempting Hill Billy Juche, they also decided to, for reasons unknown, start making AK-47s; apparently the author thought they needed to be move overt with the North Korean like feel.
- Despite extensive surviving assets in places like Kentucky and Michigan, surviving regular Military and National Guard forces never manage to get into contact with the Government in exile until around 2010.
- Apparently all Americans forgot they were Americans and decided to live out Mad Max, adopting new nationalisms/identities within less than a generation and proceed to radically butcher each other. This stretches the belief particularly in the case of the nations of the NAU, with Mormons randomly deciding they will not join a re-born US despite their long history of striving to be ideal Americans and to achieve Statehood. Also, the fact Indians previously living on reservations, dirt poor and struggling with things like Alcoholism randomly form a nation in the Dakotas and wage war against surviving State Governments despite their territory being overwhelming non-Indian and their aforementioned socio-political structures being completely incapable of doing such.
- Israel apparently having Rogue Squadron in the IDF, given they managed to shoot down ICBMs with fighter jets, equaling nearly half of all launched at them and no one else does this. This is especially comical given that it is established the NATO navies nearby off Lebanon, despite having equally trained and equipped pilots and forces, and, yah know, being mobile unlike the nation of Israel, get butchered by Soviet nukes. Somehow, despite its small size, Israel is also able to survive and even expand despite still taking nukes to the face.

I could go on, but it should be rapidly apparent how insanely ASB the TL is.
 
Last edited:
I agree that it's hardly realistic. The USSR should be just as collapsed as the US and Europe should largely be a dead-zone.

- Despite real issues with reliability and accuracy in Soviet strategic forces

Minor quibble but accuracy (although this is relative given we're speaking of nuclear warheads in the mid-hundred kiloton to megaton-range), sure. But reliability issues? Soviet strategic missiles were only marginally less reliable then their US counterparts and this is without taking into account that the Russians fire off their oldest and least reliable missiles in their rather regular tests. The logic is that if they succeed, then the rest of the fleet is likely in decent shape. If they fail, then it gives the technicians an idea of what needs additional maintenance.

In fact, back in the 1990s the Russians ran a missile test where one of their Delta-IV boomers emptied every last missile in it's compartment, the only time thus far a boomer has done so. Every single missile worked to expectations. If that was the state of reliability of Russian ICBMs in the 90s, when Russia was at her economic-militarily most vulnerable, then the functioning of the better resourced 1980s strategic missile fleet was probably far better.
 
I find the soviets one the most un realistic I just find it near impossible that they in 10 years become a massive global power that reclaims most of its territory and UNITED KOREA that would never happen especially after nuclear war
 
I agree that it's hardly realistic. The USSR should be just as collapsed as the US and Europe should largely be a dead-zone.

Minor quibble but accuracy (although this is relative given we're speaking of nuclear warheads in the mid-hundred kiloton to megaton-range), sure. But reliability issues? Soviet strategic missiles were only marginally less reliable then their US counterparts and this is without taking into account that the Russians fire off their oldest and least reliable missiles in their rather regular tests. The logic is that if they succeed, then the rest of the fleet is likely in decent shape. If they fail, then it gives the technicians an idea of what needs additional maintenance.

In fact, back in the 1990s the Russians ran a missile test where one of their Delta-IV boomers emptied every last missile in it's compartment, the only time thus far a boomer has done so. Every single missile worked to expectations. If that was the state of reliability of Russian ICBMs in the 90s, when Russia was at her economic-militarily most vulnerable, then the functioning of the better resourced 1980s strategic missile fleet was probably far better.

In 1983, of the 1,300 or so ICBMs the Soviets had, about 500 were of the early 60s-early 70s vintage, which were well known to have issues given how early in the development cycle of ICBMs there were from. It also wasn't until the 1990s they developed the accuracy and capabilities that NATO had assigned to them in the early 1980s. Most figures I've seen is that, between reliability issues, accuracy relating to CEP and possible interception methods, somewhere around 5-10% of missiles would fail to hit their targets. This is why the USSR often assigned multiple missiles to targets, in order to best ensure success.
 
In 1983, of the 1,300 or so ICBMs the Soviets had, about 500 were of the early 60s-early 70s vintage, which were well known to have issues given how early in the development cycle of ICBMs there were from.

Huh? The last of the early-60's missiles exited service in 1976. The oldest Soviet design in service by 1983 had entered service in 1975, five years after the first Minuteman-III.

