AHC: Collapse of the US by the 90's?

The Soviets had the world's largest nuclear arsenal at the time. Russia inherited it from its superpower predecessor, and its arsenal is still the largest in the world. The Soviet Union had the capability to kill every single man, woman and child in Britain and France, and most of the entire world. Britain and France would not be insane enough to use nukes, because they would know that nuclear missiles would rain on every single one of their cities.
They don't need to kill everyone, the USSR is not willing to contemplate the 10's of millions of dead that a French or UK nuclear strike would entail, it won't kill the USSR but it will hurt it

If the USSR is already in France or has already used nukes there is no reason not to use nukes, it is game over in that case already
 

amphibulous

Banned
I gotta admit, that made me laugh. In all honesty, though, I realize my scenario is a little extreme and wasn't meant to be a totally serious exercise; however, an extremist in office probably could do a quite a bit of damage, though, especially one as nasty as Sam Francis or David Duke.

Have you read up on the the Klan's brief control of Indiana before WW2? (The whole thing comes apart after one especially nasty rape.)
 

amphibulous

Banned
The Soviets had the world's largest nuclear arsenal at the time. Russia inherited it from its superpower predecessor, and its arsenal is still the largest in the world. The Soviet Union had the capability to kill every single man, woman and child in Britain and France, and most of the entire world. Britain and France would not be insane enough to use nukes, because they would know that nuclear missiles would rain on every single one of their cities.

1. You know nothing about nuclear strategy. Half the point of having tactical and intermediate level weapons is too create a blurry risk-filled choice - so if the USSR attacks, the UK doesn't nuke Moscow immediately, but 10K's of Russian troops die in minutes. The USSR then either backs down or retaliates, and the next stage is towns being used as logistics points. If the US leaves NATO, the only thing that changes is that the British and French can kill 40% of the Russian population instead of 95%. This is not, except to a crazy person, a meaningful change in deterrence.

(Once again, Planet Earth says "CHINA!")

2. You're implicitly assuming, which is very foolish indeed, that if the USA detached from Europe that the Germans wouldn't have acquired nuclear weapons. In fact they'd probably have obtained at the first sign that this might happen.
 
The Soviets had the world's largest nuclear arsenal at the time. Russia inherited it from its superpower predecessor, and its arsenal is still the largest in the world. The Soviet Union had the capability to kill every single man, woman and child in Britain and France, and most of the entire world. Britain and France would not be insane enough to use nukes, because they would know that nuclear missiles would rain on every single one of their cities.

Once your nuclear arsenal is big enough to obliterate the enemy country as a functioning entity, it doesn't matter how many more nukes you have. Anything beyond that is pointless.

So the Soviets could nuke every city and town in the UK 8 times, and the UK could only nuke every city in the USSR once? I fail to see how the USSR is any better off than the UK.
 
well, you could have

a) Tenerife collapses into the ocean in the Canary Islands and sends a 100 meter tall wave towards the Eastern US Seaboard
b) New Madrid fault erupts and takes out the Midwest
c) Yellowstone goes off
d) California earthquake 8+ knocks out SF or LA

Have all of these occur in a period of less than 6 months. The religious right will swell and you could get a religious demagogue in charge under the wrong circumstances. Add in a stock market crash or OPEC embargo for icing on the cake and things could get *really* nasty. I've considered writing for such a scenario where things really do look like the "end of the world" - because the fall of the US sends the global economy into a death spiral, bush wars break out almost everywhere, and only about three dozen recognizable nations are left standing. Needless to say the Southern Hemisphere becomes the better place to live, if only by default

yeah, that is a way I have always think how could US be destroyed
is strange that noone could have tried
 
Which would stop them from unleashing annihilation on Russia after it invaded their territory how exactly?

France had a standing policy that if any Soviet troops set foot in their territory they were going to make Western Russia glow in the dark.

Russia could simply give France a choice: occupation or annihilation. The Soviet Union was big, it could probably survive a British or French nuclear strike. Of course, the Soviets probably would not invade for this very reason. They would not want nukes on their cities either, and if they would nuke Europe, there would be nothing or no one left to dominate. My take is that they would work to destabilize Europe through the KGB.
 
Outside nuclear war or a massive natural disaster, it's hard to imagine such a steep decline that essentially turns America into a post-apocalyptic-ish no man's land.

Maybe Goldwater does win in '64 somehow (seems impossible, but who knows) and decides to ramp up Vietnam and then lobs a nuclear bomb out that way to end the war. I don't know if that would even be on the table, but based on rhetoric, at least back then, jokingly or not, he seemed at least open to the idea.

I think at that point, you could have a scenario play out where the entire fabric of America comes undone and we collapse into what the OP originally outlined.

The protests at home would be remarkable. The outcry from the world impossible to ignore and hell, probably retaliation from the Soviets. Either way, a nuked Vietnam could trigger World War III and the end of it all - or at least the end of America as we knew it.
 
The Soviet Union was big, it could probably survive a British or French nuclear strike.
And a human can survive without limbs, sensory organs and some other organs (one kidney, one lung, a few yards of guts...)...

The Soviet Union was big, but there was a lot of empty or otherwise nuking-irrelevant space. You don't have to literally nuke the whole thing to destroy it as a political entity.
 
And a human can survive without limbs, sensory organs and some other organs (one kidney, one lung, a few yards of guts...)...

The Soviet Union was big, but there was a lot of empty or otherwise nuking-irrelevant space. You don't have to literally nuke the whole thing to destroy it as a political entity.

The British and French did not have enough to go after every single Soviet city. And the Soviet leadership would be safely nestled in Yamantau.
 
The British and French did not have enough to go after every single Soviet city. And the Soviet leadership would be safely nestled in Yamantau.
And they would be willing to contemplate tens of millions dead just to attempt to turn France or the UK into very restive puppets?

The Soviet Leadership is not Stalin and even Stalin would be loathe to do this, the USSR's economy would be destroyed and they would be reduced to a third world country overnight
 
And they would be willing to contemplate tens of millions dead just to attempt to turn France or the UK into very restive puppets?

The Soviet Leadership is not Stalin and even Stalin would be loathe to do this, the USSR's economy would be destroyed and they would be reduced to a third world country overnight

I was just discussing what WOULD have happened. If you saw a previous post, I said that the Soviets would try to manipulate the Europeans through the KGB. I was just discussing the effects of a hypothetical and near-impossible scenario.
 
Top