Atomic War: a "no New Zealand" protocol?

In many post-apocalyptic scenarios we have isolated areas, such as much of the southern hemisphere, being able to get away scot-free due to being in isolated neutral areas. However, considering the large amount of nukes during the Cold War, would there be enough to hit such places to ensure maximum MAD? And if so, what targets would they be?

Right off the top of my head, I could think of:

Brazil
Argentina
Chile
India/Pakistan (perhaps specific protocols for causing the two to wipe each other out)
South Africa
Nigeria
Australia
New Zealand
 
It wouldn't be maximum MAD, there just wasn't enough nukes to give these states the same plastering that the main two blocs would deal out on each other. There would however be enough to make sure that they weren't intact with the hope that starvation and disease would do the rest.
 
Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Australia, NZ, Pakistan have military alliances with the US. Why would the USSR leave them intact.

Likewise India for the USA?

Nigeria & SA both contain significant British & US economic assets, so I'd expect these to be hit.
 

elkarlo

Banned
It wouldn't be maximum MAD, there just wasn't enough nukes to give these states the same plastering that the main two blocs would deal out on each other. There would however be enough to make sure that they weren't intact with the hope that starvation and disease would do the rest.

I would hope that one of the MAD planners on at least one side, would out of spite, send nukes to south Pacific islands and other isolated ares. Just because, that's why.
 
If they're taking out New York and Washington DC, I'd sure as hell want to take out Soviet bases in Yemen or India or Mozambique.

And if I was a Russian, and about to see my nation wiped out, I don't think I'd let the filthy capitalists keep their BP oil refinery in Nigeria, or copper mines in Chile.

It only takes one or two MIRVed missiles to ruin most small countries. The bigger ones like Australia, maybe 3 or 4. Yes they'd get off lightly compared to say Western Europe, but they'd be messed up bad.

The fun ones, would some countries might get hit by both sides. For example, Angola contains US-owned oil assets, and Soviet/Cuban bases.
 
I think it's just a case of provincialism. Focusing on the suffering in europe and NorAm, not even thinking much about the fate of the USSR. Also assuming things that are crypto racist like "oh Africa is a hellholes anyway there wouldn't be any difference."
 
Most of the maps I've seen would have large parts of the globe torched by nuclear fire if the US ans USSR ever went at it after 1965. Before that the USSR lacks some of the numbers and their means of delivery were not 100% reliable, especially before 1960. If we get all-out conflict after that, especiall in the 1970s or early 1980s, then the Southern Hemisphere will be a better place but only by a small bit. Without the major regional centers of trade and distribution, self-reliance will be paramount. The best areas would likely be places considered "backwater" or "primitive" right now, and the EMP likely to result with a global nuclear conflict would make them more primitive. Personally I think the Pacific Northwest, southern New Zealand, parts of southern Africa, and central South America would probably be in the best shape. But unless you've got some canned foods, useful skills to trade, basic tools, and other preparations (preferrably all of the above), you're still in tough shape.
 
But why wouldn't the targeters spare a few MiRVs for them?

Why would they?

I've never understood the idea people have that in a nuclear confrontation the superpowers would just start throwing nukes around at random. The point of MAD is to guarantee your enemy's destruction if they dare attack you, not to ensure the destruction of all humanity.
 
Well, there are also the ideas that you launch a heckuvalot more nukes at your enemy with the thought that some fail, some fall to countermeasures, and maybe some don't work. I spoke with a an engineer from the Eastern Bloc during the Soviet Era who said they only expected 25% of the nukes to reach their targets, and that might have been optimistic. Rockets, especially early on, were expected to fail. So let's say the USSR launches 5000 nukes. Yes, it will be terrible for *the planet*, but some areas will not be hit by a direct blast.

Please note: The USSR apparently went for a "counterforce" strategy, where they hit our bases and silos with the thought of wiping out our ability to resist. Unfortunately most of these bases were in the Midwest in such a geography that the fallout would head east across the northern Midwest and northeast. If you could stay underground long enough to endure the fallout you might find the South would be the most populous area, followed almost immediately by the Pacific Northwest. Expect 80-95% of the country to die in the process.
 
Why would they?

I've never understood the idea people have that in a nuclear confrontation the superpowers would just start throwing nukes around at random. The point of MAD is to guarantee your enemy's destruction if they dare attack you, not to ensure the destruction of all humanity.

