Seven Days to the River Rhine: the Third World War - a TL
- Thread starter Onkel Willie
- Start date
True, especially with how much communism has been discredited in Russia as a result of the actions of the Gang of Eight
Apologies if this has been addressed - I am only up to this update so far - but if I am not mistaken, only the G and H models were still flying for SAC in November 1983? If so, that makes for 290+ bombers . . . the last D models were retired a few months before Able Archer, if I'm not mistaken, and all the other early models were long gone, save for a few being used for training or testing purposes.
Of course, nearly 300 B-52's is still enough to ruin your day, and of course by 1983, SAC's bomber force was the least important prong of America's nuclear triad anyway.
Following up on my B-52 query:
This is another good point. The AGM-86B ALCM was basically the primary weapon of the B52-H by 1983. I think most of the B-52 action is going to be of the stand-off variety. This would point to a higher survival rate for SAC's bomber force than Onkle Willie posits, though given how many of their air bases have been glassed, this may end up being of theoretical curiosity: Even if the ones without a base find somewhere to land (and many will), these bombers are basically out of the war, since they can't rearm for a good long while!
As with the mis-quantification of the B-52 force, I do not think this changes the timeline save in details. Though I do agree with the sense of some other posters that the U.S. and NATO are generally a bit nerfed in this timeline, particularly in the initial conventional phase.
This is another good point. The AGM-86B ALCM was basically the primary weapon of the B52-H by 1983. I think most of the B-52 action is going to be of the stand-off variety. This would point to a higher survival rate for SAC's bomber force than Onkle Willie posits, though given how many of their air bases have been glassed, this may end up being of theoretical curiosity: Even if the ones without a base find somewhere to land (and many will), these bombers are basically out of the war, since they can't rearm for a good long while!
As with the mis-quantification of the B-52 force, I do not think this changes the timeline save in details. Though I do agree with the sense of some other posters that the U.S. and NATO are generally a bit nerfed in this timeline, particularly in the initial conventional phase.
That's an interesting twist, having an election in an immediate post-apocalyptic environment, or what counts as such given the obvious. Though what would pass as "pop culture" in said environment? Obviously, not many people are interested in whatever Hollywood would put out or whatever would take up its mantle after what happened in November 1983.
We'd probably all be watching Bollywood in such a TL, considering India doesn't seem to have been nuked in WW3 and all that.
We held elections in the middle of the Civil War, after all . . .
. . . and then again, Americans of this 1984 would deeply envy Americans of 1864. So there you are.
An interesting point to consider is that the pattern of Soviet nuclear strikes would hit the Democratic voter base (already a good deal more urban than the GOP by 1983) disproportionately; on the other hand, the kind of political society that would exist in the 1984 of this world is an imaginative exercise that is enormously difficult to even attempt. Pre-war political issues would almost all be faint memories: simple survival is the order of the day. Even if the Republican and Democratic parties still exist and function as major parties in this 1984, they would likely be almost unrecognizable in how they talk or, er. campaign.
And the election would be a very difficult and spotty thing to even conduct. A lot of places, as Willie hints, won't even be able to participate. And election integrity would be difficult to maintain in many others; and actual, breathing federal authority may be so non existent in many parts of the country so as to make who "wins" this election entirely beside the point for the beleaguered Americans living there.
Honestly, the 1984 Elections should have been conducted the same way Presidential Elections were held in the early United States, via state legislatures (or more accurately, their surviving members) voting for electors. At the very least, quite a few states going with appointment via state legislatures wouldn't surprise me.
Last edited:
How long would it take for the US to fully recover in regards to technology and industry?
Pangur
Donor
With there bases gone some of the B52s are nearly certain to try and land in neutral countries
I've been thinking about the weird stuff that would happen in a post-apocalyptic world like this, the stuff you would not readily think about, but which could turn out to be quite important. And in this regard, I am thinking about navies.
Onkle Willie basically skips over the naval aspect of this war. It's not a detailed timeline, so I am not complaining. It would be something that would have to be discussed, though, if we are thinking, as I am, about just how many NATO warships actually survive this war. Does Grishin give Gorshkov his head and allow/order him to have the Soviet navy try to disrupt REFORGER? Or does he restrain them out of interest in keeping the war localized to central Europe to make it easier to strike a deal? If it's the former, then obviously more warships are gonna die, though everything we know now points to the Soviets not fairing very well in the enterprise.
But all this notwithstanding, this kind of war strikes me as having potential to actually leave quite a lot of NATO warships (every one of which that could get up steam being surged to sea in the first 48 hours) still intact after the cease-fire is called, and really, what we have to think about are the three major NATO naval powers: the US, the UK, and France. And given the utterly desperate state of these countries now, these ships and their crews and their capabilities would be damned important, even critical, to the governments in question - not for warfare, but simply to help provide order, and even basic things like electricity and humanitarian services. To the extent, to be sure, that they can find anything resembling a port to actually tie up to. There will not be much of that, but there will be a few secondary ones that could be mostly intact, and necessity, as they say, is the mother of invention. Tens of thousands of healthy well-fed, military age men, with guns and a few useful skills, suddenly showing up in a place that is desperately in need of all of the above, could have a huge (and perhaps, unpredictable) impact.
This will be even more true for Britain and France, which are in even more desperate shape than the US.
Example: A Nimitz class nuclear powered aircraft carrier is not designed to transfer power to shore facilities. But if USS Lexington was able to power Tacoma during an emergency in 1929, I have to think creative and energetic fixes are going to be frantically explored using suddenly available resources like that. I can think of fascinating Protect and Serve timelines that could be done on this kind of scenario, where a USN task force discovers that some place like Wilmington (NC) somehow survived, and they basically move in and effectively take over as the government ad security force for the city, while anarchy reigns in the lands beyond...
Onkle Willie basically skips over the naval aspect of this war. It's not a detailed timeline, so I am not complaining. It would be something that would have to be discussed, though, if we are thinking, as I am, about just how many NATO warships actually survive this war. Does Grishin give Gorshkov his head and allow/order him to have the Soviet navy try to disrupt REFORGER? Or does he restrain them out of interest in keeping the war localized to central Europe to make it easier to strike a deal? If it's the former, then obviously more warships are gonna die, though everything we know now points to the Soviets not fairing very well in the enterprise.
But all this notwithstanding, this kind of war strikes me as having potential to actually leave quite a lot of NATO warships (every one of which that could get up steam being surged to sea in the first 48 hours) still intact after the cease-fire is called, and really, what we have to think about are the three major NATO naval powers: the US, the UK, and France. And given the utterly desperate state of these countries now, these ships and their crews and their capabilities would be damned important, even critical, to the governments in question - not for warfare, but simply to help provide order, and even basic things like electricity and humanitarian services. To the extent, to be sure, that they can find anything resembling a port to actually tie up to. There will not be much of that, but there will be a few secondary ones that could be mostly intact, and necessity, as they say, is the mother of invention. Tens of thousands of healthy well-fed, military age men, with guns and a few useful skills, suddenly showing up in a place that is desperately in need of all of the above, could have a huge (and perhaps, unpredictable) impact.
This will be even more true for Britain and France, which are in even more desperate shape than the US.
Example: A Nimitz class nuclear powered aircraft carrier is not designed to transfer power to shore facilities. But if USS Lexington was able to power Tacoma during an emergency in 1929, I have to think creative and energetic fixes are going to be frantically explored using suddenly available resources like that. I can think of fascinating Protect and Serve timelines that could be done on this kind of scenario, where a USN task force discovers that some place like Wilmington (NC) somehow survived, and they basically move in and effectively take over as the government ad security force for the city, while anarchy reigns in the lands beyond...
Last edited:
Sure. (Where they'd likely get interned, in some cases!)
Then again, most of SAC's bomber strikes would have gone over the Arctic at that point, so . . . options will be limited, and anyway I am sure they'd prefer to at least TRY to land somewhere in the US or Canada. Most airports (even civilian ones) would be glassed, and a BUFF needs [checks notes] about 5,000 feet of runway to land, so you could see some pilots running low on fuel and trying to set down on long stretches of US or Canadian highways. Then set about looking for the nearest Esso or Circle K to loot, er, commandeer for food and supplies.
This is a great point. I could easily see 80% of the Canadian population dying here, either in the initial strike or within 60 days afterward, given how urbanized it was even then; and as has been pointed out, most of the survivors seem likely to be out west, in the Prairie Provinces and BC.
America will be in no condition to help out; though Australia and New Zealand will likely try to be helpful Commonwealth Buddies, if they can even find a place to tie up their ships to unload supplies or an intact airport to land at; then again, given how few Canadians are likely alive, every pallet of food or medicine could go a long way.
