Atomic War: a "no New Zealand" protocol?

Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Australia, NZ, Pakistan have military alliances with the US. Why would the USSR leave them intact.
Well NZ plain isn't worth it, with a population smaller than Moscow, little if any manufacturing, and being stuck in the middle of nowhere. Better to use those nukes on somewhere that can actually do anything to you.

I've always wondered why. Is there any reason for this, or are many post-apocalyptic writers living in Australia somewhere?
No, it's just that the Southern hemisphere isn't really worth throwing nukes at.

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.
It's like 10,000 km from Auckland to Vladivostok, and you can add another 500 km For Christchurch. Those planes are on a one-way trip even if they do survive the Soviet air defences.
 
Well NZ plain isn't worth it, with a population smaller than Moscow, little if any manufacturing, and being stuck in the middle of nowhere. Better to use those nukes on somewhere that can actually do anything to you.

No, it's just that the Southern hemisphere isn't really worth throwing nukes at.

It's like 10,000 km from Auckland to Vladivostok, and you can add another 500 km For Christchurch. Those planes are on a one-way trip even if they do survive the Soviet air defences.


I agree, my crude measurements (looking at a map) indicates that NZ would be at least 10,000 kilometres, give or take, from the former USSR at the closest points. Further crude research on my part indicates that the Soviet armoury's reach is roughly about that far. So the Soviets would be needing to really want to hit us, in order to make it worth the cost. I would imagine that they would instead need to use SLBM and even then, why would NZ be targetted.

Australia however, well that might be more tempting
 
Well NZ plain isn't worth it, with a population smaller than Moscow, little if any manufacturing, and being stuck in the middle of nowhere. Better to use those nukes on somewhere that can actually do anything to you.

No, it's just that the Southern hemisphere isn't really worth throwing nukes at.

It's like 10,000 km from Auckland to Vladivostok, and you can add another 500 km For Christchurch. Those planes are on a one-way trip even if they do survive the Soviet air defences.

Some months ago the NZ prime minister met his Russian counterpart part of this conversation included what would happen to NZ in WW3 and how much warning NZ would have. After some consultation with his military aides the answer was ''fourteen minuites, but I'll phone first''
As for '' Well NZ plain isn't worth it, with a population smaller than Moscow, little if any manufacturing, and being stuck in the middle of nowhere. We are quite proud of godzone and happy to be where we are thank you.... youre not an aussie are you?:p
 
I agree, my crude measurements (looking at a map) indicates that NZ would be at least 10,000 kilometres, give or take, from the former USSR at the closest points. Further crude research on my part indicates that the Soviet armoury's reach is roughly about that far. So the Soviets would be needing to really want to hit us, in order to make it worth the cost. I would imagine that they would instead need to use SLBM and even then, why would NZ be targetted.

Australia however, well that might be more tempting

Australia is pretty certain, according to the book I mentioned earlier, to receive at least three ground-burst strikes. There were US communication facilities at North-West Cape, Pine Gap and Nurrungar which were expected to be targeted by seperate warheads. An expanded strike list was possible, but considered somewhat less likely. This would have included attacks on naval facilities at Cockburn Sound, Canberra, Darwin RAAF base, and another unspecified major eastern city, all accompanied by a high-altitude EMP (which would have covered NZ as well).

To put this in perspective, this is in the context of a large-scale nuclear war in the Northern Hemisphere, with strikes beginning on key military targets, escalating to secondary military targets, then the military-industrial base and finally attacks on economic targets. The study assumes over 10,000 warheads are used in total, with a combined yield of around 6,000 megatons.

For anyone interested in tracking down the source material for these decisions, the book refers to:
* Ball, D, 1983. Targeting for strategic deterrence. Adelphi Papers No 185. International Institute for Strategic Studies, London
* Pringle, P. and Arkin, W, 1983. SIOP. Sphere Books, London.
 
Last edited:
Hey, I think being a small, unimportant country in the middle of no-where is actually a good thing for us, defencewise!

