The aftermath of a limited nuclear exchange

Consider a scenario where a general war broke out between NATO + allies and the Warsaw Pact + allies in what could be described as the 'peak' of the Cold War - the period between the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the Chernobyl disaster (1979-1986). In this period, both alliances were at the peak of their powers, with equipment like the M1 Abrams, Panavia Tornado and Nimitz-class carriers being introduced on one side, with the other side wielding new T-80s, MiG-29s and Kirov-class Battlecruisers.


The conflict was brutal, primarily taking place in Central Europe, but with other theatres including the Atlantic, Scandinavian Arctic, Southern Europe, the Middle East and Korea. Faced with a massive Soviet second echelon breakthrough after a few days of conflict, the US and West Germany resorted to deploying tactical nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union responded in kind, and so did the British. In a few days, millions of soldiers and civilians in Germany were killed. Major German cities like Frankfurt, Bonn, Berlin and Leipzig were damaged or destroyed. The nuclear exchange escalated slightly with Warsaw, Prague, Brussels and Mons all being targeted. Then, world leaders came to their senses.


A peace deal was hastily constructed in Amman, which called for a return to pre-war conditions.


The effects of nuclear fallout of these low yield weapons (Pershing IIs had a maximum yield of 80kt, Scuds had a yield of about 50kt, British WE.177 bombs had a yield of 200kt. For comparison Fat Man had a yield of 20kt) is as follows:


  • To make the effects fair the wind didn't blow the fallout any particular destination.
  • The worst hit were the areas of Germany that were not nuked (primarily Baden-Wurtemburg and southern Bavaria)
  • There were lots of detonations in northern Germany so Denmark is nearly uninhabitable. Significant portions of their population were evacuated to Sweden, Iceland, Greenland and the Faroes.
  • The Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium suffered a large brunt of the fallout. The Rhine was contaminated, spreading radiation deep within Dutch soil. Large waves of refugees attempt to move south into France and across the channel.
  • Eastern France is badly hit but the interior and western parts are perfectly habitable. France is one of two European countries (the other being the USSR) that can still field any force worth something. The French nuclear deterrent is intact and unused.
  • The extreme eastern portions of Essex and Kent were hit but the rest of Britain is fine. The main issues are the loss of the BAOR and large portions of the RAF and refugees from the low countries and Scandinavia. Britain used tactical weapons, but Polaris is intact.
  • Spain, Portugal, Iceland and Ireland suffered minimal effects.
  • Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein were hit hard by fallout, causing significant amounts of people to flee south.
  • This fallout spread into northern Italy and Yugoslavia, making millions internally displaced.
  • Czechia was hit hard, but Slovakia was not so bad so millions moved east.
  • Minor effects in Hungary.
  • The western edge of Poland and the Warsaw region are irradiated, but it can continue to function as a sovereign state.
  • Scania is hit badly, as is southern Norway. The capital may have to move from Oslo to Bergen.

To summarise - West Germany, East Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland and Liechtenstein are non-viable as independent states. France, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Sweden, Norway and San Marino are partially irradiated but can survive. Britain and Hungary also suffer some effects.


I think a tactical exchange nuclear war scenario is an interesting but unexplored divergence. Radiation isn't my area of expertise so I may have got some of the fallout wrong. What could some of the aftermath of this be?
 
-I didn’t think the US/GH/France had a policy of first use to defend Germany.
-I am unconvinced that you can HAVE a “limited” exchange when the true nuclear powers are involved. As Side A uses one because it is losing then B uses one because it is loosing then A) is losing again so uses 2 and so on and so forth. Ultimately you get a major/full exchange.
Trying to keep this limited is like the USSR trying to invade Germany but only use a few troops so that only A few Germans will fight back. Whichever side gets in trouble is going to bring in more troops, then a few APCs, then someone will adds in tanks and so on. The reason is there is no clear “line” to step over.
In Nuclear war the line is clear, No Nukes or WMD on one side. / Nukes we’re used on the other side.
To have a “Limited” exchange you need to have another clear line and there isn’t. Is it what we target? Is it what size we use? Is it the number used? Is it the delivery method? None of these are clear cut off points.
So I think once the Nukes start they will all get used. At least all those own by the warning countries.
 
