Of course, I should have qualified that I was thinking in terms of an "everything must go" Major Attack Option scenario that the thread seems to invoking
Most realistic scenario for a world post a nuclear war
- Thread starter Mitchell Hundred
- Start date
Of course, I should have qualified that I was thinking in terms of an "everything must go" Major Attack Option scenario that the thread seems to invoking
I've seen estimates that a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan would cause a nuclear winter, so I don't doubt that the climactic effects of any war would be devastating. However the US would be able to survive it far better than the USSR would, not only because they would be hit less extremely by the initial exchange, but the USSR is also going to face bigger problems from a winter unlike any other considering the climate already.
Here's a US training film on a simulated exchange in 1958
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2v0YuDatpc
"This film was produced by the United States Air Force in the late 1950's for internal training purposes however it has now been declassified. The film depicts a simulated wartime plan action, which was executed at the Operation Control Room, Offutt Air Force Vase, Nebraska, and at the underground control room (location still classified), by the Strategic Air Command.
Footage includes pilots and ground crewmen scrambling; pilots boarding aircraft; B-47's, B-52's, and B-58's taxiing, taking off, maneuvering, and landing; and a KC-135 refueling a B-52. Also included are scenes of the launching of the Bull Goose, Rascal, Snark, and Thor missiles."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2v0YuDatpc
"This film was produced by the United States Air Force in the late 1950's for internal training purposes however it has now been declassified. The film depicts a simulated wartime plan action, which was executed at the Operation Control Room, Offutt Air Force Vase, Nebraska, and at the underground control room (location still classified), by the Strategic Air Command.
Footage includes pilots and ground crewmen scrambling; pilots boarding aircraft; B-47's, B-52's, and B-58's taxiing, taking off, maneuvering, and landing; and a KC-135 refueling a B-52. Also included are scenes of the launching of the Bull Goose, Rascal, Snark, and Thor missiles."
Tovarich
Banned
Indeed, the strike on Cromer (taking out the vital UK crab reserves) hit so hard that it rearranged the letters in the town's name.
Don't carry away with size of Nuclear Stockpile, the important factor is its "Delivery Systems" !
let take 1961 again as reverence
USSR got FOUR intercontinental rocket pointed on USA with target New York, Washington D.C. Chicago and Los Angeles
the chance that those R-7 could hit those targets were around 50 %.
So if Berlin Wall crisis goes hot in October 25, 1961
USSR could launch Four ICBMs to USA around 12 MT
USA could fire dozen ICBM, MRBM on USSR to hit Air defense system and HQ, paving the way for SAC bomber fleet
Those would drop one or two even three Nukes on target and try to get home. up to 100 Megatons alone on city of Moscow ( Overkill )
the chances the Soviet bomber even get true USA air defense system is marginal
while US Navy Polars Submarines are stand by to fire salvo, if some soviet survivors try to strike back.
Here i assume that China is not involved and SIOP-62 is on Hold for them.
Aftermath
USA could have two or more nuclear hits by Soviet Union
USSR and East Block also North Europe are wipe out, with hundreds Millions of deaths.
let take 1961 again as reverence
USSR got FOUR intercontinental rocket pointed on USA with target New York, Washington D.C. Chicago and Los Angeles
the chance that those R-7 could hit those targets were around 50 %.
So if Berlin Wall crisis goes hot in October 25, 1961
USSR could launch Four ICBMs to USA around 12 MT
USA could fire dozen ICBM, MRBM on USSR to hit Air defense system and HQ, paving the way for SAC bomber fleet
Those would drop one or two even three Nukes on target and try to get home. up to 100 Megatons alone on city of Moscow ( Overkill )
the chances the Soviet bomber even get true USA air defense system is marginal
while US Navy Polars Submarines are stand by to fire salvo, if some soviet survivors try to strike back.
Here i assume that China is not involved and SIOP-62 is on Hold for them.
Aftermath
USA could have two or more nuclear hits by Soviet Union
USSR and East Block also North Europe are wipe out, with hundreds Millions of deaths.
