WI: A nuclear war in the 1960’s

Does anyone care to explain in a little more detail why the Australia/NZ being a safe haven is such a "fantasy" especially in the OP 1960s war scenario? I asked a similar question in a similar thread a while ago but didn't get an answer( that I saw anyway)

If the war was an OP short/sharp nuclear exchange then how would NZ especially be involved? Would the nuclear winter be so bad to totally destroy a viable state/society? Pre mass foreign travel which bio weapons would have been so effective to quickly spread that far south? I am admittedly quite the novice regarding bio weapons of anykind, especially 1960s flavours.

I've always thought that the SU would take them out as the were pro-Western.
 
I've always thought that the SU would take them out as the were pro-Western.

Doubtful--at the early 1960s period they didn't have the assload of nukes they would have later, and I'm sure that they'd focus everything they have on Western Europe and the US--the real threats. After all, wouldn't you rather use a nuke on, say, San Diego than Canberra of all places? Besides, Australia is a big place...
 
Doubtful--at the early 1960s period they didn't have the assload of nukes they would have later, and I'm sure that they'd focus everything they have on Western Europe and the US--the real threats. After all, wouldn't you rather use a nuke on, say, San Diego than Canberra of all places? Besides, Australia is a big place...

But the population mainly lives along the coasts. If nothing else if I was them I'd toast Melbourne and Sydney plus perhaps a naval base or two.
 
But the population mainly lives along the coasts. If nothing else if I was them I'd toast Melbourne and Sydney plus perhaps a naval base or two.

I'm not even sure if Australia was on the list for Soviet targets. I mean, at the time, it was pretty much overlooked by the rest of the world--and still is, to an extent, as a factor in any military conflict. To the Kremlin, I imagine, it was a sparsely populated sandy rock with an occasional town. At the very very best, I could imagine Sydney if they're really going crazy, but definitely not New Zealand. It'd be like Hitler launching an all-out invasion of a small Scottish island in WW2. I can also imagine South Africa surviving--again, who'd care about that?
 
A very well conceived TL about this scenario, upon which people can get some inspiration on the effects and possible evolutions is in Amerigo Vespucci's The Cuban Missile War Timeline. :)
I also added in that thread some basic political info about the world as of October 1962, if anyone needs it.

That's actually a pretty good scenario for 1962. A nuclear war at that time would be more limited than in the years of MAD and the US would have clear superiority. The scenario could be a little less severe:

1. The ICBM's would be deployed as described. But the Soviet bombers headed for North America (Ohio, N. Dakota, Chicago, Ottawa) might be shot down by US and Canadian forces. Likewise, NATO bases in Europe might survive longer for the same reason, increasing the damages to the Soviets.
2. The Soviets would direct their arsenal to NATO, so the southern hemisphere would be very much spared.
3. The notion of President Johnson being deposed and sent to Leavenworth is not realistic and not necessary for the war timeline. The remaining military would not let it happen. There would be a regular election in 1964.
4. The choice of St. Louis as a capital makes sense because (a) with Colorado Springs and Topeka nuked, the designated sites of Denver and Kansas City would be less attractive; and (b) in the spirit of north/south politics, the site lies right next to the "Land of Lincoln" but in a former slave state.
5. The loss of the Detroit auto industry might have less impact than you would think. The US went more than four years without new cars in WWII, and assembly plants and suppliers could be rebuilt faster. There would be spared manufacturing capacity remaining in the US, Canada, Asia and the southern hemisphere.
 
Doubtful--at the early 1960s period they didn't have the assload of nukes they would have later, and I'm sure that they'd focus everything they have on Western Europe and the US--the real threats. After all, wouldn't you rather use a nuke on, say, San Diego than Canberra of all places? Besides, Australia is a big place...


That is what I was thinking - in the early 1960s who would have the resources or need to launch nuclear weapons against say the place I grew up (South Island, NZ), which is approximately 18500km from London and also 200 or so kilometres from the nearest military installation or city larger than about 100,000 people. Of course longer term effects of nuclear weapon use is another matter.

The issue of bio weapons/etc is rather different but are they so virulent that they would decimate somewhere like NZ that would not be directly targeted?
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
That is what I was thinking - in the early 1960s who would have the resources or need to launch nuclear weapons against say the place I grew up (South Island, NZ), which is approximately 18500km from London and also 200 or so kilometres from the nearest military installation or city larger than about 100,000 people. Of course longer term effects of nuclear weapon use is another matter.

