DBWI: No Sino-Soviet nuclear exchange

I think "major force" is a bit of an overstatement when compared to the US or Japanese navy but I will admit that the ANZECANUK alliance was a big help in keeping much of Oceania and the islands of South East Asia within the Commonwealth's sphere of influence. I find it ironic that the British Empire's supposed decolonization turned out to be just a name change to the British Commonwealth. The British backed coup in Burma that installed a pro-Western government in '72 was just icing on the cake. It never ceases to amaze me how much the China-Soviet war destabilized so many of the Communist and Socialist satellite states.

You're right. But they're definitely not a force to be discounted.

Yeah... It's thanks to the war that South-East Asia ended up being divvied up between the Commonwealth and the Manila Security Pact. Though mind you, I still think the region's better off with those two powers than under Communism.

Though not all the old satellite states ended up going... East Germany's still going, albeit a much more democratic version thereof.

God, Bonn is seriously unhappy with them - as long as East Germany continues to refuse to join the EC, so does the rest of Central and Eastern Europe... And meanwhile, Berlin's basically creating their own EC out of the old Warsaw Pact...

OOC: I figure that a surviving East Germany isn't that unlikely - even when Germany did reunify, there was opposition, so there'd be a lot more opposition if the USSR went down the tubes earlier. Plus, if you read political/military analyses of the era, there were plenty of predictions that Germany would remain divided (General Sir John Hackett being the obvious example).
 
Though not all the old satellite states ended up going... East Germany's still going, albeit a much more democratic version thereof.

God, Bonn is seriously unhappy with them - as long as East Germany continues to refuse to join the EC, so does the rest of Central and Eastern Europe... And meanwhile, Berlin's basically creating their own EC out of the old Warsaw Pact...

OOC: I figure that a surviving East Germany isn't that unlikely - even when Germany did reunify, there was opposition, so there'd be a lot more opposition if the USSR went down the tubes earlier. Plus, if you read political/military analyses of the era, there were plenty of predictions that Germany would remain divided (General Sir John Hackett being the obvious example).

Keeping West and East Germany divided hunt Western Europe a lot. France whats East to join West become they hope it would hunt both both nations. France was never happy about losing power to West Germany of the West EC, and then East Germany owe EC. They a reason why England left the EC.

OOC: Umm....I don't see why West and East could not rejoin. What would the west do? Attack? And even then, both Germany's would run both EC's
 
Last edited:
One is almost frightened to discuss what the civil rights situation would be like in a world that didn't face the changes made. For instance, would the Johnson administration be able to get Abe Fortas onto the Supreme Court, or the idea of passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) by 1977, would have been considered ASB in a world without the political circumstances that were created....
 
Oh yeah. The Republic of Korea is only behind in Japan in Asia. Korea is a powerhouse. Its a damn shame that North Korea got nuked twice. Parts are still radiated I heard. Other than that though, Korea pretty much controls the southern half of Manchuria (not that there's anything there anymore).

Japan did alright. The radiation hit them a bit but they're still up and running like most of Korea.

Taiwan.... Still struggling to take back the mainland. How long has the war between the Nationalists and Communists been going on for? Ever since Bejing got nuked and wiped out the Communist government. North is Communist, South is Democratic. And with the US backing Taiwan.... its looking bloody.
 
Taiwan.... Still struggling to take back the mainland. How long has the war between the Nationalists and Communists been going on for? Ever since Bejing got nuked and wiped out the Communist government. North is Communist, South is Democratic. And with the US backing Taiwan.... its looking bloody.

Well, at least the Tibetans managed to become free again. They're well out of it.

Yeah...the situation in China's awful. And let's be honest: Taiwanese territory has basically seen a resurgence of warlordism - half the 'special military governors' in Southern China are involved in the illegal drugs trade, and run their provinces like their own private fiefdoms.
 
Well thank god my home country Korea is doing well.... I think they hit #9 on the economies of the world.

China meanwhile.... A bloody mess. How many people died so far? 700 million since the first nukes fell?

And yeah. Taiwan itself is fine on the island. On the mainland, everyone is corrupted.
 
Well, at least the Tibetans managed to become free again. They're well out of it.

