How should 1983 Doomsday have gone

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, because a bunch of tired and starving refugees trying to topple a government is obviously the same as an empire relocating their government and aristocracy to one of their colonial possessions.:rolleyes:

Well, yes, because in Peshawar Lancers the refugees in Britain were fleeing mass starvation and cannibalism.
 
I was just reading about military dictatorships in my home country (Argentina) and the 1983 timeline seems not likely, Argentina just came out of the worst military regime in our history, just transisionate to a Democracy, Uruguay and the rest of our neighbours were still dictatorships. So the point is, the Repúblicas Unidas del Sur is veeery unlikely to became a realty, the most probaly is that the world economic crisis cause another goverment collapse. But the population was very resilient to the military,,, so I can't predict it, the democratic goverment will be presioned from everyside (Military, Church, and the starving and exausted population).
The only other democratic nations that will support our goverment will be Australia and Mexico.

The military Regime of latin america ended in that period, after the 80's... Would the militarys regimes remain in power for the crisis?... Will the Argentine democracy survive? (I truly hope so).

Sorry for my english, thanks for reading me!
 
Other facts, Argentina and Uruguay can feed their populations with out foreing imports, I dont think famine will be THAT bad, the andean and Brazil will be in problem, Africa will starve.
 

Nephi

Banned
Australia might actually be "luckier" than 1983 Doomsday, with only a few military installations and warning sites hit and actually keep it's cities.


The southern hemisphere survives the horribleness kinda radiation still sweeps down and in the atmosphere in general but South America will probably be the least effected continent.

I think the Soviets hit the Swiss, Fins, Austrians, and Irish too to prevent them from being of any assistance to neighbors.

The northern hemisphere is awful, tiny little tribes of survivors living off irradiated scraps.

I think Mexico falls too from waves of people crossing in to the fallout itself.
 

Nephi

Banned
5c06b7025d58ed6da00ffbd2-640-561.png


I guess in that case the US might survive too.
 
the majority of posters here ( who wouldn't be posting here because the internet would not have spread) would be very, very dead.
Ha! Says you, I'd probably never have been born!

...wait.

We really need Corditeman to discuss this. He was a Civil Defence planner.
Paging @corditeman


As for the topic, I think people have covered it well - the northern hemisphere is very dead and sad, the southern hemisphere is managing but also a bit crippled by all of the destruction north and the collapse of most global systems.
 
Soviets did not target Australian cities. I also think the devastation for the United States is overstated to a degree; a quick list at likely targets in the U.S. shows places such as Lexington, Kentucky were also not targets.
I think the key word is "likely." We really have no idea what the Soviets would have targeted and not since those plans have since evolved into the Russian SIOP. But considering the scenario and the attitudes back then, the Soviets would have launched with the intent that America never gets up again.
 
Oh wow, I missed that archival release at the time.

SPOILERS: It's a surprisingly optimistic article.

Suspiciously optimistic.

In fact, if the journalist is summarising the historical documents accurately, I'm inclined to say this is less an honest assessment of real nuclear warfare disaster, and more an example of post-Vietnam retreat from Cold War doctrine within the Australian bureaucracy quietly accelarating under PM Malcolm Fraser & Foreign Minister Andrew Peacock (something I've long suspected, but haven't looked into enough).

THE US-Australian joint defence installations were almost certainly Russian nuclear targets during the Cold War. However, Australia's cities might well have survived unscathed if superpower tensions had erupted into a global conflagration, according to a top secret intelligence assessment released by the National Archives of Australia.

More than three decades after it was written, the Australian government has finally declassified its most secret study of the potential impact on Australia of a nuclear war between the US and the former Soviet Union.

f2c7b433202bee983df7f213dc1bfe3a94ff4998

Assured destruction ... a Russian Topol-12M mobile nuclear missile.CREDIT:REUTERS

Unlike the apocalyptic scenario in author Nevil Shute's novel On the Beach, the Office of National Assessments largely dismissed any danger to the nation from global radioactive fallout or stratospheric distribution of smoke from burning cities.

The office questioned if Australian cities would be targets for Soviet missiles, suggesting the US's southern hemisphere ally would be a ''low priority'' in a global nuclear exchange.

''In the aftermath of strategic nuclear war, there would be massive economic, demographic and political change in the northern hemisphere, which would pose much more serious problems for Australia than radioactive fallout,'' the office told the then prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, in December 1980.

In a strategic assessment written in the context of the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan, the office warned that the US-Australian naval communications station at North West Cape in Western Australia would be a high-priority nuclear target if Cold War tensions led to global war.

''As the nuclear conflict escalated and the prospects of its containment receded, we judge that nuclear attacks on some or all of [the joint defence] facilities would probably occur,'' the office advised. ''Where each side was using, or was judged likely to use, its submarine forces to strike at the opposition's cities, the USSR would rank North West Cape as an important target.''

