How bad would a modern nuclear exchange be in comparison to the Cold War?

How bad would a modern nuclear exchange between the US and Russia be in comparison to the Cold War?

Each side has less than 1,800 nuclear weapons operational and ready to launch on short notice. This isn't including the weapons that China, India, Pakistan, France, Israel, Britain and North Korea have as well.

How far would global civilization be set back?
 
Last edited:
A hell of a lot better than 1988 or so.

Back then there were so many nukes that all sorts of things like individual bridges, railway yards, industrial targets and military forces in the field would be hit, tens of thousands of warheads would go off. Now it would be less than 4000 or so, meaning that with those kept in reserve and MIRVs hitting a region 200 x 100 miles maybe only 1000 target areas will be hit worldwide. Pretty shit if you are there but many people who would have been vaporized in 1988 wouldn't be touched now.
 
How bad would a modern nuclear exchange between the US and Russia be in comparison to the Cold War?

Each side has less than 1,800 nuclear weapons operational and ready to launch on short notice. This isn't including the weapons that China, India, Pakistan, France, Israel, Britain and North Korea have as well.

How far would global civilization be set back?
IMHO it depends...

I suspect that if both sides adopted a counter value strategy, combined with ground bursts against key hardened targets, and some subsequent carefully targeted world wide stikes to prevent the remnants of their opponents from being able to reconstitute them selves elsewhere I suspect things would be very bad for global civilization despite the lower war head counts. (Edit to add I'm doubtful that such a strategy would be pursued by any of the nuclear armed states.)

A more limited counter force strategy that didn't explicitly target population centres and areas outside of the superpowers and their close allies might leave some remnants of civilization more or less intact IMHO. That being said I am doubtful how long those areas would be able to sustain themselves.
 

ben0628

Banned
I think that in a modern nuclear exchange, the United States could survive as a semi-intact (yet anarchic) state. I don't think that would be possible during the later years of the Cold War
 
I think that in a modern nuclear exchange, the United States could survive as a semi-intact (yet anarchic) state. I don't think that would be possible during the later years of the Cold War

1986 USA 23,410 USSR 45,000

to today

Country ....Strategic Deployed.....Nonstrategic... Reserve/Nondeployed... Military Stockpile ...Total
Russia....... ............. 1,950.................. 0.................. 2,350 ................................ 4,300 ..............7,000
United States.......... 1,650 .............. 150 ............... 2,200 ............................... 4,000 ............. 6,800
 
So, 1800ish weapons operational for each of the US and Russia?

Well, first of all despite being operational not all launch systems will be able to fire at a moments notice. For example, of each sides' SSBN fleets about one quarter to one third are usually in for deep maintenance and some proportion of the remainder will be down for lighter maintenance. So, of a nominal strength of 336 Trident SLBMs (assuming one each for all tubes on the 14 Ohio class still set up as SSBNs) in service the Yanks can probably fire somewhere between 150-250, take the lower end if the war starts suddenly, or the upper end if steadily escalating tensions. Not sure of how things would go with ICBMs, but would expect some proportion to be unavailable and suspect the airforces of both sides probably loose 10-20% of nominal strength being non-operational at any particular instant.

So, of a nominal 1800ish active arsenal I suspect the number available for rapid launch is probably closer to 1300-1500ish.

Next, out of what's available to fire not all of 'em will successfully launch and not all of the warhead will go bang. Even during peacetime tests (usually associated with lots of TLC before the actual test) failure rates are significant: looking at Minuteman II tests, there have been just over 300 test launches (both development and operational) with about 6 failures overall with three of the failures occurring in the last 60 tests... so, let's call it 5%. There's a fair prospect that without the TLC applied to selected test missiles the rate would be higher, let's arbitrarily go with 10%. On top of that, warheads may not work... No data on current weapons but back in the 1960s over 75% of the W47 warheads were believed to be unreliable. Again, let's suppose we have a 10% failure rate...

So, assuming all nukes are ICBM/SLBM mounted (not true but aircraft you also need to factor in air to air losses etc.), with 10% failure rates for launch and detonation and of your 1800 nukes only 1500 actually are available, 1300 actually launch and fly, 1100 warheads actually arrive and go bang. You can probably add in additional failure modes (goes out of control on reentry; goes bang but off target; etc. etc.).

Finally, with only 60ish percent of your nukes likely to arrive any targets you utterly need gone are going to need at least two nukes thrown at them. This will, of cause, further cut down on the number of targets available... of cause, without knowing choice of targets and the counter-force vs counter-value balance we can only guess. Hardened targets (missile silos, command bunkers etc.) will likely require three or more to be 100% confident of landing bang close enough to guarantee a kill. Large cities will need several hits to actually wipe them out (assuming counter-value focus and no moral concerns over the implied war crime).

So, after assigning multiple nukes to targets that really need to be gone, of the 1100 warheads that go bang you've probably got anywhere from 300-800ish actual targets.

If you're Russia, now consider spreading those 300-800 targets over Europe, the US, US allies outside Europe and possibly other parties (China, much of South America, etc.) you want to make sure can't exploit the aftermath.

Long story short, the bang alone from the US or Russian arsenal will do relatively restricted damage and probably not really set civilization back at all. Possible flow on effects (cooling -whether a bad six months or full on nuclear winter- buggering up crops; implosion of the global economy; potential large scale migrations; etc. etc. etc.) on the other hand...
 
Wow this is morbid.

To build on Cockroach's comments in one important respect: the answer to this question really depends on how the weapons are used. I think his idea that it would "not really set civilization back at all" is probably optimistic but depends on an important condition.

(Leaving aside fallout in the short term and climatic effects in the long term, which as he also says, might be significant.)