Yeah...the situation in China's awful. And let's be honest: Taiwanese territory has basically seen a resurgence of warlordism - half the 'special military governors' in Southern China are involved in the illegal drugs trade, and run their provinces like their own private fiefdoms.

Well, Tibet have to deal with India. China getting destroy was, in a way, great for India.

And that's why the British stay out of the Taiwanese territory, AKA, the massacre that happen.
 
The Soviet Union bounced back well all things considered.

Do you think they'll get back with the Siberians? Things are looking that way, but there's plenty of Siberians who're just fine with being their own nation still...

Maybe the Space Race actually goes on instead of stalling out too

Well it's back with a vengeance. The Japanese landing on the Moon in 2010, and their agreement on a joint base with America by 2025, shows that.
 
Well, at least the Tibetans managed to become free again. They're well out of it.

Yeah...the situation in China's awful. And let's be honest: Taiwanese territory has basically seen a resurgence of warlordism - half the 'special military governors' in Southern China are involved in the illegal drugs trade, and run their provinces like their own private fiefdoms.

I work for Hormel foods, and I did a couple supply runs in China, mostly because I needed the money bad, and you don't need to worry about little things like back ground checks or experence.

Lets get things strait about china as some one who's been there.

Lets go over it all bit by bit.

Tibet, they got lucky during the exchange they were not hit at all. The chi coms decided to try to rebuild china here. They failed, badly. The locals resented them, India wanted a buffer state and had a load of refugees who wanted their home land back, and then the chi coms tried to black mail india by messing with their water.

Heres an outdated map of china that the chi coms use.

chinese_provinces-map.gif

Once they were kicked out the remnant forces decided to settle mostly in Quinghai, other remnants flocked to them. They claim all of china but really only control the western half of the province at best.

I sold bulk packages of spam and water to them, they paid us back with scrap metal and what ever else they could get. Poverty here is bad really bad but their arguably the nicest guys in the area. Which tells you just how bad their neck of the woods is.

You go north from that and you hit the buffer states.

Mongolia got inner mongolia after the exchange and kicked out what few Han residents remained. Which wasn't a whole lot. The Russians created a puppet state out of the XinJang. Their talking about changing the countries name but they also kicked out the Han.

Korea took over the collapsed north and split machuria between mongolia, Siberia and themselves. I spent a couple runs in the area last year.

Mongolia...

Mongolia claims a lot of land but they don't have the numbers to keep it. Their economy runs off of mining and resource extraction. They sell raw materials to the koreans and get goods in return. People are happy with that deal.

Korea, south of the old DMZ korea is a techno wonderland. The place oozes money, get above that and things start looking shabby. Its not bad but its well like mexico city. Its livable but not as nice as the south. Then you get to the new territories. The people here are mostly miners, work for the army, or are people who just could not cut it in korea proper.


The ROC

Taiwan is a techno marvel equal to Japan and the good parts of Korea. Then you get to the mainland.

The ROC claim the whole of china. What they actually control is the coastal areas of Fujian up to Shandong. These area's are actually recovering their much poorer then Taiwan but its like living in east germany during the 70s. Crappy shabby but livable.

Rule of law exists on the coast and its actually pretty safe.

It gets bad as you go inland, the ROC simply does not have the money or the resources or the people to retake china. No one wants to live in the inland areas. So you get one of three types of people who try to man the frontier.

One is new recruits they transfer out as soon as they can in the ROC army the interior is considered a rite of passage but once you have done a year you pull your stuff and transfer out.

Two is corrupt officials and criminals, Taiwan has a policy of giving sentenced criminals a choice between serving on the frontier or in prison.

Finally number three the screw ups and misfits who simply can not make it any where else. Theres a lot of corruption in the frontier but the ROC areas controled areas are still better than.


The warlords.

The rest of china is wasteland, small city states and rampaging warlords. The city states vary, some of them are hell holes, but some are like Shaolin and are actually pretty nice places to live, by chinese standards.


For those who want to do a run here are some rules.

1. Keep driving, never ever stop for any one.

2. Always keep yourself armed.

3. Don't think with your ho haw.

4. Sleep in the trucks, eat your rations and stay out of local affairs.

5. If your Russian or have a Russian last name stay out.

Seriously the Chinese hate Russians with a crazed kind of intensity. My convoy was running with this guy named Sasha who ran guns. He was big, macho and made a few comments to the little old ladies of the village we were in.

