Effects of WW3 on the Southern Hemisphere

[asnys]

So, sometime in the late 70s/early 80s, there's a nuclear war between the Soviet Union and NATO. The northern hemisphere is first wrecked by nuclear blast, and then frozen over by nuclear winter. Presumably there's still survivors, but they don't concern us for the moment.

What happens south of the equator? The figures I've read suggest that there would be a small nuclear winter effect in the south, but a lot less than in the north-something like 10% of incoming solar energy blocked in the south, if I recall correctly. Some sort of economic collapse is inevitable, especially in Africa, seeing how dependent the southern countries tend to be on exports of commodities and imports of manufactured goods. Not to mention the sudden cut-off in aid and armarments. Political instability is a likely further consequence. But how bad would it all be? A recession with protests? A depression with coups d'etat? Famine and anarchy?

And are there any countries in the southern hemisphere that would see this as an opportunity to settle scores with other countries? I've heard of conflicts between, e.g., Chile and Argentina, but I don't know anything about them-how bad they are or if they'd get hotter without the superpowers around.

 

[Viscount Stanthorpe]

Well, as always, 'it depends' as (for example) has there been a 100% fatality rate in the north? Has India been spared? Have biological weapons been used as well (I read in a British paper that the Soviets intended to use biological weapons in conjunction with nuclear weapons to slow down any western recovery - though I cant vouch for this).

Also, as I understand it, the Soviets had several targets in Australia as they've allies of the west & also have several radar tracking stations there. So is there simply no destruction south of the equator? Or only very limited?

You see, I think that Australia would definitely emerge as a major power if it wasn't attacked, but if they were, then it doesn't bode well for them, as the majority of their population is very concentrated - say 5 well placed nukes & Australia is probably not going to be a major 'successor power'

S

 

[TheMann]

Depends on how much if anything is hit south of the equator, and what happens to former US naval assets. Australia and NZ would almost certainly be hit, and Rio, Buenos Aires, Cape Town and Johannesburg probably would be too.

Australia was a military ally of the US (still is) but if the US is a huge mess you can bet that would be a friendly place for RN and USN carriers to go if they need to hit a port. Assuming this is in 1970/early 80s war here, I also see the following:

- Really, REALLY nasty battle between the apartheid state and its neighbors. If its pre-1980, Rhodesia will be on side with South Africa. Botswana is in big trouble with bad guys on three sides. With Cuba and the USSR out of the way, the MPLA in Angola is SOL, too. Worse still, South Africa would probably work hard to get as many survivors as possible from Europe and America to leave their contaminated, troubled lands for the fields of Africa - and they wouldn't exactly need a lot of convincing. At least 2x the size of South Africa's whites, and apartheid lasts longer. Rhodesia never falls, Botswana and Namibia get annexed into South Africa.

- Australia would get hit, and probably hard. But if they don't, or get off lightly (which considering Australia's policy of no nuclear weapons or warships, is a possibility) they will almost certainly get flooded with refugees. Same problem exists in South America, too. Australia is easily capable of feeding itself, and with trade badly disrupted, they would have to rally around and make Australia's resources work for them first. If they don't get hit hard, they can rebuild infrastructure to the point that they could live reasonably well in a few years. But xenophobia and racism will be a big problem quite fast.

 

[Rickshaw]

Back in the 1980s when I was actively studying Nuclear Strategy at the Australian Defence Force Academy the basic conclusion was that the fUSSR wouldn't waste any more than the minimum number of nuclear warheads on Australian targets. North-West Cape, Nurrangar and Pine Gap were the most likely targets - the first because it was used to communicate with SSBNs, the second because of its use as part of the NSP satellite launch warning programme finally, Pine Gap because of its involvement in SIGINT gathering. Beyond that, there really isn't much worth wasting a nuclear warhead on, according to Des Ball, one of the leading nuclear strategists, particularly when they would more than likely require them all to destroy the US and NATO targets.

 

[Colin Francis]

Firstly, we never had a no-nuke policy re the USN. That was New Zealand. Australia has and does host many nuclear-capable vessels.

Fremantle was and is a major SSN, SSBN and CBG base for the USN. It would have been a target.

Darwin also was host to B52 aircraft and the USN..also to be hit. Also Cairns, and Townsville.

A lot depends on the delivery system as to how hard Oz would have been hit. I don't think that FROBS would have been used,(large ICBMs in a depressed orbital trajectory) IMO it would have been a submarine...a Delta mebbe, or two mebbe, they had lots. Anyway it would have missiles to spare and I think all state capitals plus Canberra and major regional targets with naval bases and/or international airports would have gone.

