Most likely aftermath of an early 80s nuclear war?

apollo11

Banned
What interception efforts - the only place on the planet with a working ABM system was Moscow and that is likely to have been only marginally effective as it would almost certainly be overwhelmed by sheer volume.
Think they are referring to the bombers and preemptively striking silos.
 
Most likely aftermath of an early 80s nuclear war? .. A very, very bad day.. for most concerned

threads was made for TV

real world.. eh, not a made for tv movie.

run the numbers. 30-50,000 bombs... fallout, collapse of the modern world, massive collapse of the environment.. I'll take the move option please.-
 
Here is something I've never seen considered on one of these threads: What happens to the loose nuclear weapons? Would there be a bunch of warlords locked in perpetual MAD? City-states unable to consolidate into larger continental nation-states because every 100 miles is some backwards tyrant with a left over nuke?

I mean probably yeah, you'd have survivor Red Army/NATO units turned warlord potentially having independent access to nuclear weapons, I could imagine situations where nukes are still going off a few years after the conflict ends for revenge etc.
 
Maybe this is on your shelf already. The book "WarDay"by Strieber and Kinetka posits a 'limited' exchange (set in the 1980s) that wrecks US with maybe three missiles (San Antonio, DC and New York). But that might have been 15 weapons. 10 million blast deaths plus massive fallout and crop failures, etc. Not sure what happened to USSR and China. I recall a lot of damage to USSR. But - in a limited exchange - Europe and Japan managed to sit out the war. Still USA a catastrophe. Sobering reading.
 
People forget that the USSR was producing thousands of tons of modified biological weapons (anthrax, smallpox, plague, tularemia, marburg etc) annually and had the means to deliver them in the event of a war.

Just imagine what would happen if tons of vaccine resistant smallpox were used against major cities in Europe, China and the US alongside nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited:
People forget that the USSR was producing thousands of tons of modified biological weapons (anthrax, smallpox, plague, tularemia, marburg etc) annually and had the means to deliver them in the event of a war.

Just imagine what would happen if tons of vaccine resistant smallpox were used against major cities in Europe, China and the US alongside nuclear weapons.

I'm genuinely curious as to how these diseases would vector. Would the nukes make it harder for specific bio-weapon diseases to spread? I imagine there will be lots of infected refugees milling around and fighting over resources, but how far can they get in the circumstances where most cities are burning ruins, fuel all but evaporates, radiation is drifting around etc. Would those diseases unleashed burn themselves out quite quickly among localized refugees? Eg. Bio-Weapon hits Berlin, the survivors become infected but die shortly afterwards due to radiation/starvation/they cant really leave and the disease can't spread.

How are bio weapons targeted? Do they fire them at cities already nuked? Do they drop them on cities that haven't?
 
I'm genuinely curious as to how these diseases would vector. Would the nukes make it harder for specific bio-weapon diseases to spread? I imagine there will be lots of infected refugees milling around and fighting over resources, but how far can they get in the circumstances where most cities are burning ruins, fuel all but evaporates, radiation is drifting around etc. Would those diseases unleashed burn themselves out quite quickly among localized refugees? Eg. Bio-Weapon hits Berlin, the survivors become infected but die shortly afterwards due to radiation/starvation/they cant really leave and the disease can't spread.

How are bio weapons targeted? Do they fire them at cities already nuked? Do they drop them on cities that haven't?

That's a very good question, because commercial transportation is going to shut down completely before and after the nuclear exchange. This means that certain fairly isolated parts of the world are going to be safe unless the Soviets directly hit them. In this category lie Iceland, the UK, Ireland, Japan, Sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, New Zealand and South America. Only places where refugees can migrate by land are in danger of being subject to the spread of this. This puts all of Europe and all of the United States save Hawaii, Mexico and Canada at risk. It also puts Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself at risk. Ultimately, if this is something that can persist, it puts the whole Eurasian continent at risk. But if it's something quite lethal and migration can only take place by land, the chances of it infecting the whole continent are rather small. It will burn itself out long before it can get to every nook and cranny of Eurasia. A further issue is how the Soviets get something out after a nuclear exchange. Unless the stuff is in ballistic missile submarines, there aren't likely to be many missiles or aircraft left. So I'm a bit skeptical of how this could really be a major concern outside of continental Europe, where they could be used as tactical weapons in the theater delivered by missile or aircraft against NATO population centers. And that doesn't make a lot of sense if the Soviet goal is conquest since their own forces would run into the stuff, though it wouldn't necessarily be out of character for Soviets to sacrifice their own troops...
 