It also wasn't until the 1990s they developed the accuracy and capabilities that NATO had assigned to them in the early 1980s.

Which means they had already developed them in the 80's, because Russian arms development largely stalled out in that period for lack of funds and no new capabilities were introduced. That Delta-IV test I was talking about? It happened on August 6th 1991.

somewhere around 5-10% of missiles would fail to hit their targets.

That figures actually considerably better then what I saw, which was around 30% average as opposed to 25% with US missiles. Although maybe the count was for warheads failing to hit their targets and not missiles.
 
Huh? The last of the early-60's missiles exited service in 1976. The oldest Soviet design in service by 1983 had entered service in 1975, five years after the first Minuteman-III.

You're correct, I forgot the UR-100 was from 1966 instead of earlier in the decade. As for the accuracy issues:

Although the numerical composition of the Soviet force was well known to U.S. intelligence, the capabilities of the deployed missiles were much harder to assess. Gradually, the question of the counterforce potential of the new force became increasingly contentious among U.S. analysts. Different assumptions about the accuracy of the Soviet missiles and therefore their ability to attack hardened targets, or about the ability of Soviet silos to withstand a U.S. attack, led to dramatically different conclusions about the intent of the Soviet military buildup.

When the Soviet Union began deploying its first MIRVed ballistic missiles in 1974, the consensus of the U.S. intelligence community was that the accuracy of these missiles, though better than those deployed in the 1960s, was no greater than about 0.25 nautical miles (470 meters) circular error probable (CEP). At that time, the U.S. intelligence community estimated that the Soviet Union could improve the accuracy of its next generation of missiles, to be deployed in the early 1980s, to 0.15 nautical miles (280 meters).[22] These estimates meant that the Soviet Union did not have a significant counterforce capability and likely would not achieve one until the mid-to-late 1980s.

This consensus was challenged by the Team B panel, which had been charged with evaluating the Soviet missiles’ accuracy as part of its mandate. Although the U.S. intelligence community initially contested the conclusions of the panel, National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) issued after 1976 generally assumed a higher level of accuracy (about 400 meters) for the first-generation of Soviet MIRVed missiles.[23] The revised estimate of the missiles’ accuracy from 470 meters to 400 meters was not a significant change in itself, for it did not fundamentally alter the estimate of the counterforce capability of the Soviet ICBM force. Combined with other developments, however, this revision proved highly consequential.

One development was the apparent change in the timeline of the Soviet missile modernization program. In October 1977 the Soviet Union began flight tests of the modified versions of its SS-18, SS-19, and SS-17 missiles with “improved tactical-technical characteristics.” These versions were known as the R-36MUTTH, the UR-100NUTTH, and the MR UR-100UTTH, respectively.[24] The U.S. intelligence community apparently considered these to be modernized versions of missiles that were not expected to arrive until the early-to-mid-1980s. Accordingly, U.S. intelligence estimated that the “UTTH” missiles had achieved a level of accuracy of 0.12–0.15 nautical miles (220–280 meters).[25]

Improved accuracy was indeed a main goal of the “UTTH” modernization program. According to Russian sources, most of the improvements were concentrated on the post-boost vehicle and the missile guidance system. Missile frames were almost unaffected, although the number of warheads carried by the R-36MUTTH missile increased from 8 to 10.[26]

The Soviet modernization program did result in improved missile accuracy, but it remained significantly lower than in U.S. estimates. Figure 1 shows the results of flight tests of the MR UR-100UTTH missile, which indicate that the CEP, demonstrated in the test series, was about 400 meters. The R-36MUTTH and UR-100NUTTH missiles demonstrated similar performances.[27]Based on the results of these tests, Soviet military planners estimated that the accuracy of the “UTTH” missiles was 350–400 meters. These values, as well as the accuracies of other Soviet ICBMs, are presented in Table 2, along with data on the yield of the missiles’ warheads.[28]

As the data indicate, the U.S. estimates significantly overestimated the accuracy that Soviet missiles were able to demonstrate in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The Soviet Union did indeed develop missiles with accuracies as high as 220 meters, but these missiles—the R-36M2 (SS-18 Mod 5) and the RT-23UTTH (SS-24)—were not deployed until 1988. In fact, the Soviet Union had not made the decision to proceed with the development of these two missiles until 1983.

