Of course NZ would suffer greatly. But if it weren't nuked its infrastructure and whatever industry it has would still exist. It might not have the oil to run stuff but not everything would go to pre-industrial stage.
Actually NZ produces some oil and has it's own refinery. Coupled with rather large hydroenergy resources and status as a food exporter the NZ would be comparatively well off.
the same goes for any country that must import food and oil. other countries will simply revert to pre-State groups. there will be famine in africa because of the collapse of food distribution networks and the modern states that support them. in their place their will be a reversion to tribal type polities, either new or ancient
Now, we're fortunate that we don't have experiments to support the hypotheses presented, let's hope we don't get them in the future...
Like it's pointed out in beginning of "Threads" already in 1983 we are talking about societies integrated in complex supply webs. However, there's two things which have to be remembered. First one is buffers, second one is networked nature of society.
In case of buffers, industries worked differently in 1983 in two major ways. First, the production chains weren't as globalized as they are today. Second is that logistics weren't as lean as they are today but were more dependant upon stockpiling on every level. Third, the production of almost all goods was more distributed than today due to less developed logistical routes and logistical management ideas and the drive for national self sufficiency in most production areas. Textiles, for example, back in 1980's, were produced in almost every Western country, not in Mexico, Eastern Europe and China as nowadays. Agricultural production in Europe wasn't as concentrated as it is now due to extensive government subsidies. In some countries, such as Finland, it was deliberately kept at level which could be mobilized for food export levels even in case of long term external crisis due to experiences of Second World War.
These all come in top of fairly extensive emergency supplies stockpiled by almost all governments in the period. In case of worst hit countries these factors obviously mean less than in areas more hit.
The second factor is that an interlinked society, like industrial societies of 1983 were, are less vulnerable to external catastrophes than "stovepiped" planned economies such as USSR was. Due to fairly extensive logistical networks and affluent societies there could have adaptation to the situation before living standards approached life support levels.
Third factor is naturally that the primary infrastructure won't remain down forever. Oil refineries would have been rebuilt etc.
Once again radiation is going to kill a shitload of people. There will be nuclear winter, famine, riots, wars, and disease. Between the higher level of radiation and lower amounts of food consumed, people in Western Europe and North America will have weaker immune systems then they did pre-nuke. Expect a lot of opportunistic outbreaks. And I would not be surprised to see new diseases pop up. And of course I shudder to see what radiation might do to a flu virus.
Yes, without doubt there would have been. All this also lowers the level of food and energy needed for the remaining population. We must remember the historical example of Black Death; it had a drastic effect upon societies but yet after recuperation period it was clear that it was not the end of the human race, not even Western civilization.
Africa doesn't get too many nukes, accept for Western/Soviet/Cuban bases. Though South Africa might use nukes against the Communists it was fighting in Angola.
South Africa had two deliverable nuclear weapons in 1983 with 10-18kT yield. In grand context their effects would have been inconsequantial.