dont forget the mass amount of chemicals weapons being unleash on the world. and non nuclear radioactive weapon being used as well.
 

WILDGEESE

Gone Fishin'
I'm planning a story that involves a nuclear war that occurs in 1983. The main events of the story will occur a few decades afterwards, so the war itself will serve as a backdrop more than anything. What I need help with is information that would help me with the setting; such as casualties, environmental effects, and likely targets. The environmental effects and casualties would really help. Just pointing out good sources would also be appreciated.

The POD would likely involve either Able Archer '83 or the 1983 Soviet false alarm. Full, global nuclear exchange is also assumed.

Well environment wise this.

Although they'd be a so called "Nuclear Winter" it wouldn't be as most people had imagined, no months of perpetual darkness and the collapse of plant species etc.

Carl Sagan and some of his friends in both the US and USSR (then) did an study regarding this and it was made into a BBC 2 program HORIZON "The 8th Day" . . . it's on YouTUBE!

Unfortunately for Sagan and his mates was completely wrong as demonstrated by the Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991.

Before then, the excepted theory was that after WWIII, there'd be months of darkness due to all the soot and smoke ejected into the atmosphere. The Mt Pinatubo eruption put pay to that theory as nearly all the ash was washed out of the atmosphere by the action of rain in a couple of weeks.

Surprisingly it was the aerosols that were ejected into the atmosphere that caused the main damage to the earths climate as the amount released, roughly between 16 -18 million tons travelled around the earth and caused global temperatures to drop an average of 1 to 1.5 degrees for two years. A shocked Sagan even admitted he got it completely wrong on the effects of a nuclear war.

So to summarise . . .

After WWIII . . . there'd be a probable dark period of around two weeks or so as the dirt particles would seed the atmosphere and cause it to rain thus ridding the air of dirt. The aerosols released on the other hand would cause global temperatures to plummet for years to come. Locally this would mean for example that if it was late summer when the war kicked off, it would be extremely sunny but despite it being in the afternoon, the ground would be frozen solid and the temperatures in the low minuses.

Hope this has helped

Regards filers.
 
My first post here. Go easy on me. Great story idea and it would depend greatly as to what kind of nuclear war was fought. If limited to military targets using the bombs available at that time and assuming all air bursts the radioactivity would not be a problem. Half life rule. However, if things totally got out of hand with many civilian cities hit along with many military hard target surface bursts or the use of dedicated nasty salted bombs there would still be areas quite dangerous.

Even a total insane nuclear exchange with all sides emptying there silos on each other would NOT result in a nuclear winter. Nuclear Winter was disinformation foisted upon the West by the Commies. Yes this is true.

The disruptions in food supply would reduce the worlds population, over 25 years to just a small fraction of todays. Figure a 90%+ die back. You do not die from the nuclear bombs; you die from starvation. No food. No distribution chains. No transport. Many world areas would be non affected, particularly in the Southern hemisphere. A great story line of survivors trying to re establish civilization, Figure tech being around the 1900 mark? Quite a disruption indeed. Yikes!

HB of CJ ex FF RN PM radiological officer
 
The American agricultural breadbasket in the Midwest would have a vast accumulation of foodstuffs, so much of that part of the continent would survive the first critical years. Supply movement would be the most critical issue. Assuming any "nuclear winter" would be modest, large amounts of machinery and infrastructure would be intact, with "holes" in key hub cities. Survivors could de-populate the cities and work the fields. The trouble is, it has been said, "shovels don't fit their hands."
 