I suspect that a "limited" nuclear exchange would be over VERY fast, or it wouldn't stay limited. Tacitcal weapons get used, and the hot line lights up, and a cease fire happens very fast--or not at all.
Quite possibly whichever leader ordered it is dead, if he decided to order another wave, and someone in his detail has more loyalty to humanity than to the leader.
I saw this recently:
Comrade and button.jpg
 
I recall the aftermath of the Destruction of Birmingham in the Novel / open protest note 'Third World War' by Gen Sir John Hackett (The 'world' in Which Harold Coyle's Team Yankee was based in)

In it single nuclear missile overwhelmed the UKs ability to deal with the mass casualties etc

A larger exchange would be horrific - like QED level horrific (they made us watch this at school during the 80s)


And Threads horrific


Nrrggghhhh shudder
 
A larger exchange would be horrific - like QED level horrific (they made us watch this at school during the 80s)
As noted a full nuclear exchange after the mid 1960s means the US, USSR, UK, Germany etc cease to be nation states and become nightmarish wastelands so hellish that Dante would find them disturbing. This isn’t even factoring in the large stockpile of engineered bioweapons the USSR had every intention of using (smallpox, plague, anthrax etc).
 
With major cities on the European continent being hit by nukes, I can't see how this exchange stays "limited", even when those cities belonged to non-nuclear powers.
 
Limited exchange would be like JUST a dozen tactical nukes on each sides used on frontline military targets or major logistical centers
 

tonycat77

Banned
Even a very limited in scope nuclear war would have devastating effects in the weather, climate, agriculture, etc.
Billions would die.
It's scary to see due to the current situation, people (including some with blue checkmarks) are actually floating a limited nuclear war as a good idea on social media.
Current food security is under serious strain right now, with just the situtation between 2 of the worlds largest wheat and fertilizer producers, imagine if nukes fell, wheat production is basically destroyed for the time being, exports of fertilizer either impossible due to logistics and no ships/trains left, and the probable chaos that unfolded, etc.
Limited exchange would be like JUST a dozen tactical nukes on each sides used on frontline military targets or major logistical centers
Even a full on "limited" war would disrupt much of europe's logistics, factories, etc, even if no nukes were used on civilian targets or near them.
We're seeing right now what happens to a country in just 7 days of "limited" warfare (supposed self restraint against civilians, cities, waiting for evacutation or surrendering of cities, etc) imagine a full blown ww3 where everyone and their mothers fires artillery, cruise missiles, chemical weapons, etc into divisions entrenched just on the outskirts of cities or even inside them, Grozny in '95 would look like a swiss village in comparison.
 

MaxGerke01

Banned
Where in Europe is not near civilian targets that would be a target ?
Even a full on "limited" war would disrupt much of europe's logistics, factories, etc, even if no nukes were used on civilian targets or near them.



If you were able to see a mushroom cloud detonate somewhere in Europe in this scenario your reaction should be the same as the woman who covers her mouth in the clip from Threads.It should not be much different if you were watching it from a tv broadcast in the USA or Soviet Union.A nuclear war will never be as cut and dry or as limited as we imagine. When would the world recover-no way its not way longer than we think-and thats in a world as advanced as ours- late 20th century ?
 

tonycat77

Banned
Where in Europe is not near civilian targets that would be a target ?




If you were able to see a mushroom cloud detonate somewhere in Europe in this scenario your reaction should be the same as the woman who covers her mouth in the clip from Threads.It should not be much different if you were watching it from a tv broadcast in the USA or Soviet Union.A nuclear war will never be as cut and dry or as limited as we imagine. When would the world recover-no way its not way longer than we think-and thats in a world as advanced as ours- late 20th century ?
Exactly, there is no "Tactical" in nuclear weapons.
 
Simulating a tactical nuclear war in Europe is quite simple.
Take map of Europe.
Pour petrol over the map.
Light the petrol.

"Those wishing more realism in their simulation of the effects of a tactical nuclear use in Europe, players should each feed a map of their bloc into a crosscut shredder at the same time. The last one to be destroyed is the winner, though obviously, it is destroyed too."
 
Could a 'limited nuclear war' involve a first strike using all ICBM's only.

I was reading sometime back in a library, this book was published in the mid-80's as the author who was doing a paper on nuclear warfare and politics got clearance to not only have a tour around Cheyenne Mt complex as a checks and balances exercise but also within the parameters of the rules interview one of the 'top brass'

He explained to the author that the one of the reasons for the 'fail safe' areas was to allow each other, the USA/USSR to hit each others military targets and as such both leaders to see the damage and human cost each side has done as most military targets are near population centers

. . . and after looking out of the windows and taking a big deep breath call an armistice and basically call off the war before the SLBM's etc as the general was explaining "start glassing all the cities"

The novel 'Trinity's Child' briefly delves into this hypothesis. The novel stated around a minimum of 20m dead in the USA just from the first strike although it was only against military bases, silos etc.

Would that work as a 'limited nuclear war'?

Much obliged
 
Top