They tore him apart.

6. Be polite.

7. Have small things to share, tea for example works great. Personally I keep a large sack of fun sized skittles and give them to the local kids.

8. Finally watch the mood of the comunity, if the locals are scared you should be scared too, if the locals are angry get out of there, if their happy then get ready to do some trading.

chinese_provinces-map.gif
 
What if the Sino-Soviet nuclear exchange of 1969 never happened?

As the numbers say, millions upon millions of Chinese were killed in the initial exchange, with millions more dying from the lack of authority in the countryside, and hundreds of thousands overseas suffering from the effects of the radiation.

Well, for one, I don't think Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale would have been elected(as President and Vice President!) on the "Peace Ticket" in 1976, for one thing; the horrors of that war had turned enough people against nukes that we made our moves to begin disarming in the '70s. Hell, it wasn't until 1988 that we elected George H.W. Bush(and that was mainly only thanks to a split between the Democrats and the revived Progressive Party, who won the 2008 and 2012 elections.), and he was only in office for one term before Geraldine Ferraro won the '92 elections(and '96 after that)!
 
Well, for one, I don't think Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale would have been elected(as President and Vice President!) on the "Peace Ticket" in 1976, for one thing; the horrors of that war had turned enough people against nukes that we made our moves to begin disarming in the '70s.

Well, the whole 'Disarming nukes' thing ending in the 80's. I mean, you can't be a super-power without Nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited:
Well, for one, I don't think Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale would have been elected(as President and Vice President!) on the "Peace Ticket" in 1976, for one thing; the horrors of that war had turned enough people against nukes that we made our moves to begin disarming in the '70s.

It was less 'disarmament' and more 'arms limitation'. No country that has acquired or developed nuclear weapons has ever given them up willingly. The Chinese don't count as their arsenal was either expended or destroyed, and their capacity to make more was obliterated outright.

The US still has an arsenal of ~5,000 nuclear weapons. About 1,000 are mounted on ICBM or SLBM type missiles. The remainder are tactical weapons such as short-range missiles, bombs and depth charges.

The Russians have about 5,000. That's roughly what they had left over after they ruined China. They're believed to have ~1,000 mounted on ICBM or SLBM type missiles, with a greater bias towards ICBMs that the US. The remainder are tactical weapons with a great emphasis on missiles and very few depth charges. ASW isn't quite the priority for Ivan as it is for the US. They are believed to have roughly the same number of airdropped bombs as the US.

France and the UK each have about 600-800 nuclear weapons. Their main deterrent is mounted on a jointly-developed SLBM and in each case accounts for about half of the deployed arsenal. The remainder are air dropped bombs and depth charges.

South Africa developed the bomb in the late '70s and got away with it. They're believed to have ~100 devices, all of which are air dropped bombs of varying yield.

India got the bomb in '74 and never looked back. Best guess is that they've got about 300-400 weapons, most air dropped bombs with some mounted on ballistic missiles. India recently tested a viable ICBM.

Other countries with significant nuclear arsenals include Canada (~400), Australia (~200-250), Pakistan (~150) and Brazil. (~400) Israel is suspected of possessing a fair sized nuclear arsenal, but they've refused to admit it and no-one else has produced convincing evidence either way.
 
OOC: I serious don't believe America would get rid of it's nuclear weapons.

OOC: I didn't necessarily imply that, but you seemed to imply that they did, in your response following that, so I ran with it.....maybe it was a typo?

It was less 'disarmament' and more 'arms limitation'. No country that has acquired or developed nuclear weapons has ever given them up willingly. The Chinese don't count as their arsenal was either expended or destroyed, and their capacity to make more was obliterated outright.

The US still has an arsenal of ~5,000 nuclear weapons. About 1,000 are mounted on ICBM or SLBM type missiles. The remainder are tactical weapons such as short-range missiles, bombs and depth charges.

The Russians have about 5,000. That's roughly what they had left over after they ruined China. They're believed to have ~1,000 mounted on ICBM or SLBM type missiles, with a greater bias towards ICBMs that the US. The remainder are tactical weapons with a great emphasis on missiles and very few depth charges. ASW isn't quite the priority for Ivan as it is for the US. They are believed to have roughly the same number of airdropped bombs as the US.

