Had he ever?
I remember his favourite strategy (except for the months between November '89 and October '90) was "aussitzen" - to sit it out.Protect and Survive: A Timeline
- Thread starter Macragge1
- Start date
Had he ever?
I remember his favourite strategy (except for the months between November '89 and October '90) was "aussitzen" - to sit it out.I wonder what all the diplomats are doing now?I'm talking about diplomats of countries wiped off the face of the earth.The west german ambassador to Brazil is probably out of a job and country at the same time.Out of curiosity is there a rule about what to do if your country suddenly ceases to exist?Something along the lines in case of ?
Assuming Brasilia survived that is an interesting question.
There a pretty good chance it suffered the same fate as the capitals of pretty much every other major neutral.
I actually own "Strategic Nuclear Targeting" edited by Desmond Ball. This is a fairly comprehensive and as far as I know unique book on this arcane subject.
If the contributors the book know their stuff it seems very unlikely that cities like Brasilia would be hit.
After all, the intent of Soviet targeteers was to destroy NATO. I can't see them allocating warheads to places like Brasilia at the risk of omitting really important targets elsewhere, and given the so-so reliability of Soviet delivery systems they would IMO plaster the really vital targets at the expense of marginal places.
After all, following this logic to the nth degree, you would be hitting every concentration of human beings in the world. Surely the targeteers had their priorities spelt out?
Now in the months following an Exchange, when all weapons were free and there was no Command Authority left, yes I can imagine individual boomer commanders on both sides picking their targets of choice, which could be anywhere.
If the contributors the book know their stuff it seems very unlikely that cities like Brasilia would be hit.
After all, the intent of Soviet targeteers was to destroy NATO. I can't see them allocating warheads to places like Brasilia at the risk of omitting really important targets elsewhere, and given the so-so reliability of Soviet delivery systems they would IMO plaster the really vital targets at the expense of marginal places.
After all, following this logic to the nth degree, you would be hitting every concentration of human beings in the world. Surely the targeteers had their priorities spelt out?
Now in the months following an Exchange, when all weapons were free and there was no Command Authority left, yes I can imagine individual boomer commanders on both sides picking their targets of choice, which could be anywhere.
One thing is certain in such a timeline Tom Cruise would never become famous.In fact Risky business was released in august 1983 and would have been among the last hits before things became a bit too grim.In fact in such a world that movie would have been among the last people would remember from 'before'.The dance scene would probably be seen as a nostalgic look at the good old days.
It does seem to have come out post '89 that the Soviets planned to hit at least the capital cities of major neutral countries to try and prevent them from becoming a threat in the post-exchange world. Brasil, would probably also be seen as a potential ally of the US, hence I'm pretty sure they'd allocate at least a couple of ICBMs to Brasilia.
Of course we'll never know for sure, but it is known that the Soviets did very much belive in 'equalisation of misery'.
Of course we'll never know for sure, but it is known that the Soviets did very much belive in 'equalisation of misery'.
My guess is they'll try but with no guarantee of success; hey, let's try to be optmistic: maybe the ICBM sites or the subs with Brazilian cities names written on were hit by NATO before they launched.
I think he would be essentially representing the West German nationals residing in Brasil (rather than Germany's government, unless there would still be a West German government hidden in a bunker, or a West German Government-in-exile).
Hmmm, I remeber "WarGames" with Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy would be seen as in this timeline, IIRC, I remember seeing it in the theater during the summer of 1983. I wonder if "Return of the Jedi" would make the cut, it was late 1983 when I saw it. Lastly, depending when the war takes place, you might circumvent "The Brat Pack" from forming when they made "Breakfast Club" in 1984. "E.T." would most likely be the last great blockbuster. Worst of all, no "Back to the Future!"
This timeline is beginning to depress me, you cut short good TV shows like "Family Ties," "Cosby," "The A-Team," "Remington Steele" and many. many others. I'm a 1980's junky and I'm glad the 1980's did not end up like this.
No we don't. No Soviet target lists have been released and thus everything is based on rumours and various kind of analysis. Even more interestingly, no post 1950 US target lists or actual SIOP plans have been released even though it is rather hard to see the actual relevance of any Cold War plans.
Due to relative scarcity of nuclear weapons, especially very long range systems, it is, IMHO, rather implausible for any South American or Australian targets to be hit. What people are usually discounting is the fact that not every nuclear weapon would have been used in a nuclear war no more than every bullet was fired in Second World War. Many would have failed in one way or another, many would have been destroyed by opponent's weapon, many were in reality kept in long time reserve unlikely of being activated and many would have been overtargeted.
Given how ruthless the situation has been with the Prison Ship and the Saaf Effricans, I suspect that the ration problem was resolved some time ago.
I can't imagine it being like a vignette from Unfascist Britain.
Eh, maybe. If the Gibb Bros. were still alive at this point, though, they probably wouldn't be too thrilled to find out that their home island just turned into a British version of the infamous gulag.
Oh, and welcome to the boards, btw.
Eh, maybe. If the Gibb Bros. were still alive at this point, though, they probably wouldn't be too thrilled to find out that their home island just turned into a British version of the infamous gulag.
Oh, and welcome to the boards, btw.
Wouldn't be the first time: during the Second World War foreign Jews were interned on the island.
To be honest Unfascist Britain's Concentration Camp Orkney was a fair bit worse. Less efficient and more demonstrative.
I'm sure that the ration problem on the Isle of Man has been solved, expediently, but, on the other hand, I'm sure that this was done as a result of a political and physical "selection" process. There is little chance of SWP members escaping from the Isle of Man, and a great need to use brute physical labour in a relatively safe for agriculture area.
Why? The Isle of Man isn't blesséd Portsmouth which needs to keep out reffos. Nor are the SWP, CPGB, CND etc. members physically prepared for resistance. Apart from the suicides due to the "barbarism it is then" end to capitalism's crises, most of them are going to be pliant workers; if not snitches. (SLON gives a great example of just how left-wing intellectuals resist).
Oh, and welcome to the boards, btw.
I'm comparing it to the heydey of shwi. This is both a good and a bad thing.
yours,
Sam R.
We are, of course, presuming that the Isle of Man did not get a healthy dose of fallout.
While we do know that British War Plans did include re-opening the wartime internment camps on the Isle of Man (plus transit camps on the Mainland) we only know for sure up until the late '60s. However I've always presumed that the internment camp plan did not change massively over the years, other than updating the list of persons to be detained.
Knowing British CW planning we probably tried to whittle it down to as small a list as possible to minimise resources spent on implementing the plans.
While we do know that British War Plans did include re-opening the wartime internment camps on the Isle of Man (plus transit camps on the Mainland) we only know for sure up until the late '60s. However I've always presumed that the internment camp plan did not change massively over the years, other than updating the list of persons to be detained.
Knowing British CW planning we probably tried to whittle it down to as small a list as possible to minimise resources spent on implementing the plans.
Some targets in Australia would have been hit for the simple reason that distances between the two are around 9000 km.Soviet missiles have a range of between 10000-15000 km.Australia is actually closer to Russia than the US.Plus a few soviet boomers would have been probably on patrol somewhere between Japan Taiwan and the Phillipinnes with orders to strike at targets in the South Pacific and East Asia.Delta class subs of the Soviet Pacific fleet would have had the range to hit targets in Australia.That doesn't mean the aussies are wiped off the map,but a few hits here and there and a couple million dead seem plausible.
Last edited:
