After the Atomic War: What Happens?

Superpower Argentina or Australia maybe but New Zealand no way, sheep instead humans will dominate the world:p.

Let's face it, any nation that survives relatively untouched by the war is a power already.

Australia and Argentina by virtue of already being developed economies that aren't likely to be in on the war are going to already become superpowers relative to the rest of the world.
 
This is something that kinda stands out to me as a greedy 'Merican that needs to be number 1: really, is everyone else gonna survive that well? I mean, the group seems to be going with the thesis that America, the USSR, and Europe will get burned to cinders, but everywhere else will be perfectly ok (well, ok, not perfectly, but well enough). Will that really be the case? There'll be no nukes heading toward India (I know, neutral) or South Africa or any of those? Or, barring that, the economic situation of losing imports and foreign markets and foreign investments in the blink of an eye won't destroy the foundations of these nations, nor would extreme weather wreck havoc?
 
Australia during the Cold War would be heavily targeted. Might be a little better off than CONUS but not much.
It's a matter of give and take... Assuming the Sovs go into serious f*** you mode to neutrals and lesser western powers Australia's heavy industry and population would be relatively easy to target (the state capitals plus a handful of regional centers), but at the same time we don't have the number of hardened targets requiring ground bursts to neutralize as the US or Soviet Union, so we'd be better off in term of reduced fallout.
 
This is something that kinda stands out to me as a greedy 'Merican that needs to be number 1: really, is everyone else gonna survive that well? I mean, the group seems to be going with the thesis that America, the USSR, and Europe will get burned to cinders, but everywhere else will be perfectly ok (well, ok, not perfectly, but well enough). Will that really be the case? There'll be no nukes heading toward India (I know, neutral) or South Africa or any of those? Or, barring that, the economic situation of losing imports and foreign markets and foreign investments in the blink of an eye won't destroy the foundations of these nations, nor would extreme weather wreck havoc?

It depends on who you ask. Many people are of the view that the Soviets and the US, or maybe just the Soviets, would bomb at least the capital of basically every country that might even think about supplying aid to their rival, or of being a threat some day in the post-war world. I, personally, am of the view that that doesn't make any sense.

The collapse of export-import markets is a more serious matter, and would cause a great deal of hardship. But, countries that don't import substantial quantities of food, oil, or other critical materials, should be okay in the long run, assuming nuclear winter isn't too severe. Argentina, for example, has plenty of food and, while they're a net oil importer, their imports are only 10% of their domestic production. So they should be okay.

South Africa is a net food exporter, but they import a lot of oil. Fortunately for them, they're close enough to Angola that they might be able to source it from there.
 
Frankly I find the idea that outside the core allies of both blocs, the rest of the world is being unmolested, to be hard to swallow by the 70s, and ludicrous by the 80s.

If you're firing 20,000 nukes at each other, you're going to reserve a portion, even if it's just a couple of percent for taking your opponents secondary allies and sympathesizers, as well as overseas assets (such as industrial plants), and forces deployed overseas. Additionally, nuclear war will be fought on the high seas, and ports which provide a haven to enemy ships or trade may be nuked. And this quite aside from a motive that post-war you don't want some neutral neighbour to move into your territory (something I am sure the USSR would consider).

As far as the USSR is concerned:

Apart from NATO, A/NZ, Japan, China, other probable targets in all out exchange would presumably include at least some of:

AMERICAS:
- Most countries in the Americas are at least nominally US allies, esp. Mexico, Brazil, Argentina & Columbia
- Panama Canal is an obvious target
- Oil targets in Venezuela

AFRICA:
- Egypt is US ally after 1973
- Ethiopia is a US ally prior to the revolution
- S.Africa is an enemy (Rhodesia too until 1979)
- Nigeria home to BP assets
- Kenya - British base
- French forces scattered around Africa in various countries
- Portuguese colonies in Africa prior to 1975

MIDDLE EAST
- Israel
- Iran (prior to 1979) is enemy, and contains US assets. Even after 1979, I think the Soviets would prefer not to leave an undamaged Iranian regime on their border if their own country is wrecked.
- Saudi, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, UAE - Western oil assets. Saudi also has US AWACs after 1979.
- Oman = British ally
- Cyprus - neutral, but British bases

SE ASIA & OCEANIA
- S. Vietnam (prior to 1975)
- S. Korea
- Taiwan
- Philippines (US ally)
- Malaysia (British ally)
- Singapore
- Pakistan, inc. E.Pakistan (prior to formation of Bangladesh) - US ally

EUROPE:
- Sweden, Austria, Ireland & Switzerland - all neutrals, but surely perceived by the USSR as ultimately in the Western camp.