We could recover from that but I don't think we would have been a regional superpower.

Of course...one or two submarines......anything could happen in war, they might be intercepted or even mutiny..no disrespect to Russian sailors but we were hardly their sworn enemies. We could have got away scot-free. Who will ever know? I have to say that I believe the Soviets would at least have tried to destroy our major connurbations and economic targets simply to retard Western recovery...just like countries like China, Vietnam and Cuba would have been smeared for the same reasons...nukes are cheap and plentiful...use 'em while you got 'em.

 

[CalBear]

Firstly, Australia is effectely depopulated, given the overwhelming percentage of the population that live in just a few cities, all of which would be targeted. The population would likely drop to below pre-colonial levels. North Island of New Zealand also eats a couple of warheads as potential USN bases are eliminated

India is the target of Chinese attack (and if late enough in the game Pakistani) while Pakistan/China is struck by India as those traditional enemy's. Pakistan is also the target of Soviet attack as they are a significant ally to the U.S. at the time (and are supply central for the Muj in Afghanistan).

Singapore, the Philippines, Hong Kong, Oman, Guam, South Africa, Thailand (depending on the POD) and other ports all are hit hard as British and U.S. bases/potential bases are struck.

The massive amount of particulate injected into the atmosphere spreads Planet-wide, wreaking whatever havoc it will in both the North & South (it's all one massive air recirultion system).

Survivors envy the dead.

 

[Gryphon]

I believe I heard somewhere that many of the possible powers would get a Soviet "present" in their "If we're gonna go down, all ya'll gunna come with us" mentality. It's likely that they can afford to drop some of their twenty thousand bombs in the south.

South Africa was a possible Western ally, as was Australia and New Zealand. After NZ made their "No Nukes" policy official and public, the Soviets didn't change their target list. Chile, Columbia, and French Guinea were friendly to the Western powers, so they can expect a gift. Brazil and/or Argentina may manage to escape, but that's a big "if". The most powerful country in Africa without a present will likely be Ethiopia (possibly). So, Brazil, Argentina, and Ethiopia are the biggest powers. The survivors in the north are another question entirely.

If China escapes destruction somehow, then, well, that's not exactly part of our Southern Hemisphere, is it?

 

[Emperor Qianlong]

The massive amount of particulate injected into the atmosphere spreads Planet-wide, wreaking whatever havoc it will in both the North & South (it's all one massive air recirultion system).

I will dispute that.

I know I've discussed this is in an other thread (which got quite hot, to much of my own regret and dismay), but I personally believe that the effects of a nuclear winter are vastly overestimated. The main reason is that if'd you compare it to an impact winter or a volcanic winter (think Yellowstone going boom), only a tiny faction (a few percent!) of the material is thrown into the atmosphere. There will be a cooling effect, but at worst it would be like the 'year without summer' that occured following the eruption of Mount Tambora. Yes, there would be still radiation, and it'd be ver bad for the northern hemisphere, but the nuclear winter effect will be not nearly as bad as usually assumed, and the southern hemisphere will probably get away quite unscathed.

 

[Colin Francis]

I tend to agree with the above post, with reservations. A full exchange in the year 1985 would have resulted in up to 50,000 warheads being expended, including tactical and strategic weapons. Included there are about 10,000 strategic bombs with a total yield of perhaps 10,000-20,000 MT, the UK alone was expected to receive 2,000MT in a full strike including counter-value and demographic targets.

Where it gets really dificult is dividing total warheads between air and ground-bursts, and then assessing the amount of combustion products we could have expected from the targeted cities that burned. Without going into too much detail re ground geology and composition of targets etc., I reckon about 10,000 MT would influence climate in the Northern hemisphere where most targets were.

This compares with an estimated 10 million MT from the object that impacted in Yucatan 65 MY ago, that resulted in global darkness for several years and mass extinctions globally.

So even a full exchange in 1985, with all available weapons used to best advantage would have yielded one thousandth of a true historical extinction event, and even this would have been spread globally instead of concentrated in one location like chuxculub was. Most of the destruction from the Yucatan event was due to vapourised rock being ejected into low Earth orbit to re-enter all over the world.

I think no Summer at all in the year following the war in the Northern hemisphere, with very severe Winters and cool wet Summers for up to five years following.

In the Southern hemisphere cool wet Summers for the same five years.

In the case of Australia, whilst the biggest centres of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Darwin, even Adelaide, would have gone, together with some regional cities like Cairns, Townsville, etc also, there are hundreds of smaller centres like Dubbo, Moree, Broken Hill, Rockhampton etc that would never be hit....up to 6-10 million would have survived out of the total 18 million or so. These survivors would have been well-placed to retain continuity of civilisation and would have been making their presence felt internationall within 10 years or so.