Until the mooted Resource Wars start, or a extreme lunatic (Zombie Hitler) arises, this is probably the best defence we could ever have
 
Hey, I think being a small, unimportant country in the middle of no-where is actually a good thing for us, defencewise!

Until the mooted Resource Wars start, or a extreme lunatic (Zombie Hitler) arises, this is probably the best defence we could ever have

I agree. just taking the pi$$ with my last comment:D
 
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?

Answering the second part first, the USSR could certainly hit New Zealand if they wanted to badly enough. SS-18 ICBMs could reach, although as the missiles with the highest throw-weight I'd be surprised if they weren't tasked to more important targets. Bombers probably couldn't reach NZ, even on one-way flights, unless they could find somewhere at least 3000km closer to take off from. Which leaves SSBN's as the most likely method, and IIRC the missiles on the Delta-class SSBNs only had a range of up to 3000km. If they're close enough to hit NZ, they're probably out of range of anything else except eastern Australia (and even that is pretty marginal).
So yes, they could nuke NZ if they decided to. But doing so would require the use of assets which are probably better used against other targets, so the question of what they're intending to achieve by doing so becomes even more relevant.

Getting back to the book, it's ISBN is 0-908601-56-5. It's only 160-odd pages, so I don't mind scanning a bit of it if there's something in particular you want. PM me and let me know if the mood grabs you.
 
Answering the second part first, the USSR could certainly hit New Zealand if they wanted to badly enough. SS-18 ICBMs could reach, although as the missiles with the highest throw-weight I'd be surprised if they weren't tasked to more important targets. Bombers probably couldn't reach NZ, even on one-way flights, unless they could find somewhere at least 3000km closer to take off from. Which leaves SSBN's as the most likely method, and IIRC the missiles on the Delta-class SSBNs only had a range of up to 3000km. If they're close enough to hit NZ, they're probably out of range of anything else except eastern Australia (and even that is pretty marginal).
So yes, they could nuke NZ if they decided to. But doing so would require the use of assets which are probably better used against other targets, so the question of what they're intending to achieve by doing so becomes even more relevant.

Getting back to the book, it's ISBN is 0-908601-56-5. It's only 160-odd pages, so I don't mind scanning a bit of it if there's something in particular you want. PM me and let me know if the mood grabs you.


Thanks for the ISBN and the original reference, I've actually ordered it now, so no need to scan, but thanks for the offer all the same
 
Don't forget the premise of that great post-apocolypse novel ON THE BEACH. The Southern Hemisphere survives the initial onslaught of World War III, but only until the massive radiation starts working its way south...
 
The Soviet had a few choices to lob at NZ and other minor targets without breaking a sweat.

Pacific Fleet
7 x Golf III Class SSB(As of 1974) 3 x R-21A
4 x Hotel Class SSBN(As of 1968) 3 x R-21A
12 x Yankee Class SSBN(As of 1972) 16 x R-27 or R-27K
8 x Delta I SSBN(Starting 1974-1977) 12 x R-29 or R-27K
10 x Delta III SSBN(Starting 1976-1980) 16 x R-29R, R-27RK or R-27RL



R-21A
  • Deployment Date: 1963
  • DoD designation: SS-N-5 Mod 1
  • Submarine: Golf III and Hotel
  • Maximum range: 1650 km
  • Warhead: 1 : 800 kt
R-27
  • Deployment Date: 1968
  • DoD designation: SS-N-6 Mod 1
  • Submarine: Yankee
  • Maximum range: 2000 km
  • Warhead: 1 : 1.0 Mt
R-27K
  • Deployment Date: 1973
  • DoD designation: SS-N-6 Mod 2
  • Submarine: Yankee
  • Maximum range: 3600 km
  • Warhead: 1 : 1.0 Mt
R-27U
  • Deployment Date: 1973
  • DoD designation: SS-N-6 Mod 3
  • Submarine: Yankee
  • Maximum range: 2980 km
  • Warhead: 3 : 200 Kt
R-29
  • Deployment Date: 1974
  • DoD designation: SS-N-8 Mod 1
  • Submarine: Delta I
  • Maximum range: 7700 km
  • Number Standard Warheads: 1 : 1 Mt
R-29D
  • Deployment Date: 1977
  • DoD designation: SS-N-8 Mod 2
  • Submarine: Delta I and Delta II
  • Maximum range: 9100 km
  • Number Standard Warheads: 1 : 800kt
R-29R

