Fate of the rest of the world in 1980s nuclear war scenario?

[exilarchia]

Just for simplicity, assume that we are talking about an Able-Archer-gone-hot scenario, which is conventional for the first few days then escalates to WMDs.

What would be the fate of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia/Oceania?

I assume that countries like Israel, Australia, Japan, China, South Korea, maybe New Zealand will eat a nuke just due to being a non-NATO ally but what would actually happen?

 

[marathag]

Soviets had more than 40,000 warheads to toss around. You need a fraction of that to wreck the USA and West Europe

 

[Resurgam]

A lot of secondary and tertiary issues - the collapse of the global economy, radiation, famine, disease, nuclear winter, etc. It won't be anywhere near as holocaustal as what has happened in the northern hemisphere but it won't be fun.

Africa and the Middle East will especially have problems - all those artificial borders and dictators held in place with Western or Soviet help? Expect a lot of rebellions and uprisings, especially as the gravy train's last deliveries run out.

The countries you named, and some others, will be nuked. The degree depends on the SIOP the Soviets use, but it seems to be believed that Moscow would want to take everyone down with them in the case of a full-scale exchange. How bad? Well, it's conjecture.

Expect South America to come out okay if - IF - it can manage all the problems. Australia and New Zealand will likely emerge as the new "West" if they're not too badly hit in the attack and manage to organize.

 

[Dominic]

Aus/NZ will probably survive as mostly coherent technological civilisations, but will be absolutely floored if even a couple of weapons are used. IMO Perth, Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney, Darwin, and perhaps Brisbane will take hits, as will Auckland and Wellington. This does leave large intact rural regions and some industrial capacity in smaller cities, enough to survive, but will severely limit any influence these two have post war. What happens in SEA will also matter.

 

[Captain Homicide]

People forget that by the 1980s the USSR had thousands of tons of engineered smallpox, plague, ebola, anthrax, Marburg and other bioweapons they intended on using in the event of a nuclear exchange (through bombers, missiles etc).

Any country that goes untouched by nuclear weapons will then likely suffer horrific pandemics as infected refugees spread far and wide. Diseases don’t obey lines on a map.

 

[33k7]

the nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia during the 80s I don't care where you're living radioactive fallout is going to wipe out most of mankind along with the massive famine that will follow.

 

[Riain]

The limiting factor for the Southern hemisphere is delivery systems, the Soviet Union having about 1400 ICBM, 850 SLBM and not many truly intercontinental bombers. The warheads of a MIRV can only cover and oblong 200 miles ling and 100 miles wide in The direction of the missiles' trajectory, so firing a single mirv at Australia isn't going to hit more than 1 target area.

The icbms and slbms will mostly deployed against CONUS so the Southern hemisphere will get the dregs of the long range arsenal so might well get away with minimal direct damage.

 

[TheKutKu]

Southern Africa is... it's not going to be pretty at all, if South Africa isn't hit or is only lightly hit then they have de facto uncountered hegemony over half a continent for the foreseeable future, and AIDS is still coming, they're also probably the only standing power with Nukes.

 

[History Learner]

Just for simplicity, assume that we are talking about an Able-Archer-gone-hot scenario, which is conventional for the first few days then escalates to WMDs.

What would be the fate of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia/Oceania?

I assume that countries like Israel, Australia, Japan, China, South Korea, maybe New Zealand will eat a nuke just due to being a non-NATO ally but what would actually happen?

Australia and New Zealand are safe; too far for ICBMs and air based weapons, while I doubt Soviet boomers would waste themselves on them as a target given the more pressing threat of Anglo-French-American nuclear forces. Of note, the available intelligence suggests in fact the only site in Australia to be targeted was a joint intelligence facility in the Outback.

Of note, as others have pointed out, South Africa would be doing really well here. Soviet and Chinese aid to its enemies is suddenly gone and the policy of autarky sought by the National Party means they would largely be inoculated from the collapse of the global economy. Millions of now homeless Europeans and Americans (Re: Whites) are also available to grabbed and re-settled within SA, considerably boosting the security of their internal situation and institutions. The 1983 Reforms have also already been passed which will largely align the Coloureds and Indians with with the NP, while the Zulus remain opposed to the ANC anyway.

 

[Blue cat]

The limiting factor for the Southern hemisphere is delivery systems, the Soviet Union having about 1400 ICBM, 850 SLBM and not many truly intercontinental bombers. The warheads of a MIRV can only cover and oblong 200 miles ling and 100 miles wide in The direction of the missiles' trajectory, so firing a single mirv at Australia isn't going to hit more than 1 target area.