Europe devastated not untouched
Other targets would include ports, other airfields, major industrial areas and army/naval bases throughout western Europe. The USSR didn't have much to hit the US with in OCT62 but it had hundreds, thousands I think, of IRBMs and other nuclear systems that could devastate western Europe.
Had the US struck first the Soviet counterblow might have been weaker but I think Europe would still be have been in very sorry shape afterwards. Open to persuasion on that though. It depends on whether a first strike could disrupt the Soviet nuclear arsenal enough to prevent a devastating second strike on Europe and I've forgotten what little i ever knew of how targets were divided between the RAF, USAF and the missile forces.
The Europe bit certainly isn't. Had the Soviets decided on a first strike the RAF and USAF bomber bases in the UK would have been primary targets along with the Thor missile sites in the UK and elsewhere. Any airbase in western Europe where NATO had nuclear capable aircraft available would have been hit for the same reason - to prevent a first strike by NATO and avert retaliation. AD systems would have been first strike targets also
Other targets would include ports, other airfields, major industrial areas and army/naval bases throughout western Europe. The USSR didn't have much to hit the US with in OCT62 but it had hundreds, thousands I think, of IRBMs and other nuclear systems that could devastate western Europe.
Had the US struck first the Soviet counterblow might have been weaker but I think Europe would still be have been in very sorry shape afterwards. Open to persuasion on that though. It depends on whether a first strike could disrupt the Soviet nuclear arsenal enough to prevent a devastating second strike on Europe and I've forgotten what little i ever knew of how targets were divided between the RAF, USAF and the missile forces.
The Europe bit certainly isn't. Had the Soviets decided on a first strike the RAF and USAF bomber bases in the UK would have been primary targets along with the Thor missile sites in the UK and elsewhere. Any airbase in western Europe where NATO had nuclear capable aircraft available would have been hit for the same reason - to prevent a first strike by NATO and avert retaliation. AD systems would have been first strike targets also
Other targets would include ports, other airfields, major industrial areas and army/naval bases throughout western Europe. The USSR didn't have much to hit the US with in OCT62 but it had hundreds, thousands I think, of IRBMs and other nuclear systems that could devastate western Europe.
in 1962 both Germany will destroyed by tactical Nukes, nuclear artillery, M28 "Davy Crockett", Soviet IRBM & SRBM and Bombers, on NATO bases and Warsaw Pact Bases like wise.
Paris also hit, because it got NATO HQ near the Center at Porte Dauphine (today the Université Paris-Dauphine)
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) was in Rocquencourt (4 kilometers north-west of Versailles and 19 kilometers west of center Paris.)
Allied Forces Central Europe (AFCENT) was in Fontainebleau (a commune in the metropolitan area of Paris)
with 3 megaton strike on those 3 sites will devastate Paris...
The Europe bit certainly isn't. Had the Soviets decided on a first strike the RAF and USAF bomber bases in the UK would have been primary targets along with the Thor missile sites in the UK and elsewhere. Any airbase in western Europe where NATO had nuclear capable aircraft available would have been hit for the same reason - to prevent a first strike by NATO and avert retaliation. AD systems would have been first strike targets also
The book handwaves this by way of a secret "opt out" treaty between NATO and the Soviet Union in the event of a unilateral nuclear action by the US without the agreement of NATO - all US nuclear forces in NATO countries would be neutralised in return for the Soviets not attacking NATO. The war is sparked by the Curtis Lemay analogue character jumping the gun and attacking Cuba without Kennedy's permission.
It's variably plausible but necessary for the plot.
But even Salted Bombs aren't chernobyls, and they are also substantially less likely to be used anyway since it would invite retaliation of the same kind, which is like if you went from punching a guy really hard in the arm to straight up hacking his arm off. It wouldn't happen, most likely no bomb used would be more than a megaton or two.
The creeping cloud of doom in On the Beach was also a dramatic device rather than scientific reality. Wouldn't happen.