Even cities like Sydney are very spread out, and likely only the CBD with a further 10 mile radius would be damaged/destroyed....neighbouring centres like Liverpool, Penrith, Gosforth, Campbelltown, Wollongong, Newcastle etc would survive and prosper long-term. There are literally hundreds of almost self-contained cities/towns of 10-30,000 population here in Oz, spread over an area larger than CONUS.

The Soviets even with two Deltas committed to Australia simply lacked the strategic resources to do a full job on us.

 

[CalBear]

I will dispute that.

I know I've discussed this is in an other thread (which got quite hot, to much of my own regret and dismay), but I personally believe that the effects of a nuclear winter are vastly overestimated. The main reason is that if'd you compare it to an impact winter or a volcanic winter (think Yellowstone going boom), only a tiny faction (a few percent!) of the material is thrown into the atmosphere. There will be a cooling effect, but at worst it would be like the 'year without summer' that occured following the eruption of Mount Tambora. Yes, there would be still radiation, and it'd be ver bad for the northern hemisphere, but the nuclear winter effect will be not nearly as bad as usually assumed, and the southern hemisphere will probably get away quite unscathed.

You will note that I didn't say nuclear winter in my post. I have some issues with the Nuclear Winter theory myself, but whatever the impact would be it would be world wide, not limited to one hemisphere or the other.

I would have to disagree with the concept that the Southern Hemisphere would escape. I would point out that the volcanic events that have occured in the Southern Hemisphere have had global impact that was (except for close in gross effects) identical world-wide. Particulate matter has no concept of North/South and the atmosphere circulates Planet wide.

I would also point out that, in a full out exchange, the Southern Hemisphere would receive a minimum of 50 warheads (most likely, based on Soviet Cold War Doctrine, mainly a combination of 10 MT Ground Bursts and 25 MT Air Bursts, with Soviet leaning sites mostly finding themselves recepients of mostly 500 KT - 1MT air burst weapons) with 100 or more impacts much more likely (both sides at the height of the Cold War could spend warheads with relative abandon given the "overkill" built into the system). It would not be out of character to see each military target receive 3 -5 warheads in the initial attack, with additional weapons expended on C&C and NCA sites and secondary targets (refineries, weapon factories, etc.) being smashed in launches over the next 12 hours.

One thing that Western sites would probably be spared would be attacks by manned bombers, the Soviets simply didn't have enough platforms, or the bases outside of the USSR proper, to support attacks. Soviet leaning sites in the Southern Hemisphere would not be as fortunate, given the basing of B-52 wings on Guam and the presence of USN CBGs in the South Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans.

There is also the not inconsiderable impact that secondary effect would have on survivors of the initial exchange. Surviving target would be subject to attack by follow on strikes by counter-force weapons that weathered the initial strikes. There would also be attacks by SLBMs, either directed by whatever remained of Soviet (or American) NCA. This means that the oil fields of the Middle East and in the Java Sea would be hit by one side or the other (or both), if for no other reason than denying the facilities to the other side. It will be an oil free world for a number of years after any full exchange. This would be less of an issue that it might appear thanks to the EMP effects which would likely extend over most of the Planet. With little in the way of electrical generating capacity, and with much of the electronics turned into mulch, life will become quite difficult, especially in major cities.

BTW: I missed several near certain Southern Hemisphere target sites in my earlier post, including the Soviet Naval bases in Yemen, Cahm Ran Bay, and the stations in Somalia as well as ports that might provide shelter to Soviet naval forces, notably those in India. There is also a reasonable chance that Cuban bases in Angola would find themselves added to a targeting list (as would Hanoi). Why? Its the end of the world, why let your enemy slide?

The concept of "Northern Hemisphere makes War, Southern Hemisphere spared attacks" didn't make a lot of sense when it was introduced in On the Beach back in the '60's. By the late 70's-'80's it made no sense at all.

 

[richie42]

What about the Western African nations (IE: Sietta Leone, Senegal, Liberia, the Gambia)

 

[Emperor Qianlong]

@ Calbear, what about a limited nuclear exchange? I know it's not consistent with the Considering the effects of EMPs and everything (which, btw, is the most underestimated effect of them all, much worse than radiation and certainly worse than nuclear winter), it's possible that both sides would be largely crippled before they could fire any more nukes. I think it would have been very possible for either side to easily cripple each others arsenals before most of them were fired. After that point, it doesn't make much sense anymore to target each other's cities.

