Potential Conflicts Following WWIII in 1962?

It would be interesting to see the discussions on the World Wars in a world where the Cold War went hot in 1962, considering that every World War would have seemed to have just further cemented the United States as the dominant political, cultural, military and economic powerhouse.
Maybe the US could start considering integrating the remainder of the human race under a US-dominated UN with a modified version of American culture as the official Leitkultur of humankind kind of like how the Federation in Star Trek arose from world unification following WW3
 
True, but imagine 10% of those bombers get through
A mix of NORAD bases and early warning stations, and primarily Canadian cities I would imagine. Penetrating three separate radar lines, and the efforts of no less than a 1000 NORAD interceptors plus the nuclear tipped Nike and Bomarc SAM makes the odd of Soviet bombers managing to hit further south then say Minneapolis and Seattle rather low and even those are iffy
 
A mix of NORAD bases and early warning stations, and primarily Canadian cities I would imagine. Penetrating three separate radar lines, and the efforts of no less than a 1000 NORAD interceptors plus the nuclear tipped Nike and Bomarc SAM makes the odd of Soviet bombers managing to hit further south then say Minneapolis and Seattle rather low and even those are iffy
Basically my position as well. My thinking on Canada was if Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto and Quebec City are hit; a lot of Canadians would then be dead and the country bisected.
 
Last edited:
Basically my position as well. My thinking on Canada was if Winnipeg, Ottawa, Toronto and Quebec City are hit; a lot of Canadians would then be dead and the country bisected.
It seems possible that the remnants of the country would be absorbed by a largely-unscathed United States.
 
Some other power players of note would be South Africa, Portugal and Spain. The Apartheid regime would be bolstered, both economically and demographically, by the arrival of millions of European refugees while its general policy of autarky would insulate it from most economic chaos; likewise, the loss of the USSR as a means of funding, training and weapons would collapse most realistic threats to the regime. Spain and Portugal would enjoy much the same, due to their relative isolation and the fact they still had stable colonies to rely upon in Africa. Portugal especially will benefit here.
 

Vaporized

Banned
From the aftermath to Amerigo's timeline:

China was never attacked in the CMW scenario. Kennedy revised the SIOP at the last minute because China offered to mediate in the conflict and said it would stay out of the war. China is now a mega-power in its own right having moved into and colonized the eastern part of the former Soviet Union.

As to Israel she forcibly expelled the Palestinians and left them "high and dry" literally on the beaches of Turkey. Israel is now a nuclear power and fully able to handle any and all comers. At the end of the CMW she took a large piece of Syria after Syria tried to invade her.

The nuclear powers in this new world after the CMW are:
  1. The United States.
  2. The United Kingdom
  3. France
  4. Israel
  5. South Africa
  6. India
  7. Pakistan
  8. Brazil
Brazil also has a growing navy and is now a major world power. Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and the surviving South-eastern Asian nations have banded together in a mutual defense pact similar to NATO and Australia and Japan are now likely working on their own nuclear weapons given the danger they see from the megalith that is China.
When Angels Wept has a different timeline with China being destroyed. Not because Kennedy wanted to, but because a Soviet first strike eliminates him and SIOP 63 is activated.
 
Something I just realized is that the SS-4 only has a range of 1290 miles and the first SS-5s, with their longer range, weren't deployed until January of 1962; height of deployment was 97 launchers between 1965 and 1969. Besides Spain and Portugal coming out of it fairly decently, the UK too might get relatively lucky and still be left as a functioning country at the end of it.
 
Last edited:
Something I just realized is that the SS-4 only has a range of 1290 miles and the first SS-5s, with their longer range, weren't deployed until January of 1962; height of deployment was 97 launchers between 1965 and 1969. Besides Spain and Portugal coming out of it fairly decently, the UK too might get relatively lucky and still be left as a functioning country at the end of it.
If the British are really lucky, they might be able to avoid nuclear strikes on their home ground. However, realistically London, Birmingham, Manchester, and/or Edinburgh would likely become toast.
 
If the British are really lucky, they might be able to avoid nuclear strikes on their home ground. However, realistically London, Birmingham, Manchester, and/or Edinburgh would likely become toast.
They probably could not get that lucky; near as I can tell, SS-4s from the Baltics and Kaliningrad could all reach the UK. Apparently there were around 40 missile bases in that region at the time and they averaged around four missiles each for ~160 in total. Still, between the need to hit many targets with more than one missile and the failure rate of the SS-4s (increased from operating towards the maximum range of said missile), it's likely several cities and military facilities could come out of the conflict not destroyed.
 
And the exercises the USAF did about intercepting Soviet bombers a few years before 1963 delivered far less than stellar results
The Skyshield exercises were against more capable NATO bombers than those the Soviets possessed, travelling shorter distances than the Soviets would've, with better knowledge of NORAD defenses, and against defending units that weren't operating with a sense of life-and-death urgency.
 
Can we talk about other areas of the world?

A surviving Apartheid South Africa would likely extend its influence over the Rhodesias and Malawi, and would be more stable but democratize more slowly than IOTL.

The Portuguese Empire/Federation would retain prominence as a regional power in Africa and Europe as one of the few countries not damaged for political reasons or logistical ones (Yugoslavia and Austria were to be overrun by the Red Army), and as a founding member of NATO could enjoy support from the US, although Caetano may not hold power for long.

India is something of a wildcard, depending on whether Nehru kisses the pinky of the US and promises to liberalize the economy (to receive legitimacy and possible funding as an investment market to substitute for Western Europe and Japan in the Grand Area Plan as industrialized core allies). Also, the Sino-Indian War that strengthened the internal identity of "Indian" regardless of region may or may not be strengthened if there is no war. Tensions with Pakistan would certainly be a factor.

Iran: Tehran, as a forward base for the USAF, would be most certainly hit. Given the initial diversity of the Shah's opponents (Marxists, Islamists, liberals and others), a civil war or at least a lengthy negotiating process with reservations for each group is inevitable.
 
Last edited:
From what I came across, had WWIII started, General Power at SAC probably would have hit China anyway, to make entrance and egress corridors for B-52s visiting the USSR to Clark and Anderson AFB in the Pacific, no matter what JFK wanted.
That's definitely one way to get court-martialed - or to be prosecuted at an international military tribunal à la Nuremberg, though I am unsure whether one might be set up in the aftermath of this conflict.
 
That's definitely one way to get court-martialed - or to be prosecuted at an international military tribunal à la Nuremberg, though I am unsure whether one might be set up in the aftermath of this conflict.
If WWIII with the USA with less than the Dr Stranglelove 'hair mussed' result of '10-20M tops' in casualties, it would be seen as a huge victory, given allnm the talk of the previous 'gaps' in deployed bombers and missiles. John Q Public thought the US behind the USSR, and believed Khrushchev's boasts.
And then you would court martial the guy who would be seen as the destroyer of the Communists across the Globe?
It would like putting Nimitz on trial after Midway.
 
I don’t see the South Africans taking in millions of refugees, the National Party government was a party for the Boers by the Boers and they would likely be very leery of taking in anyone who isn’t a Dutch conservative

What I do see is the Rhodesians doing everything in their power to attract European immigration to bolster their position against the native population
 
Can we talk about other areas of the world?

A surviving Apartheid South Africa would likely extend its influence over the Rhodesias and Malawi, and would be more stable but democratize more slowly than IOTL.

The Portuguese Empire/Federation would retain prominence as a regional power in Africa and Europe as one of the few countries not damaged for political reasons or logistical ones (Yugoslavia and Austria were to be overrun by the Red Army), and as a founding member of NATO could enjoy support from the US, although Caetano may not hold power for long.

India is something of a wildcard, depending on whether Nehru kisses the pinky of the US and promises to liberalize the economy (to receive legitimacy and possible funding as an investment market to substitute for Western Europe and Japan in the Grand Area Plan as industrialized core allies). Also, the Sino-Indian War that strengthened the internal identity of "Indian" regardless of region may or may not be strengthened if there is no war. Tensions with Pakistan would certainly be a factor.

Iran: Tehran, as a forward base for the USAF, would be most certainly hit. Given the initial diversity of the Shah's opponents (Marxists, Islamists, liberals and others), a civil war or at least a lengthy negotiating process with reservations for each group is inevitable.
Or how about what would post-WWIII Europe be like? It'd be more akin to being a bloc of third world countries in terms of infrastructure and stability, only with cold weather and white people, at least for a few decades. Few of them would be more developed than the others, i.e. Spain, Sweden, Yugoslavia, and Switzerland.
 
Or how about what would post-WWIII Europe be like? It'd be more akin to being a bloc of third world countries in terms of infrastructure and stability, only with cold weather and white people, at least for a few decades. Few of them would be more developed than the others, i.e. Spain, Sweden, Yugoslavia, and Switzerland.
I would expect influence from North Africa (Algeria and Libya) and India in UK. The Americans might actually occupy everything from France to Norway and annex it as territory.
 
From what I could determine, SAC and USN were not planning anything for Yugoslavia. Rest of the Warsaw Pact, you bet, but not them.
And the Germany, both East and West, would be in no shape to do anything except die in juge numbers, given how WWIII would pan out. survivors would try to flee, it would be far worse than what had gone on with the 30 years War.
Al that said, I believe the US would try to evac those from Europe but the size of that job is just stunning
I figure there's a decent chance the Soviets would have nuked the Yugoslavians little themselves. Maybe not a thorough plastering but at least something like removing it's capital from existence.
 
Soviets only had 20 operational ICBMs with a failure rate of 15-30% and against hundreds of Nuke-tipped NIKE missiles. Definitely single digit city losses at best, and that’s making the assumption they were all geared for Counter-Value instead of Counter Force.
1960's era Soviet ICBM's don't have the CEP for counter-force strikes. They are going to be used on counter-value strikes (with possible exceptions like Omaha and Cheyenne Mountain). If the US gets its launch off first, those ICBM's are going to be even more attritted than their failure rate indicates as a good number of them are not silo-based.
 
Top