I know, but people have this fantasy that Nuclear War will somehow kill pretty much everyone in a short amount of time. I mean, yea, it would suck for the first hundred or two hundred years, but nothing that a society couldn't pull out of. Not to mention the hardest things to kill in the world are ideas, and because of our Internet and other means of communication, at least one person in any given community knows about a generally well known idea.
Also because there is no way in hell anyone is nuking a country like Bolivia in the cold war. Or Panama, especially not Panama. Civilization will always survive in some places.
Dayton Kitchens
Banned
In the alternate history scenario book What If- "The Two Day War"
The U.S. unleashes a barrage of nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis after in retaliation for the U.S. bombing Cuba with nuclear weapons using B-47 bombers, the Soviet commander there launches IRBMs that decimate Washington D.C. and wiping out the National Command Authority.
The Soviets are confused about what has happened as Moscow did not authorize the launch and their embassy and all its communications gear in Washington is destroyed.
The U.S. unleashes roughly 800 nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations (except for Hungary) on the first day of the war. And 550 more nuclear weapons the second day.
Results:
The Soviet Union and Cuba are basically exterminated with more than 90% of their populations wiped out (people start calling this the Second Holocaust.
Warsaw Pact nations lose 30-50% of their populations.
Nations like China, Japan, the Koreas, and even India lose thousands from fallout.
Everyone is pissed at the United States.
The U.S. unleashes a barrage of nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis after in retaliation for the U.S. bombing Cuba with nuclear weapons using B-47 bombers, the Soviet commander there launches IRBMs that decimate Washington D.C. and wiping out the National Command Authority.
The Soviets are confused about what has happened as Moscow did not authorize the launch and their embassy and all its communications gear in Washington is destroyed.
The U.S. unleashes roughly 800 nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact nations (except for Hungary) on the first day of the war. And 550 more nuclear weapons the second day.
Results:
The Soviet Union and Cuba are basically exterminated with more than 90% of their populations wiped out (people start calling this the Second Holocaust.
Warsaw Pact nations lose 30-50% of their populations.
Nations like China, Japan, the Koreas, and even India lose thousands from fallout.
Everyone is pissed at the United States.
Is there an estimate of how many low-level commanders that would abstain from launching their weapons, due to conscience or similar?
Dayton Kitchens
Banned
That probably wouldn't happen in real life. I've read a lot about life aboard a nuclear missile submarine and they say the training and conditioning is conducted so that basically everything is automatic. Just a few switches difference between actually launching real weapons and training for it.
When you have an elaborate routine it helps both with operational security and with self discipline in following orders. Most low level commanders are going to recognize the situation of rising tensions and would have "steeled themselves" to carry out the launches already.
TFSmith121
Banned
Panama has the distinction of being the only definite
Panama has the distinction of being the only definite strategic target of the Soviets in the event of nuclear war in the hemisphere outside of US and Canadian territory/bases...
The Canal is a prime strategic asset for the West, even today, and one the US will maintain control of, overtly or otherwise, in the event of any potential conflict.
So if the Soviets or anyone else have the technical ability to hit Panama, they will.
Best,
Panama has the distinction of being the only definite strategic target of the Soviets in the event of nuclear war in the hemisphere outside of US and Canadian territory/bases...
The Canal is a prime strategic asset for the West, even today, and one the US will maintain control of, overtly or otherwise, in the event of any potential conflict.
So if the Soviets or anyone else have the technical ability to hit Panama, they will.
Best,
I'm still not convinced. Wouldn't destroying the canal make every other country in the world hate them forever? (Except Chile, who would be overjoyed)
It seems like one of the riskiest possible diplomatic moves, especially if they're going to try afterward to pretend to play within the international system and find a way to blame the US (false flag, etc) for starting the nuclear war.
TFSmith121
Banned
The Canal was, essentially, a US military reservation
The Canal was, essentially, a US military reservation and so as much a "legal" target as the Pentagon.
Best.
The Canal was, essentially, a US military reservation and so as much a "legal" target as the Pentagon.
Best.