France and the UK each have about 600-800 nuclear weapons. Their main deterrent is mounted on a jointly-developed SLBM and in each case accounts for about half of the deployed arsenal. The remainder are air dropped bombs and depth charges.

South Africa developed the bomb in the late '70s and got away with it. They're believed to have ~100 devices, all of which are air dropped bombs of varying yield.

India got the bomb in '74 and never looked back. Best guess is that they've got about 300-400 weapons, most air dropped bombs with some mounted on ballistic missiles. India recently tested a viable ICBM.

Other countries with significant nuclear arsenals include Canada (~400), Australia (~200-250), Pakistan (~150) and Brazil. (~400) Israel is suspected of possessing a fair sized nuclear arsenal, but they've refused to admit it and no-one else has produced convincing evidence either way.

OOC: Sorry to break this to you, RCAF, but this isn't going to be terribly realistic at all ITTL; hell, you basically just mainly copied the OTL situation in a lot of places(and just arbitrarily tacked on Brazil and Canada), which wouldn't really make sense in this world. I can possibly see India developing a few if Pakistan gets ahold of some missing materials but not much else, and the same for Australia as well.

IC: Erm, what? First of all, the U.S. only has about 1,200 active weapons, not 5,000; that was circa 1980.

According to Jane's(link to their Internet site), as of 2008, the U.S. had 756 ICBM warheads, with 392 SLBM devices available for both strategic and naval uses, and we do have 176 tactical warheads, most of them airdropped. We do have the capability to manufacture more if we ever absolutely needed to, but that's not likely to happen any time soon.....and, by the way, they also inform us that Russia(the numbers you cited were from 1970, 22 years before the dissolution of the U.S.S.R.), circa 2010, only has 1,042 nukes in their arsenal(572 ICBMs, 285 SLBMs, and the rest are tactical, about 3/5ths of them also airdropped), and, like the U.S., none of the missiles are launch-on-warning, as per the 1977 Bern treaty. Your U.K. and France numbers are also a little off(StratFor says 797 and 618 respectively circa autumn 1981)

Also, Canada only built about 160 weapons, mostly under the Stanfield and Turner administrations(the projection was 400 by 1987-88), but the program was canceled in 1982 by PM Broadbent.....although this wasn't made public until 1987; as of 2009, Canada no longer has any nukes.

South Africa was forced to eliminate their program, in 1990, following international sanctions after the mass gassing of Gaborone during the Bush Wars in June 1988(some weapons did go missing, however!), and Israel voluntarily began a reduction in 1994, under Yitzhak Rabin; they still have about 50, but none of them are launch-on-warning, as of 2010.

India only began their program in 1974 following Pakistan's confirmed acquisition of stolen Soviet materials the prior year; they did have about 400 in 1993-94(mostly airdropped, but did have a few dozen ICBMs), but that number has likely been greatly reduced, according to most intel sources.

As for Australia, their own program started in 1972 after the Malacca Crisis(fuckin' Suharto! :mad:), and had 287 bombs in 1990, compared to Indonesia's 105; however, though, both countries only have 72 and 35 respectively, and according to this BBC report from 2012(Link), both countries are on the verge of an agreement to destroy the last of them by 2020.

And, finally, Brazil(first bomb in 1974) only had 100 nukes in 1988, and eliminated all of them by 1997; they have not entirely stopped the program, but aren't likely to restart building anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
IC: Erm, what? First of all, the U.S. only has about 1,200 active weapons, not 5,000; that was circa 1980.



Israel voluntarily began a reduction in 1994, under Yitzhak Rabin; they still have about 50, but none of them are launch-on-warning, as of 2010.

India only began their program in 1974 following Pakistan's confirmed acquisition of stolen Soviet materials the prior year; they did have about 400 in 1993-94, but that number has likely been greatly reduced, according to most intel sources.

India and Israel most likely have nuclear weapons in the thousands. Thous are just lies. Brazil most likely still got a lot

OOC: No way would Israel voluntarily began a reduction of any WMD. Ever....

Same goes for India, and in fact, most of the world. I ever shall, or will see any nation, from the US, to Israel, to India taking away nuclear weapons ever just a bit ever.
 