The icbms and slbms will mostly deployed against CONUS so the Southern hemisphere will get the dregs of the long range arsenal so might well get away with minimal direct damage.

If the Soviet FOBS system was still around (I believe it was phased out during the 1980's) it might have been used against a few targets in the Southern Hemisphere.

My $.02 worth, in all all out war I suspect the Soviets would have at least made an effort to target US allies (both actual and defacto) thruout the world. In my view even a handful of nuclear strikes would likely fully occupy a nation such as Australia or New Zealand and limit their ability to help any surviving US forces reconstitute themselves for another round.

 

[Histor32]

Watch threads.. Thats basically it.

On the beach as well.

As stated it wouldnt just be nuclear. And it would basically set the human race back to the middle ages at best.

Europe is a wasteland.. North america is wrecked.. Asia isnt doing that great..

Africa? South america.. Anyones guess.

Dont forget dead man switches, sit and wait subs..
Thise who survive the war.. All 3 or 4 hours will wiah they died after the plauges and viruses kick in

 

[Rickshaw]

Back in the mid-1980s I did a course at the Australian Defence Force Academy as part of a Masters degree devoted to Nuclear Strategy. As part of that course, we had as a guest deminar, Professor Des Ball who was famous at the time for publishing several ground breaking books on American bases in Australia. He was at the time just being sucked into the Pentagon war fighting establishment. We asked him if he thought Australia would be a target for Soviet ICBMs. He was silent for a few minutes before replying, no, the Soviets more than likely wouldn't bother attacking Australia as they would perceive that as a waste of an ICBM which could be used more profitably attacking the US or NATO. Now, he more than likely knew the reality far more than most people of what the Soviets would be aiming at.

Now if they were to waste an ICBM/SLBM against Australia they would be required to make a choice. Australia is a vast continent, nearly the size of the continental USA. It has few targets which are really worth an ICBM on. It would be either Pine Gap, Canberra or Sydney. All are worthwhile targets, particularly Pine Gap as it was part of the early warning system. Canberra might have been worthwhile using a nuke on and perhaps even Sydney. The other Australian cities are smaller and long way from anything important. Australia, as a whole could be hurt but it couldn't be destroyed in a nuclear exchange. It's cities are simply too far apart. A strike on one target would be unlikely to affect the others.

New Zealand is even less likely to face a Soviet ICBM. It is further away and has no US bases of any note.

Apart from that, there are even fewer targets worth a nuke in Oceania.

 

[TxAggie]

Even if the populations of Australia, South America, etc survived mostly intact, the collapse of the global economy would push them back to the Middle Ages at best. Imports of food, oil, rare metals, tools, fertilizer... all those are gone and aren't coming back. If the nuclear fallout doesn't wipe out the population, starvation will push them back to Malthusian limits, and it'll be back to a hand-to-mouth agrarian existence.

It'd be interesting to see how much knowledge of the world before would survive the nuclear holocaust - eg, "I was an engineer before the wipeout, I understand Boolean logic, I know what computers can do, even if I have no means to build one myself". My guess is that knowledge would be spread too thin by our modern super-specialist economy and storage of it would be too fragmented for it to be able to bring society back, but at least the potential of people knowing "this was done before" could be there.

Also interesting, is that in a society where only 1% of people work in agriculture (that's a present-day figure, but I imagine it was similar 40 years ago), even basic farming knowledge and techniques are just lost on the average person - and like with the engineer example above, that knowledge may be spread too thin to be re-implemented after nuclear catastrophe. If we can't get productive farming going, the aftermath of WWIII would be less Middle Age and more Stone Age.

 

[Questerr]

Soviets had more than 40,000 warheads to toss around. You need a fraction of that to wreck the USA and West Europe

The vast majority of those would be in bunkers that would disappear beneath US mushroom clouds. Deployed warheads was a far smaller number than total warheads.

 

[Ganishka]

Even if the populations of Australia, South America, etc survived mostly intact, the collapse of the global economy would push them back to the Middle Ages at best. Imports of food, oil, rare metals, tools, fertilizer... all those are gone and aren't coming back. If the nuclear fallout doesn't wipe out the population, starvation will push them back to Malthusian limits, and it'll be back to a hand-to-mouth agrarian existence.

It'd be interesting to see how much knowledge of the world before would survive the nuclear holocaust - eg, "I was an engineer before the wipeout, I understand Boolean logic, I know what computers can do, even if I have no means to build one myself". My guess is that knowledge would be spread too thin by our modern super-specialist economy and storage of it would be too fragmented for it to be able to bring society back, but at least the potential of people knowing "this was done before" could be there.