The issue of bio weapons/etc is rather different but are they so virulent that they would decimate somewhere like NZ that would not be directly targeted?

In the early '60s the soviets didn't have the resources to strike at smaller targets, so attacks in the Southern hemisphere would be limited, probably to locations where USN & RN vessels commonly make port calls, and maybe not even all of them. In the late sixties it is a very different matter.

It depends on the biological agent. The right bug will be nearly 100% lethal (almost like King's The Stand sans the demons) and could be spread via natural vectors that are not killed by the bug but can be infected by it (birds, especially seabirds, are GREAT for this) and are capable of covering long distances.
 
There is a species of sea bird which breeds in the southern most point of the South Island and apparently migrates on an annual basis to the Aleutian Islands, passing up the East Coast of the South Island, where coincidentally my entire family lives. Oh well
 
I'm not even sure if Australia was on the list for Soviet targets. I mean, at the time, it was pretty much overlooked by the rest of the world--and still is, to an extent, as a factor in any military conflict. To the Kremlin, I imagine, it was a sparsely populated sandy rock with an occasional town. At the very very best, I could imagine Sydney if they're really going crazy, but definitely not New Zealand. It'd be like Hitler launching an all-out invasion of a small Scottish island in WW2. I can also imagine South Africa surviving--again, who'd care about that?

Still there are seaports that the US Navy could use as well as air bases. And pending on when the war happens the USAF had some radar bases down there too.
 
I do not think biological weapons would be a factor because they take too long to grow, weaponize and deploy. For instance, anthrax is very fragile; the heat of an electric iron will kill it. Smallpox is very dangerous, but it is subject to an incubation period. Much of the hype in fiction over terrorists spreading the disease among an unsuspecting public is medically inaccurate.

The nuclear scenario from 1962 evolves over the period of only a few days.
 
Still there are seaports that the US Navy could use as well as air bases. And pending on when the war happens the USAF had some radar bases down there too.

This MAY have meant Soviet strikes on Australia by the lates sixties, but early? They didn't have that many nukes to hit on the US and Europe, you think they're gonna waste what could be another hard blow on the capitalist monster on what as far as they were concerned was a dusty rock south of Indonesia for a couple of radar bases? No. Bring us forward in the Cold War, tho', and we might just see some mushroom clouds over the outbreak if they wanna go REALLY all out.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I do not think biological weapons would be a factor because they take too long to grow, weaponize and deploy. For instance, anthrax is very fragile; the heat of an electric iron will kill it. Smallpox is very dangerous, but it is subject to an incubation period. Much of the hype in fiction over terrorists spreading the disease among an unsuspecting public is medically inaccurate.

The nuclear scenario from 1962 evolves over the period of only a few days.

Again, if it is in the early '60s the damage, outside of the USSR which will be burned to the ground, will be limited.

In the late '60s, it is a VERY different matter. There were a number of weaponized bugs available to both sides, and in a full exchange the chances of their use was quite high. It is worth remembering that any exchange in the latter parts of the decade would happen under MAD, both sides would be looking to wipe out the other, expecting that they would be severely crippled themselves.
 
In 1960 the USSR had exactly 4 (total) potentially useful ICBMS. The only long range bomber they had was the Bear (turboprop), Badgers if refueled x1 minimum from advance (not normal) bases could go 1 way to parts of US. No SLBMS of any range. USA (& Canada) had fairly robust air defense nets with radar, interceptors (some with small nuke missiles - the genie), and AA missile (nike/ajax/zeus) in key areas. Also, in order to hit the US the USSR had to forward surge bombers and tankers from normal bases to advanced ones to ge tthe range. If the US hits first with little warning, continental US takes few hits, western Europe more..but not as bad as you think. USSR - nonfunctional.

Russkies launch strike, more hits in USA but still severe attrition with air defenses, USSR still toasted as US missiles fly, and SAC/Navy have plenty of time to get off the ground.

By the late 1960's, early 1970's we are getting in toi MAD land. MIRVs did not enter US inventory until early 70's later for USSR.
 
Early 1960's would IMO be less lethal for everyone involved, and the U.S would have an advantage in that time frame. As far as I am aware, there was no "Missile Gap" it was either (a) A lie to get Kennedy elected or (b) Not as near a gap as most thought at the time. So I would say from 1960-65 USSR gets glassed though getting a few hits in. Oh, and none of us are ever born :eek: ;)
 
Top