general history question: to what extent was the southern hemisphere/non-commie/capitalist world targeted by nukes during the Cold War?

[spoonzandforkz]

the conventional wisdom in most nuclear war scenarios is that Eurasia from Lisbon to Tokyo gets is bombed into nothingness, while North America either suffers a small cut (say, 1950s to early 1960s), or also bombed into nothingness (especially 1980s scenarios). Europe gone, Russia gone, China gone, America gone.

But what about the neutrals, especially of the southern hemisphere? I'm thinking South America: Brazil, Argentina, etc. Africa: either sub-Saharan or northern: And of course, India and Australai. Did the Soviets/Americans/Chinese plan to take them out with them too?

Or do we not have publicly-disclosed information regarding this yet?

 

[YYJ]

I would expect Australian naval and air bases to be on a target list. New Zealand as well. And American bases on Pacific Islands.

 

[Gunnarnz]

I can't speak to most of this, but there were a few places in Australia that could reasonably expect to be targeted by the USSR. Pine Gap (a communications site IIRC) was one, and I think there were a couple of other sites in the eastern coastal area. Of course there were other locations the Soviets would have liked to hit, but the issue is one of delivery platforms. There were surprisingly few ICBMs compared to the number of targets, and nobody was going to "waste" them on relatively insignificant targets in the global south when those same ICBMs were one of the few ways of striking their primary opponent. Long-range bombers probably couldn't reach, which left SLBMs as the most likely attack method. And the Soviet Pacific Fleet never had very many boomers, which would have to go a long way to get into position to launch against Australia & New Zealand, with missiles whose reliability was never assured. Most likely is between one and three strikes in Australia (possibly none), and probably no successful strikes in New Zealand (possibly one or two, depending on if a boomer could get close enough to launch and all their missiles worked as advertised).

 

[Strategos' Risk]

South Africa, because it might've had nuclear weapons?

 

[Riain]

I can't speak to most of this, but there were a few places in Australia that could reasonably expect to be targeted by the USSR. Pine Gap (a communications site IIRC) was one, and I think there were a couple of other sites in the eastern coastal area. Of course there were other locations the Soviets would have liked to hit, but the issue is one of delivery platforms. There were surprisingly few ICBMs compared to the number of targets, and nobody was going to "waste" them on relatively insignificant targets in the global south when those same ICBMs were one of the few ways of striking their primary opponent. Long-range bombers probably couldn't reach, which left SLBMs as the most likely attack method. And the Soviet Pacific Fleet never had very many boomers, which would have to go a long way to get into position to launch against Australia & New Zealand, with missiles whose reliability was never assured. Most likely is between one and three strikes in Australia (possibly none), and probably no successful strikes in New Zealand (possibly one or two, depending on if a boomer could get close enough to launch and all their missiles worked as advertised).

I agree, Australia and New Zealand would likely be attacked with the dregs of the Soviet strategic arsenal because these are the same long range delivery systems needed to attack targets in the US. That's if they get attacked at all.

One thing to keep in mind is that a MIRV can only attack a target group 200km long and 100km wide along the missile flight trajectory. This means that a single MIRV missile cannot service all capital cities and other targets. A single MIRV will be needed to hit Sydney and RAAF Williamtown, another for Melbourne and Geelong refinery and another again for Brisbane and RAAF Amberley. There is no way the Soviets will waste 5-10 of their precious long range, MIRV warhead missiles on such unimportant targets.

 

[Gunnarnz]

One thing to keep in mind is that a MIRV can only attack a target group 200km long and 100km wide along the missile flight trajectory. This means that a single MIRV missile cannot service all capital cities and other targets. A single MIRV will be needed to hit Sydney and RAAF Williamtown, another for Melbourne and Geelong refinery and another again for Brisbane and RAAF Amberley. There is no way the Soviets will waste 5-10 of their precious long range, MIRV warhead missiles on such unimportant targets.

Good point about the target geometries needed. I can see a Delta III from the Soviet Pacific fleet having orders to expend 4 or 8 missiles on targets in Australia and New Zealand, even with all the other targets in the Asia-Pacific region that would need servicing. But they only carried single-warhead missiles, and there would be a failure rate of perhaps 30% across all phases of the flight - launch, boost, coast, separation, reentry, terminal) so multiple missiles would need to be assigned to a target in order to be fairly sure of hitting it. Short version: not many successful strikes.