Even before you have any release of biological weapons (intentional or accidental) the destruction of medical infrastructure, and basic sanitation in wide areas will mean that cholera, typhoid, dysentery will run wild rapidly. In addition to the waterborne diseases in the previous sentence, vector borne diseases like typhus, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, and anything mosquito borne (malaria, all sorts of encephalitis, etc) will come back big anywhere the given vector can live. Rats will love the aftermath, fleas love rats, and both hantavirus and plague love rats and or fleas. With decreased sanitation you'll see a slow return of polio (water borne). Assuming that anything north of the equator that survives is not going to be exporting anything anywhere, the fact that a large percentage of the world south of the equator is dependent upon the northern half for many medicines and vaccines, as well as food it will be a huge issue to provide adequate public health even where infrastructure has not been directly destroyed. How many "third world" manufacture or even could manufacture parts and consumables for water purification or sewage treatment plants. Even Australia and New Zealand are going to have to scramble to figure out how to make what they can no longer import.

Between loss of agricultural imports and disruption of trade between surviving polities, nutritional status among the "southern" survivors will drop, in some places drastically in to malnutrition or outright famine. Those malnourished are substantially more susceptible to disease, and when they get sick do less well. In some areas you could see the return of nutritional diseases (scurvy, beri-beri, etc).

Add biological weapons designed to be more antibiotic resistant or vaccine proof and this particular horseman rides out.
 
Maybe this is on your shelf already. The book "WarDay"by Strieber and Kinetka posits a 'limited' exchange (set in the 1980s) that wrecks US with maybe three missiles (San Antonio, DC and New York). But that might have been 15 weapons.

It was a bit more than that. The WarDay attack on the US was more of a limited counterforce scenario with some countervalue mixed in. Hundreds of warheads on the missile silos and bomber bases, with some collateral urban targets. The logic behind targeting New York wasn't fully explained, but it was hit by three medium size warheads, with more landing off the coast (the whole New York attack was described as a "miss".)
 
Last edited:
Overall? Population worldwide drops to 500 million by year's end and bottoms out about 150 million about 1986. Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, and New Zealand are tech centers. Switzerland survives better than most think as will Scandinavia. Most of the rest of the world is chingada.

In Asia, Siberia is wrecked but a functional Soviet successor state emerges in about 5-7 years. Southeast Asia is largely ignored but implodes while China and Japan are glassed. India and Pakistan would be a superpower if they cooperated but instead fight amongst each other and delay recovery for one or two decades. Middle Eastern regimes either die off fast but maybe a few survive, perhaps Iran and Iraq survive only to pummel each other harder. Israel dies but takes their neighbors with them.

Africa above the Congo River degenerates i to feudal or tribal states with perhaps a city-state or two seen by satellite at night. East Africa might recombine - Uganda likely survives in some form - and if Kenya can work with Tanzania maybe an East African power emerges. Or perhaps tribal warfare consumes the region. South Africa probably sees some sort of civil war but could emerge either as a racist power or federation of (tribal?) nations. Technology probably matches 1940s with some areas a bit more advanced.

South America likely unites under a military government led by Brazil but not painfully dominated it. If they play their cards right, South America becomes the global power. If they fight amongst themselves...well...the world recovery is likely slowed even more.

For North America the new tech center is Oregon outside of Portland, western Idaho, northern Maine, eastern Kentucky with western/central West Virginia, and western Texas. Smaller cities will be centers of recovery, but the Plains and Northeast are screwed along with the major and mid-sized ports. Parts of Mexico and western Canada will do well, as will the bulk of Alaska, but Hawaii and eastern Canada are graveyards. Recovery starts West and goes East with an Appalachian nation-state emerging to prominence along with one out of Oregon and probably another out if Utah. Tech levels vary widely from Middle Ages to 1960s or even early 1970s.
 