  • Deployment Date: 1979
  • DoD designation: SS-N-18 Mod 1
  • Submarine: Delta III
  • Maximum range: 6,500 km
  • Number Standard Warheads: 3: 200kt
R-29RK

  • Deployment Date: 1979
  • DoD designation: SS-N-18 Mod 2
  • ASCC designation: "Stingray"
  • SALT designation: RSM-50
  • Submarine: Delta III
  • Maximum range: 6,500 km
  • Number Standard Warheads: 7: 100kt
R-29RL

  • Deployment Date: 1981
  • DoD designation: SS-N-18 Mod 3
  • Submarine: Delta III
  • Maximum range: 9,000 km
  • Number Standard Warheads: 1: 450kt
It would not take much effort to send the Golfs or Hotels to those out of the way places to spread the joy around and keep everyone at the same level of misery.

It also keeps them out of the way of ASW forces if they sortie early enough since the missiles do have a limited range.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget the premise of that great post-apocolypse novel ON THE BEACH. The Southern Hemisphere survives the initial onslaught of World War III, but only until the massive radiation starts working its way south...

Which was a scary thought back then but now with what we know is a fooish premise.
 
Australia however, well that might be more tempting
Well Darwin's a little over 6,000 km from Vladivostok, so t's certainly going to go.

As for '' Well NZ plain isn't worth it, with a population smaller than Moscow, little if any manufacturing, and being stuck in the middle of nowhere. We are quite proud of godzone and happy to be where we are thank you.... youre not an aussie are you?:p
No, true born Kiwi. And none of our numerous good points (famous people in many fields, brilliant can-do attitude and beautiful country) makes up for the fact that we're not even close to being self-sufficient, or threatening.
 
Which was a scary thought back then but now with what we know is a fooish premise.

On The Beach presumed that most of the nukes used were cobalt-salted. Nobody has done an above ground test of such a nuclear weapon, but I'm led to believe that impromptu conversion of regular nukes to such isn't too challenging. It's not inconceivable that a nuclear power might decide to go 'Samson' with its few remaining nukes if it perceived it were losing.
 
On The Beach presumed that most of the nukes used were cobalt-salted. ...
It's not inconceivable that a nuclear power might decide to go 'Samson' with its few remaining nukes if it perceived it were losing.

True, the book did - the Russians wanted to kill of a whole lot of Chinese, the Chinese wanted to get rid of the Russians but leave their machinery intact, and as for the Albanians... well, I'm not quite sure why they started it all in the first place, to be honest.

But, at risk of injecting a note of rationality into the discussion (always risky where nukes are concerned!), it's hard to see what would be gained by the 'Samson' option. If a state is going to lose a nuclear war anyway, how does it benefit them to wipe out everyone else?
 
True, the book did - the Russians wanted to kill of a whole lot of Chinese, the Chinese wanted to get rid of the Russians but leave their machinery intact, and as for the Albanians... well, I'm not quite sure why they started it all in the first place, to be honest.

But, at risk of injecting a note of rationality into the discussion (always risky where nukes are concerned!), it's hard to see what would be gained by the 'Samson' option. If a state is going to lose a nuclear war anyway, how does it benefit them to wipe out everyone else?

Since when has a leader thought rationally?
 
TBut, at risk of injecting a note of rationality into the discussion (always risky where nukes are concerned!), it's hard to see what would be gained by the 'Samson' option. If a state is going to lose a nuclear war anyway, how does it benefit them to wipe out everyone else?
Simple, so their enemy cannot win and inherit the earth, if we can't have it then no one can
 
Top