 

[Riain]

Good point about the target geometries needed. I can see a Delta III from the Soviet Pacific fleet having orders to expend 4 or 8 missiles on targets in Australia and New Zealand, even with all the other targets in the Asia-Pacific region that would need servicing. But they only carried single-warhead missiles, and there would be a failure rate of perhaps 30% across all phases of the flight - launch, boost, coast, separation, reentry, terminal) so multiple missiles would need to be assigned to a target in order to be fairly sure of hitting it. Short version: not many successful strikes.

I would have thought a Yankee class with SS-N-6 crawling down to hit a couple of counter-value targets in NZ and Australian east coast. But then you get to the point where do you retain these in reserve for the post war period rather than expend them.

 

[Dorknought]

There was a theory that a superpower may want to make a demonstration on a 3rd party that couldn’t strike back and would serve as a warning of what was to come. In a heating up European War the US could nuke Cuba. Australia or New Zealand could serve this role for the Russians.
Exmouth in Western Australia is also a USN comms hub for messages to SSBM and be a priority target.

 

[Rickshaw]

Having studied nuclear strategy with Des Ball, back before he got sucked into the Pentagon in the late 1980s, his suggestion was that few targets downunder would be attacked in a general nuclear exchange. Why? Because the Soviets would reserve most nuclear warheads for the US and Western Europe. Then you have the difficulty in making those nuclear warhead delivery systems work. Finally, the targets available are all spaced a great deal of distance from one another making striking them of little profit. All the capital cities are well apart and so are the naval and coms bases. Overall, most of Australia is fairly safe. The Soviets might have spared one of two warheads for Pine Gap/North-West Cape and for Canberra/Sydney but is about all. They would be all well beyond the range of any continental bombers.

 

[Riain]

I'd think South America and sub-Saharan Africa would be even safer than Australia.

On the other hand the Soviets have a decent number of IRBM/MRBM and Tu16/Tu22 that could cover the like of India, South East Asia, Middle East and North (east)Africa. Although a lot of these would be aimed at NATO Europe and East Asia/Pacific.

 

[Mr J]

I remember reading that when the 1983 Australian cabinet papers got released a couple of years ago, that they stated that the federal government was only expecting Exmouth to be hit if World War 3 broke out . While I am less optimistic then that, I don't expect more then two or three places to get hit.

 

[naraic]

Or do we not have publicly-disclosed information regarding this yet?

I'd say a lot of neutrals was allocated to the second strike no one believed was going to happen.

No one had their entire nuclear arsenal ready to go at all times. In a full nuclear exchange they would be firing off every missile they had ready to go while rushing to pull out stored missiles etc.

If the storage sites for reserve missiles weren't hit in the first strike they may be launched against the global south (if necessary).

In reality in a full nuclear exchange there wouldn't be a second strike or if there was it would be used to hit higher targets missed in the first strike.

 

[Pangur]

I remember reading that when the 1983 Australian cabinet papers got released a couple of years ago, that they stated that the federal government was only expecting Exmouth to be hit if World War 3 broke out . While I am less optimistic then that, I don't expect more then two or three places to get hit.

If that was the assignment then so be it I would have said in Australia, Exmouth and Pine Gap is 100% certain

 

[Riain]

Having studied nuclear strategy with Des Ball, back before he got sucked into the Pentagon in the late 1980s, his suggestion was that few targets downunder would be attacked in a general nuclear exchange. Why? Because the Soviets would reserve most nuclear warheads for the US and Western Europe. Then you have the difficulty in making those nuclear warhead delivery systems work. Finally, the targets available are all spaced a great deal of distance from one another making striking them of little profit. All the capital cities are well apart and so are the naval and coms bases. Overall, most of Australia is fairly safe. The Soviets might have spared one of two warheads for Pine Gap/North-West Cape and for Canberra/Sydney but is about all. They would be all well beyond the range of any continental bombers.

Any idea of what they were expected to use? ICBM, SLBM, Tu95?

 

[Rickshaw]

Any idea of what they were expected to use? ICBM, SLBM, Tu95?

Australia was generally outside the range of anything other than an ICBM. That would of course include any IRBM or Tu95. SLBMs would have been dedicated more than likely for use on North American/European targets. Anyway, there were few Ballistic missile submarines stationed in the Pacific, they were reserved for the bastions in the arctic.

 

[Janrey]

I understand that in Chile the Talcahuano naval base is still a Russian nuclear target, which is bullshit because I live a few kilometers from there