Also interesting, is that in a society where only 1% of people work in agriculture (that's a present-day figure, but I imagine it was similar 40 years ago), even basic farming knowledge and techniques are just lost on the average person - and like with the engineer example above, that knowledge may be spread too thin to be re-implemented after nuclear catastrophe. If we can't get productive farming going, the aftermath of WWIII would be less Middle Age and more Stone Age.

Could some governments survive the famine? By which means?

 

[exilarchia]

The vast majority of those would be in bunkers that would disappear beneath US mushroom clouds. Deployed warheads was a far smaller number than total warheads.

Would it be realistic to assume that around 18,000 weapons could be launched feasibly in a nuclear war, out of say 50-60,000 total weapons?

 

[TxAggie]

Could some governments survive the famine? By which means?

I can't see any governments as we know them surviving through a nuclear war. Wayyyy too much change for any govt to be able to continue with "business as usual."

 

[Dominic]

Even if the populations of Australia, South America, etc survived mostly intact, the collapse of the global economy would push them back to the Middle Ages at best. Imports of food, oil, rare metals, tools, fertilizer... all those are gone and aren't coming back. If the nuclear fallout doesn't wipe out the population, starvation will push them back to Malthusian limits, and it'll be back to a hand-to-mouth agrarian existence.

It'd be interesting to see how much knowledge of the world before would survive the nuclear holocaust - eg, "I was an engineer before the wipeout, I understand Boolean logic, I know what computers can do, even if I have no means to build one myself". My guess is that knowledge would be spread too thin by our modern super-specialist economy and storage of it would be too fragmented for it to be able to bring society back, but at least the potential of people knowing "this was done before" could be there.

Also interesting, is that in a society where only 1% of people work in agriculture (that's a present-day figure, but I imagine it was similar 40 years ago), even basic farming knowledge and techniques are just lost on the average person - and like with the engineer example above, that knowledge may be spread too thin to be re-implemented after nuclear catastrophe. If we can't get productive farming going, the aftermath of WWIII would be less Middle Age and more Stone Age.

Aus/NZ have absolutely no need of imports to feed themselves, and fuel isn't that hard if there's rationing and a willingness to develop previously uneconomical sources/switch to Natural Gas. If there are no/few strikes here, industrial civilisation with a 70's/80's tech level has a 100% chance of survival. It just won't be advancing very much, and it will be a lot poorer per person, for a very long time.

 

[Questerr]

Would it be realistic to assume that around 18,000 weapons could be launched feasibly in a nuclear war, out of say 50-60,000 total weapons?

I don’t think it’s that easy to say. Some missiles would fail, some would be attritted, Bomber bases could be destroyed before ther bombers got off, subs sunk. There’s a lot of factors involved.

 

[Lalli]

Even if the populations of Australia, South America, etc survived mostly intact, the collapse of the global economy would push them back to the Middle Ages at best. Imports of food, oil, rare metals, tools, fertilizer... all those are gone and aren't coming back. If the nuclear fallout doesn't wipe out the population, starvation will push them back to Malthusian limits, and it'll be back to a hand-to-mouth agrarian existence.

It will be shitty life for Southern Hemisphere and they would lack much of food stuff, medicine and fuel but some countries might manage deal that somehow even if them have change many things and face massive starvations. But it hardly is going to be medieval society. Nasty yes but not that nasty. Them have still much of food and some countries can begin their own food production.

It'd be interesting to see how much knowledge of the world before would survive the nuclear holocaust - eg, "I was an engineer before the wipeout, I understand Boolean logic, I know what computers can do, even if I have no means to build one myself". My guess is that knowledge would be spread too thin by our modern super-specialist economy and storage of it would be too fragmented for it to be able to bring society back, but at least the potential of people knowing "this was done before" could be there.

Much of knowledge is definitely gone speciality on engineering and other technology. Altough you don't make much of technology anything anyway when there is not anymore nuclear plants which would product electricity and almost most of world would soon has serious shortage of oil which make any vehicle totally useless. So people have use their own feet, bikes or even horses, which would too be pretty hard when there wa<sn't too much orses in 1980's and these too need food.

Historic knowledge too would be pretty much gone but there might be enough of people who could write some things down.

Space technology would be totally gone.

Probably most of physics and knowledge about re-predouct nuclear weapons too would be gone.

About medicine not quiet sure. But there would be really nasty problems anyway when diseases would are spreading rapidly.