U.S. estimates of the accuracy of the Soviet missiles had a direct effect on the projections of the counterforce potential of the Soviet ICBM force. Figure 2 shows projections made by the U.S. intelligence community in 1978 and 1979 of the number of Minuteman silos that could survive a two-on-one Soviet attack.[29] These estimates remained largely unchanged in the early 1980s; for example, in 1981 an NIE reported that “in a well-executed strike Soviet ICBMs would have the potential—using two RVs [reentry vehicles] against a Minuteman silo—to achieve a damage expectancy of about 75 to 80 percent today, and about 90 percent by the mid-1980s.”[30] Figure 2 offers a comparison of these estimates, with the estimate of the missiles’ actual capability that takes into account the data on accuracies and yields presented in table 2, as well as the actual composition of the Soviet ICBM force.[31] As Figure 2 demonstrates, only in 1991 did the Soviet Union barely reach the counterforce capability that the U.S. intelligence community reported it had achieved a decade earlier.

Which means they had already developed them in the 80's, because Russian arms development largely stalled out in that period for lack of funds and no new capabilities were introduced. That Delta-IV test I was talking about? It happened on August 6th 1991.

I'm talking about 1990/1991, so that fits and the technology was certainly being developed over the course of the 1980s. Thats certainly irrelevant in both cases to 1983, however.

That figures actually considerably better then what I saw, which was around 30% average as opposed to 25% with US missiles. Although maybe the count was for warheads failing to hit their targets and not missiles.

Given ICBMs and their MIRV packages, both might be right; 5-10% of missiles fail, meaning 25-30% of warheads don't hit their target. Do you happen to have a source handy for the citation though? 25-30% failure rates sounds more fitting for ICBMs in 1963 then 1983, and the one example I could find was 15% in 1988 for the Americans.
 
You're correct, I forgot the UR-100 was from 1966 instead of earlier in the decade. As for the accuracy issues:

Oh, I don't dispute the accuracy issues. Frankly, I don't put much stock in either sides accuracy figures even today for one simple reason: all tests have been east-west, nobody's actually fired one of these things over the Pole. Now in practice we should probably be thankful that is the case, but god knows what the accuracy of an actual over-the-pole launch would look like.

I'm talking about 1990/1991, so that fits and the technology was certainly being developed over the course of the 1980s. Thats certainly irrelevant in both cases to 1983, however

Hmm... some poking around indicates that the missiles were of the R-29 family, first fielded in 1974. The specific variant entered service in 1986 which isn't too far. Given it's the same basic design, I doubt reliability would be too different. The Russians are still using it until the Borei come online, although it was modernized again in 2007.

Given ICBMs and their MIRV packages, both might be right; 5-10% of missiles fail, meaning 25-30% of warheads don't hit their target. Do you happen to have a source handy for the citation though? 25-30% failure rates sounds more fitting for ICBMs in 1963 then 1983, and the one example I could find was 15% in 1988 for the Americans.

It was in a book called something like Nuclear War in the Near-Future or something like that. It was a few years back and I'm citing off of memory. The figure stood out to me at the time, although I'm pretty convinced by this point it was talking about warheads and not missiles. Your book doesn't offer any cites for it's own claim, although maybe that's just not available for the preview.
 
Last edited:
I think it's too optimistic. I doubt anything resembling human civilisation could survive such a cataclysmic exchange. Australia and the Celtic Federation in particular seem a bit idealistic.
Especially since the USSR had ridiculous amounts of engineered smallpox, Ebola, plague, anthrax etc ready to use against the West in the event of a full exchange.
 

Deleted member 82792

I liked how they made Australia a global superpower.
 
Australia and Brazil become superpowers with most of the Nothern Hemisphere destroyed in the nuclear exchange. Celtic Nation is the successor state to the former UK but the Southern Hemisphere survives.

Mexico somehow survives DD
 
The Soviets managing survive and become a world super war 10 years after the war broke what little suspension of disbelief that I had.

The northern half of Eurasia shouldn't even be habitable much less Siberia.
 
If you don't know what that 1983: Doomsday is, check this link https://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/1983:_Doomsday.

Stanislav Petrov was at the Nuclear Bunker at the time and was instead replaced by somebody who actually believed the United States launched nuclear warheads straight to Soviet Russia which made the Soviet Union to launch it's nuclear warheads to America. In reality, this never happened, but the alternate timeline of 1983: Doomsday shows what the other results reveals.
It has Jogaila Morkūnas be chosen the Duke of a reestablished Lithuania (in Samogitia) for God knows what reason.

In 1983.

Please.
 

Deleted member 82792

Do we have a list of celebrities/famous people who are currently alive in TTL?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top