OTHER:
Scattered US & British & French bases around the world, like Falklands (Mount Pleasant), Ascension, Diego Garcia, various US bases in Pacific, French Pacific nuclear test site, etc.

As far as the US is concerned:

Other probable targets in addition to USSR, Mongolia + Warsaw Pact, in all out exchange would presumably include at least some of -- in most cases because they are Soviet allies, and contain significant numbers of Soviet/WP/other-communist troops, bases or advisors

Cuba
Angola (after 1975)
Mozambique (after 1975)
Ethiopia (after revolution)
Other countries in Africa with Soviet bases
Egypt (prior to 1973)
Syria
Iraq
Libya
possibly Algeria
N.Korea
Vietnam (or N.Vietnam prior to 1975)
Yemen
Afghanistan (after 1979)
possibly India (has an alliance with USSR)
 
It depends on who you ask. Many people are of the view that the Soviets and the US, or maybe just the Soviets, would bomb at least the capital of basically every country that might even think about supplying aid to their rival, or of being a threat some day in the post-war world. I, personally, am of the view that that doesn't make any sense.

The issue is that a lot of neutrals have significant contingents of Western or Soviet forces and/or advisors present. Many also contain bases. For example, Yemen contain Soviet Backfire bomber bases. Do you think the US is going to leave those bases alone in an all-out war with the Soviets?

Or do you think the Soviets are going to leave 5,000 French troops with armour and air support unmolested in Chad?

This is also quite aside from the fact that a lot of so-called neutrals are actually allies of one of the super-powers. For example, all of the Americas has a military pact with the US, India has a pact with the USSR, etc.
 
The issue is that a lot of neutrals have significant contingents of Western or Soviet forces and/or advisors present. Many also contain bases. For example, Yemen contain Soviet Backfire bomber bases. Do you think the US is going to leave those bases alone in an all-out war with the Soviets?

Or do you think the Soviets are going to leave 5,000 French troops with armour and air support unmolested in Chad?

This is also quite aside from the fact that a lot of so-called neutrals are actually allies of one of the super-powers. For example, all of the Americas has a military pact with the US, India has a pact with the USSR, etc.

I'm not saying they wouldn't hit anybody outside of NATO. I should have been more clear; I'm thinking of a couple of people who've claimed that there wouldn't be a single country on Earth that wouldn't receive at least one strike.

I do think your list is a little long, though. I don't think the Soviets would bother with most of South America outside of the Panama Canal and the Venezuelan oil facilities, for instance, and I don't think the US would bother with India.
 
What do you suppose happens in the nations which are perceived as small and insignificant like San Marino, Luxemburg, Liechtenstein, Andorra and Monaco? (The Vatican is obviously toast.) Would they be able to survive? If so, would they see some expansion in the post-nuclear world?
 
You are the USSR. Do you leave Argentina & Brazil, both US allies, with substantial fleets including a carrier, when you have a good chance of taking out the carrier, or a significant part of the fleet, by taking out a port or two. Worst cas simply the supporting infrastructure. Likewise for their substantial airforces which have a significant amount of combat power.

As far as India is concerned, I agree the US might not hit them, it's marginal, as the main reason to take out India is to protect Pakistan. However, China has a lot more reason to take India (and is also more closely allied to Pakistan). I don't think China would be wild about leaving the Indian armed forces, intact, on their border, while their own forces were destroyed by the USSR.

Yes, of course we don't know for sure which countries might be hit, but anywhere perceived to contain a significant amount of hostile military power or a superpower base/troops/advisors would surely be seriously considered.
 
I recall that in case of atomic war, there was a plan to whisk the US government away into hiding and have different areas function like the White House and Sentate. Does anyone know what I'm referring to?

I don't know how well that emergency government would function. It seems like it'd have the head still intact but, depending on the devastation, no ability to exert its power.

