Nations untouched by a nuclear exchange in the 80s?

Wendigo

Banned
If WW3 broke out between the US and USSR in the 80s and their combined 60,000+ nuclear weapons, chemical weapons and engineered bioagents were let loose, would there be any nations that wouldn't get hit in the exchange?

Or would every major city be on the target list of either side?

Would there be any nations who would actually survive somewhat intact in the aftermath?
 
Last edited:
Africa and Southern Asia, maybe South America? They're unafilliated and pretty far away from the main centers of destruction (N America, Europe and Russian part of Asia)
 
Any nation not hit directly will suffer from the collapse of the global economy and trade, as well as all of the other innumerable problems holocausting the world would create, ranging from refugees to famine to civil unrest.

Oh, and that's before nuclear winter sets in.
 
Oh, and that's before nuclear winter sets in.

The rather short nuclear autumn will mostly affect the northern hemisphere,which is blasted to bits anyway.
In a similar tread to this one,someone posted the link to a highly informative paper about the effects of a 80s exchange,its a pity i don't have it anymore.
 
Many nations wouldn't be attacked directly but these nations which survive from the war will get huge refugee wave, economic collapse and nuclear winter. And some countries get some radiaton too.
 

Cook

Banned
The rather short nuclear autumn will mostly affect the northern hemisphere,which is blasted to bits anyway.
In a similar tread to this one,someone posted the link to a highly informative paper about the effects of a 80s exchange,its a pity i don't have it anymore.

Since a recent assessment of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, with their comparatively minuscule few hundred nuclear weapons, concluded that it would wipe out the growing season and result in at least 1.5 billion deaths from starvation, where do you get the notion that a nuclear exchange of well over 20,000 nuclear warheads, results in only minor climactic effects?

The climactic result of a US - Soviet nuclear exchange would have been nothing short of catastrophic:

2016-05-08-1462741850-9348615-Robock_nuclear_winter_map1030x704.png

Average cooling (in °C) during the first two summers after a full-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia (from Robock et al 2007).

might lower Earth’s average surface temperature by 7°C: a decade-long mini ice age caused by a U.S.-Russia nuclear war.

This is colder than the 5°C cooling we endured 20,000 years ago during the last ice age. The good news is that, according to state-of-the-art climate models by Alan Robock at Rutgers University, a nuclear mini ice age would be rather brief, with about half of the cooling gone after a decade. The bad news is that this more than long enough for most people on Earth to starve to death if farming collapses. Robock’s all-out-war scenario shows cooling by about 20°C (36°F) in much of the core farming regions of the U.S., Europe, Russia and China (by 35°C in parts of Russia) for the first two summers.

The science behind nuclear climate change is rather simple. Smoke from small fires doesn’t rise as high as the highest rain clouds, so rain washes the smoke away before too long. In contrast, massive firestorms from burning nuked cities can rise into the upper stratosphere, many times higher than commercial jet planes fly. There are no clouds that high and for this reason, the firestorm smoke never gets rained out. Moreover, this smoke absorbs sunlight and heats up, allowing it to get lofted to even higher altitudes where it might stay for approximately a decade, soon spreading around the globe to cover both the U.S. and Russia even if only one of the two got nuked. Since much of the solar heat absorbed by the smoke gets radiated back into space instead of warming the ground, nuclear winter ensues if there’s enough smoke.

http://futureoflife.org/2016/05/09/nuclear-mini-ice-age/
 
Last edited:
Top