Boris Yeltsin Nukes The US

[jakefeatherstone]

Well, depends on how the Russians react. I would hope Clinton would be called on the Hotline with an attempt to figure out why WWIII would be just minutes away. And Yeltsin was apparently sober that morning.

So presuming we get all heck breaking loose, things end badly. Most of the northern US will be wiped out, especially east of the Rockies as the fallout from strikes in the Midwest settles across the Eastern Seaboard. Most of the southeastern US is also toast though the Appalachians might have some surviving areas, a few very large pockets especially. Texas is likely toast, but outside of Hoover Dam and Coastal California there are large parts of the Intermountain West that will still be intact. Europe will be in severe danger while the USSR itself is largely destroyed. Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia are likely the new Big Five with India and Pakistan possibly on that list as well. Watch for American/European refugees to flee south to civilization and set up expat communities. A new UN will be set up and nuclear weapons will probably be banned almost immediately. I would estimate 3-4 billion dead when all was said and done, especially if China collapses into civil war as its economy starts to decline. Japan and South Korea will probably be heavily targeted but *might* be able to survive In some form, especially Japan. The fate of Taiwan is also uncertain.

Look for eventual resettlement and rebuilding of the affected areas over time but the teenagers of that time will be in their late 30s or early 40s by the time life returns to some sense of normalcy. Internacine warfare will be a problem, especially as agriculture must reemerge and warlord states will come and go.

I generally agree. However, would the Russians even bother with a counter force strike on Midwestern missile silos if they believed the Americans had launched first? All those pretty nukes might instead be tasked to counter value targets, meaning that smaller settlements in the US and Canada will be plastered than would otherwise be the case. Instead of a 10% survival rate 5 years post attack, it might be 2 %.

 

[James G]

Yes. It'll be billions dead, not tens of millions, and not just the US and Russia. Most of the death will come from the collapse of civilization caused by the bombs, not the bombs themselves. After 5 years the only things that will remain of the once great nations of America and Russia will be a few tens of millions of highly scattered survivors eking out a marginal existence in whatever agricultural areas remain uncontaminated. I'd expect relatively more Americans to survive due to a greater abundance of hospitable climates and a more geographically diverse population. Maybe 10% will live, we'll give the Russians 5%. I'd certainly be dead.

Hell, global thermonuclear warfare may not be my specialist subject, but I don't think that there is any evidence of a nuclear winter (summer?) scenario like this ever coming about.
The Soviets may have spread some nice stories to some gullible people in the West, but that doesn't mean that any of the above possible scenario could ever occur outside of Terminator-3.
'Billions dead' - really?
End of the world?
This is the Russian Federation in the 1990's we're talking about.

 

[fscott]

Hell, global thermonuclear warfare may not be my specialist subject, but I don't think that there is any evidence of a nuclear winter (summer?) scenario like this ever coming about.
The Soviets may have spread some nice stories to some gullible people in the West, but that doesn't mean that any of the above possible scenario could ever occur outside of Terminator-3.
'Billions dead' - really?
End of the world?
This is the Russian Federation in the 1990's we're talking about.

I agree also if a Nuclear winter works why don't we use it to stop global warming. The worse part of this Scenario is the Russians were given advance notice of this launch it never made its way to the right people.

 

[The Vulture]

I agree also if a Nuclear winter works why don't we use it to stop global warming.

When a fly is loose in the house, is your first instinct to lob hand grenades at it?

 

[BlondieBC]

Why would the Russians launch a full strike when there is only a single missile in the air?

If anything, they would assume it was an accidental launch and try to evacuate Moscow.

EMP burst. Theoritically good way to start nuclear war. Or just being taking out Moscow hoping to decapitate Russian leadership.

 

[asnys]

I agree also if a Nuclear winter works why don't we use it to stop global warming.

The idea is under consideration.

Of course, you don't want to use actual nuclear weapons to do this. That would be ludicrous. Instead, current proposals focus on using either high-flying aircraft or lofting long pipelines into the upper atmosphere with balloons. These would then be used to disperse particulates such as sulfates, which would block incoming sunlight - essentially a mild, deliberate "nuclear winter". The idea is still in the feasibility study stage, but current estimates are that the temperature increase due to global warming could be entirely cancelled out for about $20 billion per year - quite a bargain.

However, the idea has some obvious drawbacks. First, it doesn't remove CO2 from the air, so you would have to keep doing this forever at ever-increasing cost, and it does nothing to stop ocean acidification. Second, attempting to deliberately modify a system we only poorly understand has the potential for significant unforeseen consequences. Even the handful of scientists working on the idea describe it as an absolute last-resort fallback plan that they pray will never have to be used.

 

[Emperor Julian]

The idea is under consideration.

Of course, you don't want to use actual nuclear weapons to do this. That would be ludicrous. Instead, current proposals focus on using either high-flying aircraft or lofting long pipelines into the upper atmosphere with balloons. These would then be used to disperse particulates such as sulfates, which would block incoming sunlight - essentially a mild, deliberate "nuclear winter". The idea is still in the feasibility study stage, but current estimates are that the temperature increase due to global warming could be entirely cancelled out for about $20 billion per year - quite a bargain.

I don't think that's what the term "Nuclear Winter" is used to describe.

 

[asnys]

I don't think that's what the term "Nuclear Winter" is used to describe.

It's using particulates lofted into the upper atmosphere to block sunlight. The particulates are sulfates lofted by planes instead of ash lofted by the heat of burning cities, but the principle is the same.

I should probably stop derailing the thread, however.

 

[jakefeatherstone]

Hell, global thermonuclear warfare may not be my specialist subject, but I don't think that there is any evidence of a nuclear winter (summer?) scenario like this ever coming about.
The Soviets may have spread some nice stories to some gullible people in the West, but that doesn't mean that any of the above possible scenario could ever occur outside of Terminator-3.
'Billions dead' - really?
End of the world?
This is the Russian Federation in the 1990's we're talking about.

I didn't say a single thing about nuclear winter, did I? You must not read very accurately. I said civilization in the Northern Hemisphere would end (for all intents and purposes). The Russian Federation in the 90s may have been pretty pathetic, but there's nothing pathetic about the nuclear arsenal the Soviets left them. Civilization in the Southern Hemisphere would survive, though many states would collapse. Some states in the Northern Hemisphere would likely survive, albeit at greatly reduced levels.

Most Americans would die of starvation and disease, not the actual bombs. You don't need a nuclear winter to die of exposure. In the past they didn't have things like heating oil deliveries and electricity. Basically, the only people who will live are the ones who survive the bombs and who have access to adequate local food and water resources.

Yes, billions dead. It's hard to say what would happen to countries like India and China, but even if they aren't directly hit it's extremely doubtful that centralized government there would survive. That's a few hundred million dead from civil war and starvation, plus a likely 90 % 5 year fatality rate in the US, Russia, and Western Europe.

 

[Nicola]

Isn't America also kind of screwed? after all, didn't Russia have a bigger stockpile of nukes at that point?

at that point in time

US, British and French nukes ; declared numbers = working maintained devices = potential to achieve hits

Russian and former USSR nukes ..,. exactly how many actually under Russian control and how likely they eill even get off the ground never mind hit a target ..