There's also the prospect that an attack could occur to fast to react, thus rendering that plan null as the members would have been killed or unable to get to their safe areas.
 

Macragge1

Banned
I recall that in case of atomic war, there was a plan to whisk the US government away into hiding and have different areas function like the White House and Sentate. Does anyone know what I'm referring to?

I don't know how well that emergency government would function. It seems like it'd have the head still intact but, depending on the devastation, no ability to exert its power.

There's also the prospect that an attack could occur to fast to react, thus rendering that plan null as the members would have been killed or unable to get to their safe areas.

American War Plans since the early '60s revolved around keeping the President airborne during the attack, either aboard Air Force One or a 'Looking Glass' communications aircraft, from where he can direct the war. Once the initial exchange is over, the President (or his successor) will try to head either for Mount Weather, Virginia, or Cheyenne AFB in Colorado.
The Pentagon plan was to relocate to Raven Rock, in Pennsylvania - Cheney allegedly ended up here during 9/11.

Communications would be sketchy at best, and it is unlikely that anything approaching nationwide communications would come about for a long time. The President (whether the surviving pre-war one or the highest-ranking surviving successor; one story has the Secretary of the Environment ending up as President) would have little real power, at least in the short run, and there would be little provision for the Senate or any other democratic body to operate, and even less possibility of any edicts being acted upon.

More information here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan
 
*Bump*

Question: Will this lead to a medieval society? Perhaps the Hippie communal style could become a norm if it occurs in the 60s? What would become of technology and standard of living?
 

Macragge1

Banned
*Bump*

Question: Will this lead to a medieval society? Perhaps the Hippie communal style could become a norm if it occurs in the 60s? What would become of technology and standard of living?

Personally, I don't think a medieval societal level is likely to come about following a nuclear exchange. Whilst obviously any hard-hit area will be seriously traumatised, there will still be reminders everywhere that we are in 1962/1984 or whatever rather than the dark ages. The military will still drive vehicles and fly aeroplanes, billboards will still advertise washing machines and Coca-Cola, and in many areas, modern cities will stand (at least superficially) intact.

The mentality of the survivors is key; though they will be shocked, they will still remember a time of general elections, civic services, The Beatles etcetera. Combined with the fact that any continuity government, however harsh, will be pushing for reconstruction or at least the maintenance of basic civilisation, I reckon it would be a big step to have a full on societal regression happen.

Hippie style communes in the '60s face a problem with regards to the violent nature of a post-attack society. Firstly, the majority of power will now be held by the military, who are obviously at odds with that sort of thing. Secondly, in any areas not held down by the military, looting is going to be such a problem that any vaguely pacifist types are going to be rolled up pretty quickly. Whilst a commune-type thing that takes some cues from the culture is very possible, it would have to be so well-armed that it wouldn't really be a 'hippy' thing anymore.
 
I don't think either side would launch an all-out nuclear assault. Rather, I suspect a limited exchange from both sides, tens of millions dead, with a negotiated cease fire.
 
Yeah, in retrospect, the more devastating and extensive the potential impact became, the lower the probability of it happening in the first place. So, the most likely point for it to occur might be the early 1960s (i.e. Cuba and/or Berlin goes hot), with falling probability after that...
 
Yes, of course we don't know for sure which countries might be hit, but anywhere perceived to contain a significant amount of hostile military power or a superpower base/troops/advisors would surely be seriously considered.

The problem is none of the declassifed US/USSR Cold War documents on nuclear warfare scenarios supported this notion of nuking the neutrals. It's quite a popular idea and one can say that the true proofs are still classified, but the IR community generally give very short credibility on this idea.
 

DISSIDENT

Banned
New medieval period isn't that far off in my opinion.

Most major cities, and with them, most industrial centers and universities are going to be smoking radioactive holes in the ground. Millions, if not billions, would be dead.

I think you'd basically get a situation where the governments are obliterated outright or barely survive as brutal local civil defense authorities.

I think the US would be in the brutal local civil defense authority category. Frankly I think government would have collapsed in the UK in a nuclear war in the 80s.

I think after you would end up with starving and desperate refugees living at a subsistence farming level, though maybe with basic electricity and stuff.
 
Top