And these Canadians are probably on remote locations so even if Australians and New Zealanders manage to find safe harbor or airport Canadians are on such locations that reaching them would be really hard.
Good point, each Nimitz class had over 500 MW thermo power, during sail it produced 100 MW electricity, this could be far more if nearly all power is ude to produce electricity. A power station large enough for a mid sized city. By the way many of the sailors dod have usefull skills.
I think the behavior of the people in the aftermath is too much based on the varnish theory, which is debunkt since many years.
The varnish theory is in short; civilisation is nothing but a layer of varnish, and humanity will decline back in barbarism imidiatly after disruptive events.
This theory is kept alive in many doomsday movies and series of all kind, including the many zombie apocalyps franshises, produced up to day.
In reality humans showing a large abbility of cooperative and selflessness in situations of crisses and disaster.
It does not mean in the immidiate aftermath of crises that looting, murder, rape and other barbaric acts will ocure, but this is far less and part of the panic phase.
As soon as most people are realising the new situation, and this awarness happens by most people very fast, then people strart to help each other in surviving.
There for I do think groups of survivors will form very fast clans (the basic group) and will try to survive. Most of them, if not nearly all of them will do this wihtout harming others exept in case of defending against looters.
The looters, rapers and other humans who show sign of selfish behaviour will be punished by these clans on a very frightfull way, which cause a very vast deminishing of this barbaric acts..
Due to human beahviour and the clans form, there will be in a very short period of time order and some sort of law, without the need of government institutions. And very soon there will be places of survival, hamlets/vilages, and farms.
In matter of fact I do thing the majority of survivors will be quite hostile to any interference by the former gouevernment or fedral instituttions, since it were the gouvernments who put people in this missereble situation. Further these gouvernments will soner than later give the survivors a sencse of feudalism since these gouvernements need food to suply their servants and law enforcing people.
In this devastated world every hand is needed to produce food, every person who only use its time to enforce "law" need to be fed by at least five other persons who work the land. This is a medeval rule, it required five pesants to feed one monk who only spent time praying.
The varnish theory is in short; civilisation is nothing but a layer of varnish, and humanity will decline back in barbarism imidiatly after disruptive events.
This theory is kept alive in many doomsday movies and series of all kind, including the many zombie apocalyps franshises, produced up to day.
In reality humans showing a large abbility of cooperative and selflessness in situations of crisses and disaster.
It does not mean in the immidiate aftermath of crises that looting, murder, rape and other barbaric acts will ocure, but this is far less and part of the panic phase.
As soon as most people are realising the new situation, and this awarness happens by most people very fast, then people strart to help each other in surviving.
There for I do think groups of survivors will form very fast clans (the basic group) and will try to survive. Most of them, if not nearly all of them will do this wihtout harming others exept in case of defending against looters.
The looters, rapers and other humans who show sign of selfish behaviour will be punished by these clans on a very frightfull way, which cause a very vast deminishing of this barbaric acts..
Due to human beahviour and the clans form, there will be in a very short period of time order and some sort of law, without the need of government institutions. And very soon there will be places of survival, hamlets/vilages, and farms.
In matter of fact I do thing the majority of survivors will be quite hostile to any interference by the former gouevernment or fedral instituttions, since it were the gouvernments who put people in this missereble situation. Further these gouvernments will soner than later give the survivors a sencse of feudalism since these gouvernements need food to suply their servants and law enforcing people.
In this devastated world every hand is needed to produce food, every person who only use its time to enforce "law" need to be fed by at least five other persons who work the land. This is a medeval rule, it required five pesants to feed one monk who only spent time praying.
Last edited:
India, Australia, Brazil and South Africa, as well as China (population decrease by over 50% is another Tuesday in the 4000 year long history) are the biggest players of the post war world. Indonesia as well. Europe and North America's place as top dog has been extinguished basically.
There is also the question of how many people will die more of resource scarcity and age mortality.
There is also the question of how many people will die more of resource scarcity and age mortality.
On that note, with how Marcos was presumably killed in the nuclear strike on Manila and how the liberal/moderate/democratic opposition to him was very much one which the United States wanted to take power when it was clear Marcos‘ regime was going to fall sooner or later, the New People’s Army/Communist Party of the Philippines might be able to take over the Philippines, especially as the war was taking place at the apogee of their power.