Really the question to me -- this is the condition -- is how the weapons are used. I don't have the stats in front of me to back this up, but my guess is that the total megatonnage of nuclear ordinance peaked well before the 80s. This is partly because of arms control treaties but especially because of better accuracy. The Soviets built and tested, at reduced power, a 100-megaton bomb in 1961. There's no call for a weapon that big. It would cost too much to develop a delivery vehicle and anyway, by the end of the Cold War, the delivery systems were more accurate. If you know you're going to hit the target, you can afford to build a "smaller" nuke. The really huge ones from the '50s were to compensate for missing the target. An accurately delivered 500 kt nuclear weapon may be just as useful as one with ten times the yield but one-tenth the accuracy.

Which leads to the real question of where the weapons will be aimed. Yes, if the goal is strategic targeting of military assets, then some population centres may escape the attack itself. However, if the goal is actual nuclear deterrence, then the enemy will target cities rather than bases. To put it in ghoulish perspective, if a nuclear power can "only" strike about 500 targets -- to take Cockroach's math -- that should be enough to wipe out pretty much every city on the planet with a population over one million.

If one so chose.
 
Wow this is morbid.

To build on Cockroach's comments in one important respect: the answer to this question really depends on how the weapons are used. I think his idea that it would "not really set civilization back at all" is probably optimistic but depends on an important condition.
Well, perhaps I went a little overboard there... and, of cause, there's the question of what "setting back civilization"actually means. I'm certainly not denying that several dozen to a hundred major cities (and their populations) reduced to ash is a massive economic blow and the social upheaval would likely be bad (even before factoring in the flow on effects I mentioned), but it would not massively reduce the ability of modern civilization to feed itself or reestablish the infrastructure to build most modern tech. I'd be tempted to use Germany or Japan post-WW2 as an analogy.

Edit: And again, I'd emphasize this is presuming things end with the blasts, fallout is not an issue, no nuclear autumn/winter, no biological weapons used, etc. etc.: There are a lot of things beyond the bangs that could eff things up much worse.
 
Last edited:
Well, perhaps I went a little overboard there... and, of cause, there's the question of what "setting back civilization"actually means. I'm certainly not denying that several dozen to a hundred major cities (and their populations) reduced to ash is a massive economic blow and the social upheaval would likely be bad (even before factoring in the flow on effects I mentioned), but it would not massively reduce the ability of modern civilization to feed itself or reestablish the infrastructure to build most modern tech. I'd be tempted to use Germany or Japan post-WW2 as an analogy.

Edit: And again, I'd emphasize this is presuming things end with the blasts, fallout is not an issue, no nuclear autumn/winter, no biological weapons used, etc. etc.: There are a lot of things beyond the bangs that could eff things up much worse.
Okay, I see where you were going with that.

Even so, Japan and Germany were rebuilt over a considerable period of time with a lot of outside help. If the U.S. and Russia nuke each other, who will pay for the Marshall Plan?
 
A hell of a lot better than 1988 or so.

Back then there were so many nukes that all sorts of things like individual bridges, railway yards, industrial targets and military forces in the field would be hit, tens of thousands of warheads would go off. Now it would be less than 4000 or so, meaning that with those kept in reserve and MIRVs hitting a region 200 x 100 miles maybe only 1000 target areas will be hit worldwide. Pretty shit if you are there but many people who would have been vaporized in 1988 wouldn't be touched now.
They'd just starve and freeze in Nuclear Winter. Getting vaporized would have been more merciful.
 

Ak-84

Banned
There were more warheads in the 1980's. But the world is a lot more interdepoendant and connected today. Even reletively less damage could be devastating to vasy "untouched" regions.
 
CalBear has written a few posts about this whenever the question has been asked. In sum? Not as bad as in the 80s, but still really, really bad.
 
There were more warheads in the 1980's. But the world is a lot more interdepoendant and connected today. Even reletively less damage could be devastating to vasy "untouched" regions.

While there are a lot less warheads there are 50% more people who rely on a well functioning global economy. So many people would die of famine in the major disruption that a modern nuclear war would cause.

In addition there would be much more conventional warfare than the 80s. Countries with advanced militaries that aren't nuked, like Australia, would likely lash out with spoiling attacks to limit threats with their great power protectors damaged by the nukes. I also think all the human rights and international rule of law would be thrown out the window as countries do whatever and kill whoever to protect themselves.
 
So, 1800ish weapons operational for each of the US and Russia?
...
If you're Russia, now consider spreading those 300-800 targets over Europe, the US, US allies outside Europe and possibly other parties (China, much of South America, etc.) you want to make sure can't exploit the aftermath.

Point of order, but the Russians retain an additional 2,000 theater weapons for the purposes of striking targets in Europe and Asia, in addition to their ~1,800 intercontinental weapons.
 
While there are a lot less warheads there are 50% more people who rely on a well functioning global economy. So many people would die of famine in the major disruption that a modern nuclear war would cause.

In addition there would be much more conventional warfare than the 80s. Countries with advanced militaries that aren't nuked, like Australia, would likely lash out with spoiling attacks to limit threats with their great power protectors damaged by the nukes. I also think all the human rights and international rule of law would be thrown out the window as countries do whatever and kill whoever to protect themselves.
I'm doubtful that countries such as Australia would escape un nuked during a super power nuclear conflict. I don't see formal allies of super powers that possess tier one conventional equipment being left alone.
 
I'm doubtful that countries such as Australia would escape un nuked during a super power nuclear conflict. I don't see formal allies of super powers that possess tier one conventional equipment being left alone.

With Russias 1800 and Chinas 100 long range nukes on somewhat less delivery systems what targets in the USA are going to be left alone so Australia can eat a nuke or 10?
 
Top