Otherwise, I think everyone of you here is overestimating the Soviet Union's "evilness factor".

 

[Korwar]

What about places like Tasmania and most of South America(i.e Bolivia, Paraguay, Ecuador, Uruguay ) ?
African places like Madagascar ?
Mauritus ?

 

[Colin Francis]

Re the "evilness factor" of the former USSR. It isn't meant to be that. If I was the NCA of the former USSR, I would follow the following principles, which are not evil....

...prioritise your weapons delivery amongst the targets to be serviced...some are very time-urgent, and simply must be hit early and often to ensure their destruction. Such targets are:

1. Radars, specially BMEWS,
2. Bomber bases and every city with an airport capable of taking large bombers,
3. Command posts everywhere to decapitate your enemy,
4. Navy ports to catch any SSBNs in port also every port in the world harbouring CBGs.
5. Egress routes of bombers on route to the USSR..service them with large yield airbursts.
6. Of course, ICBM fields.

After you've done all that, you take a look at the situation and ponder the imponderable...are you winning or losing?

If you're winning you make the enemy an offer they can't refuse...capitulate or suffer counter-value strikes on cities and infrastructure.

If you're losing, take down everything you can reach...cities, dams, power stations, canals...at this point you look for targets that will help the enemy recover in the postwar world....and this is when you try to eliminate countries not directly involved, but certain to be a problem in the future when you are yourself trying to recover.

This is when places like Singapore and Capetown would be receiving weapons, also Australia and Kiwiland, this would truly be Doomsday.

Weapons would be delivered from SSBNs and odd surviving silos, the bombers would be long gone, and the directions to the assets would come from remote battered Command posts or mebbe satellites, the Soviet NCA would no longer survive. I envisage strikes still taking place from odd submarines up to a year after the war began.

But...weapons would be very limited in supply...only those remaining after the first time-urgent targets plus the follow-up strikes directly on the enemy homelands. By their very nature there would be errors and ommissions....we in Australia would survive as a nation, IMO of course.

The motives of the USSR would be identical to those of the West in the same situation....win if you can, but if you lose, hurt the winner as much as humanly possible.

 

[juanml82]

SSBNs have to move thousands of miles to have their missiles into range. I mean: if you have submarines in the North Atlantic targeting Europe and CONUs, would you move them half the way around the planet (with the time involved to reach there) to hit neutral countries countervalue targets? ICBMs are another issue, but if you're losing, then you have more important targets than neutral countries.
I don't mean that none will decide to do so... but how many reasons they'll have? I mean, throwing everything you have on the US or western Europe while you still can will surely damage them more than an unprovoked strike on a neutral nation.
Of course if any of those Southern countries joins Nato, they'll get nuked for sure.

 

[Rickshaw]

Firstly, we never had a no-nuke policy re the USN. That was New Zealand. Australia has and does host many nuclear-capable vessels.

Fremantle was and is a major SSN, SSBN and CBG base for the USN. It would have been a target.

Darwin also was host to B52 aircraft and the USN..also to be hit. Also Cairns, and Townsville.

None worth hitting unless an actual US force is present. As the first thing they'd do is sortie in a time of tension, there is absolutely no point in wasting any nukes on them.

A lot depends on the delivery system as to how hard Oz would have been hit. I don't think that FROBS would have been used,(large ICBMs in a depressed orbital trajectory) IMO it would have been a submarine...a Delta mebbe, or two mebbe, they had lots. Anyway it would have missiles to spare and I think all state capitals plus Canberra and major regional targets with naval bases and/or international airports would have gone.

You're actually thinking of FOBS, not "FROBS". FOBS stands for "Fractional Orbital Bombard System" which was actually outlawed under the Outer Space Ban Treaty and SALT II treaty (see this article for an explanation). It was never deployed.

We could recover from that but I don't think we would have been a regional superpower.

Of course...one or two submarines......anything could happen in war, they might be intercepted or even mutiny..no disrespect to Russian sailors but we were hardly their sworn enemies. We could have got away scot-free. Who will ever know? I have to say that I believe the Soviets would at least have tried to destroy our major connurbations and economic targets simply to retard Western recovery...just like countries like China, Vietnam and Cuba would have been smeared for the same reasons...nukes are cheap and plentiful...use 'em while you got 'em.

[/quote]

The Soviets were rational, they wouldn't have wasted any nukes on Oz except for the already mentioned NW Cape, Pine Gap and Nurrangar - all well away from major urban centres. Canberra may have copped one but thats about it.

 

[Colin Francis]

We'll never know, thank christ.

Sorry about the FROBS.