India and Israel most likely have nuclear weapons in the thousands. Thous are just lies. Brazil most likely still got a lot

OOC: No way would Israel voluntarily began a reduction of any WMD. Ever....

Same goes for India, and in fact, most of the world. I ever shall, or will see any nation, from the US, to Israel, to India taking away nuclear weapons ever just a bit ever.

OOC: The problem is, you aren't taking into account the shock and horror that would no doubt follow even a limited scale nuclear war; because of that alone, the probability of there being even close to OTL's numbers of nukes is rather low, given the circumstances. And, by the way, do realize that all of the former non-Russian Soviet Republics gave up their weapons voluntarily, and South Africa also did so, IOTL, and we live in a world where there *wasn't* a nuclear war.

A little cursory research does tell me that it appears that Brazil actually *had* considered a nuclear program in the '70s, but chose not to go forward with it....and apparently, so did Argentina.

Also, do realize that I let Israel keep a few weapons of their own, that can be placed on alert if need be.

IC: Jane's tells us otherwise: Link

India probably still has a few hundred left, as although tensions are less severe than in the '80s, there is still a fair bit of distrust between the two countries. It may be true that a complete dismantlement could be some decades away, but it's not impossible, either, and the Middle East is also rather more peaceful, despite the bloodshed of the War of 1985. As for Brazil, President Sarney invited inspectors to his country in 1997-they found some research labs, but no weapons at all.
 
(OOC: I think if the Soviets did launch a major attack on China in 1969, the fallout from all those targets hit in northeastern China (remember, the area around Beijing would be hard hit, and they would certainly go after the huge industrial capacity of what was once Manchuria) would effectively make the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese home islands uninhabitable for possibly decades, especially if you factor in this spring phenomenon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Dust

These dust storms, which normally happen in the spring months, would now become deadly because it would spread the radioactive dirt from northern China not only to the Korean Peninsula and Japan, but could in some cases even reach the western coastline of North America. It would end up potentially threaten agriculture in the western 1/4 of the the North American continent, too.

As such, you will see a huge diaspora of Koreans and Japanese to other parts of the world to escape the fallout effects for at least 50 years. Countries like Australia would be forced to take in many millions of Korean and Japanese refugees--who will return home once the radiation from Asian Dust drops to safe levels by maybe 2040 AD.)
 
(OOC: I think if the Soviets did launch a major attack on China in 1969, the fallout from all those targets hit in northeastern China (remember, the area around Beijing would be hard hit, and they would certainly go after the huge industrial capacity of what was once Manchuria) would effectively make the Korean Peninsula and the Japanese home islands uninhabitable for possibly decades, especially if you factor in this spring phenomenon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Dust

These dust storms, which normally happen in the spring months, would now become deadly because it would spread the radioactive dirt from northern China not only to the Korean Peninsula and Japan, but could in some cases even reach the western coastline of North America. It would end up potentially threaten agriculture in the western 1/4 of the the North American continent, too.

As such, you will see a huge diaspora of Koreans and Japanese to other parts of the world to escape the fallout effects for at least 50 years. Countries like Australia would be forced to take in many millions of Korean and Japanese refugees--who will return home once the radiation from Asian Dust drops to safe levels by maybe 2040 AD.)

OOC: Well, I dunno about quite all of Japan being totally uninhabitable, but yes, the diaspora would no doubt be huge.....and the short-term situation not too good for survivors who stayed home. :(

IC: By the way, for those of you old enough to remember the 5 million Japanese who came to America between 1970-75 as part of the "Noah's Ark 69" program, how do you think Nixon handled everything? Firstly, we do have to remember that, although most Westerners were generally accepting of the new arrivals, many non-liberal types east of the Rockies were not happy about it; some folks may still vividly remember the Cleveland riots in '71, not to mention the ones all over several of the Southern states in the autumn of '74(along with the lynchings in Doddsville, MS, Edgefield, S.C., and Tyler, Texas). :(

Sure, Nixon did make a good effort to stop the violence from escalating, but could he have gone further? Most liberals and many moderates applauded his actions, but he lost a lot of support from the more prejudiced sections of the right, especially in the South.
 
Top