The risks of nuclear attacks on the Pine Gap signals intelligence satellite ground station in central Australia and the missile launch detection facility at Nurrungar were considered ''somewhat lower'' because those facilities were ''not an integral part of an offensive strategic nuclear weapons system''. However, the office thought it probable that they would be targeted in an all-out nuclear exchange.

It was anticipated an attack on North West Cape would kill some 2000 people in Exmouth. Strikes against Pine Gap and Nurrungar raised the possibility of radioactive fallout over Alice Springs, Woomera and other towns in northern South Australia and it was considered a small risk of fallout over Adelaide could require ''temporary evacuation''.


Nevertheless, the office argued that ''in the scale of horrors usually associated with nuclear war, the direct physical effects on Australia of an attack on the joint defence facilities would not be catastrophic; apart, possibly, from Adelaide, the main Australian cities would not be significantly affected''.

Direct attacks on Australian cities were acknowledged as a possibility but the intelligence agency's view was that the Soviet Union ''would probably see Australian cities as low-priority nuclear targets''.
 
I would have been either at Ft Sill, on Okinawa, Mt Fuji Japan, or in Korea, depending on the exact date. Maybe 50% chance of surviving the initial exchange. May have died in subsequent weeks or months.
 
Oh wow, I missed that archival release at the time.

SPOILERS: It's a surprisingly optimistic article.

Suspiciously optimistic.

In fact, if the journalist is summarising the historical documents accurately, I'm inclined to say this is less an honest assessment of real nuclear warfare disaster, and more an example of post-Vietnam retreat from Cold War doctrine within the Australian bureaucracy quietly accelarating under PM Malcolm Fraser & Foreign Minister Andrew Peacock (something I've long suspected, but haven't looked into enough).

One thing I will say is that the Aussies do have the advantage of being out of range of everything except Soviet boomers, which I doubt would be tasked for Australian given the far more pressing targets of NATO, associated states like Japan, and finally the PRC.
 
the us should have probably pulled a peshawar lancers type situation in mexico, with a US that's reclaimed the southwest by 2019. the fact that it's a government centered in mexico city running texas/california again would probably be seen as quite an irony
They would have one in Hawaii or Puerto Rico. But Mexico? No.
 
Soviets did not target Australian cities. I also think the devastation for the United States is overstated to a degree; a quick list at likely targets in the U.S. shows places such as Lexington, Kentucky were also not targets.

Again though, the Soviets and Russians never released target lists. You can guess that they may not have sent anything towards Australia, but you cant quite be sure. Lower priority sure, but Australia escaping unscathed is not a given.
 
Colombia: Drink all that coffee, that is all what we've alongside our meager agrictulture...colombia could start to feed herself later on...but will not be easy... the rest...colombia and venezuela will trade whatever food the other have in surplus plus oil from venezuela and coffee send to them
 
One thing I will say is that the Aussies do have the advantage of being out of range of everything except Soviet boomers, which I doubt would be tasked for Australian given the far more pressing targets of NATO, associated states like Japan, and finally the PRC.

Again though, the Soviets and Russians never released target lists. You can guess that they may not have sent anything towards Australia, but you cant quite be sure. Lower priority sure, but Australia escaping unscathed is not a given.

From what I can tell those soviet 'Satan' ICBM's based east of Lake Baikal could have hit almost anywhere in Australia.

Anyway, even if I'm wrong on that, my suspicion is that the Pacific fleet submarine based missiles may have had major Western alliance ports as a priority; navy on naval installation nuking makes so much sense in the mind of the strategic planner officer keeping continuity with history, even as he's ending history once and for all.

Captain Cook graving dock is ridiculously close to the middle of Sydney.
 
Also worth noting Soviet ICBMs had a high failure rate hence why some targets escaped. This would explain why Soviets overtargeted cities like New York (center of American trade and culture plus symbol of capitalism), Washington, D.C. (capital of the United States, home of the Congress, Justice Department, DOD, White House, and other government agencies), and Omaha (SAC in Offut AFB plus nearby missile silos).

Surprisingly optimistic here is why Cheyenne Mountain Complex in Colorado completely survived Doomsday when almost all SS-18s would have been targeted there along with those three cities I mentioned above.
 
the majority of posters here ( who wouldn't be posting here because the internet would not have spread) would be very, very dead.
I live close to a major military installation. I'll either be very dead or very alive depending on how good they are at shooting down the bombers.
 
I live in central NJ. If you draw a line from New York to Philly, here’s a list of military targets in that corridor:
Fort Dix
McGuire AFB
Lakehurst naval Air Station
Fort Monmouth (still open in 83)
Earle Naval Weapons Station (2 locations, one on the coast, one inland)
(I’m sure I missed a few)

plus Newark Airport, the Secaucus ship terminals, and surrounding oil storage yards.

Then of course those cities as well.

Yeah, I’m deader than dead.

ric350
 
I live close to a major military installation. I'll either be very dead or very alive depending on how good they are at shooting down the bombers.

From what I've read I had seven nuclear targets within about five miles of my house. I'd have been a very dead toddler...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top