Agreed. It's hard to see any way that New Zealand, just as an example, could have a decisive influence in a USA/USSR generalised nuclear conflict. No matter who "wins", they're in appallingly bad shape even if no warheads land within 1000km of the shore. NZ depends on a wide variety of goods that are only made overseas (example: ball bearings), and a nuclear war will play hell with global trade routes. I have a book called "New Zealand After A Nuclear War", published by the New Zealand Planning Commission in 1987, and the picture it paints even in a scenario with no strikes in NZ is pretty grim.

There's also the fact that it's not enough to just have nuclear warheads, you also need delivery systems to get them to their targets. Not all of the nuclear weapons available were on platforms that could reach any part of the globe. An ICBM that can reach New Zealand is also able to reach the missile fields of North Dakota, and there aren't really all that many such missiles. This goes double if you want to assign more than one warhead to some of your targets, as would undoubtedly be the case.
Many of the Soviet warheads were on IRBMs or as weapons for bombers, and many on both sides were "spares" - not actually mounted on a delivery platform, but intended for reloading platforms that survivde the initial exchange and made it back to rearm.

Teal deer version? Many of the nukes aren't on delivery systems to start with, many more can't reach these minor targets, and there's not much in the way of reasons for attacking them anyway. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, but there's an opportunity cost of sorts associated with attacking places like that.
 
With regards to NZ, ANZUS mutual defense obligations between the USA and NZ were suspended in 1984 after New Zealand banned nuclear armed ships from entering NZ ports (and since the US doesn't disclose which ships carried nukes, it meant all ships were banned).

Pre-1984 NZ was firmly an ally of the USA, and probably would have been hit in the event of major, global nuclear war. NZ has airfields and ports that would be used by the USA and Australia in the event of war.

Even after 1984, I think there are good chances NZ would be hit as well. NZ was a close ally of Australia (and still is), even though relations with the US were complicated. If Australia was a part of the war through ANZUS, I think that NZ would be as well.

In terms of which cities would be targeted, I can only guess. Auckland has the countries naval HQ, Wellington is the capital, and Christchurch has a large international airport where the US Navy, and now NY Air National Guard operate from to the Antarctic. The lose of those three centers would devastate the country- upwards of half NZ's population lives in those cities.
 
Agreed. It's hard to see any way that New Zealand, just as an example, could have a decisive influence in a USA/USSR generalised nuclear conflict. No matter who "wins", they're in appallingly bad shape even if no warheads land within 1000km of the shore. NZ depends on a wide variety of goods that are only made overseas (example: ball bearings), and a nuclear war will play hell with global trade routes. I have a book called "New Zealand After A Nuclear War", published by the New Zealand Planning Commission in 1987, and the picture it paints even in a scenario with no strikes in NZ is pretty grim.

There's also the fact that it's not enough to just have nuclear warheads, you also need delivery systems to get them to their targets. Not all of the nuclear weapons available were on platforms that could reach any part of the globe. An ICBM that can reach New Zealand is also able to reach the missile fields of North Dakota, and there aren't really all that many such missiles. This goes double if you want to assign more than one warhead to some of your targets, as would undoubtedly be the case.
Many of the Soviet warheads were on IRBMs or as weapons for bombers, and many on both sides were "spares" - not actually mounted on a delivery platform, but intended for reloading platforms that survivde the initial exchange and made it back to rearm.

Teal deer version? Many of the nukes aren't on delivery systems to start with, many more can't reach these minor targets, and there's not much in the way of reasons for attacking them anyway. I'm not saying it wouldn't happen, but there's an opportunity cost of sorts associated with attacking places like that.

Good point, I didn't think about delivery systems.

Out of curiosity, where did you find that book?
 
Good point, I didn't think about delivery systems.

Out of curiosity, where did you find that book?

I picked it up in a 2nd-hand book shop in Hamilton (New Zealand) about 10 years ago, I think - what it was doing there I have no idea.
 
That book sounds really interesting. I shall have to see if I can find a copy. I am tenatitively looking an an ASB TL with an isolated NZ and that would be a good research tool.

Anyway, from a delivery perspective, how practical is it for the USSR to actually target NZ at all?

I also get the impression that the USSR had a reasonable presence in NZ and probably thought they knew us reasonably well in the 1980s anyway, so why they would consider us a threat, even with the military alliances being what they were, is hard to see.
 
To wipe out conceivable places for NATO to form a government-in-exile at. Or to prevent the remnants of the PRC from securing a foothold of arable land in its hemisphere.
 
Top