Last edited:
If Israel does not get hit by the Soviets, which it may, IMHO it will survive at least in the short term. When the big boys wind down, they have nukes and can eliminate any organized Arab opposition. Egypt just needs on detonation - take out the Aswan High Dam, and the flood will do all the hard work. Damascus and Baghdad go away. Israel will be able to seize the Sinai, and the real although limited oil resources there, and can take the canal if they want, both sides or just take the east bank and use it as a moat. The only issue in Syria is can the Israelis grab enough territory that is readily defensible and has the oil fields, otherwise why bother. Israel can find friends among the Druze, Lebanese Christians, and the Kurds - they can all have their own states in alliance with Israel. With the exception of Iran, none of the Arab states have much industry to manufacture even small arms let alone tanks, aircraft and spare parts for same. A lot of maintenance for the more advanced weapons in much of the Arab world is done by foreign contractors. Iran is potentially a major threat, however in the wake of the war their economy will be in bad shape (no export of oil) and if the Israelis want they can use a few nukes there to destroy the key industrial infrastructure as well as the leadership.

Israel has a highly educated population, is pretty much self sufficient in calories, although variety would suffer, and has the most robust industrial base in the Middle East. If the Soviets toss even two or three nukes there, they are toast. Given the prevailing winds the fallout from NATO targets should not be too bad, of course a shift at the wrong time could be a problem, although Israel has a robust civil defense system.

Most of the Middle East will descend in to internecine warfare. Christian-Muslim, Sunni-Shi'a, Arab-Persian are just the start. Larger groups like Kurds and Druze may have a shot, smaller like the Yazidi unless protected by a larger group are going to die. And don't forget the famous saying in the Arab world: "me against my brothers, my brothers and I against our cousins, us and cousins against the tribe, our tribe against others".

Anyways, as stated absent Soviet hits or being blanketed by huge amounts of fallout Israel will not be overrun by its neighbors. If, for whatever reason, Israel is prostrate, the Jews who survive the invasion will envy the dead.
 
The American agricultural breadbasket in the Midwest would have a vast accumulation of foodstuffs, so much of that part of the continent would survive the first critical years. Supply movement would be the most critical issue. Assuming any "nuclear winter" would be modest, large amounts of machinery and infrastructure would be intact, with "holes" in key hub cities. Survivors could de-populate the cities and work the fields. The trouble is, it has been said, "shovels don't fit their hands."

Except that the whole area was dotted with missile silos. It would be deluged with fallout from ground bursts trying to take out Minuteman and Titan fields in Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, etc. Yes, there will be food, but between the silos and cities like Omaha, Des Moines, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Rapid City, Grand Forks, Kansas City, St. Louis and so forth that were probable targets, the population will be devastated by the initial attack and the fallout and disease that follows. Much of that food will go to rot unconsumed. Farm animals will certainly die or be contaminated. I wouldn't hang my hat on this being a particularly pleasant part of the nation to be. It will help those who do survive, but this region was just chock full of military targets.
 
Except that the whole area was dotted with missile silos. It would be deluged with fallout from ground bursts trying to take out Minuteman and Titan fields in Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, etc. Yes, there will be food, but between the silos and cities like Omaha, Des Moines, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Rapid City, Grand Forks, Kansas City, St. Louis and so forth that were probable targets, the population will be devastated by the initial attack and the fallout and disease that follows. Much of that food will go to rot unconsumed. Farm animals will certainly die or be contaminated. I wouldn't hang my hat on this being a particularly pleasant part of the nation to be. It will help those who do survive, but this region was just chock full of military targets.
True, but consider the large areas between the big dots. https://modernsurvivalblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/nuclear-target-red-dot-map.jpg
 
Last edited:

A fair point, but the whole region between dots will be bathed in fallout from ground bursts further west. Don't get me wrong -- people between dots who find fallout protection will survive. But their cows, chickens and pigs will be dead and their land will be poisoned. And some areas may escape fallout altogether if they get a break from the winds aloft sending the fallout somewhere else. But areas that escape all fallout will be the exception rather than the rule. The cities are going to be gone. A few might survive if they're targeted by a dud warhead, but that's a factor of luck, not Soviet planning.
 
Top