WI Nuclear War 1962

What if the Cuban Missile Crisis resulted in nuclear war? What PoD could make this happen? How would a nuclear war go? Would humanity survive? How would the altered history go from there? What would be the effects? What would the world be like today with a nuclear war having occured?
 
What if the Cuban Missile Crisis resulted in nuclear war? What PoD could make this happen? How would a nuclear war go? Would humanity survive? How would the altered history go from there? What would be the effects? What would the world be like today with a nuclear war having occured?

There have been a couple of good threads looking at this in the last few months; don't have a link handy but should be easy to find with the search!

Basically, the most likely results of an OTL missile crisis gone hot is:

USA: significant but survivable damage (0-50 cities lost)
Western Europe: severe damage, all capitals and most major cities destroyed
WARPAC/USSR/PRC: radioactive rubble
Rest of the world (inc. Aus/NZ): no direct effects, but significant issues with fallout/famine/economic dislocation.

Specific outcome is variable and depends on the details of the scenario, but that is a fairly well-agreed average outcome.
 
There have been a couple of good threads looking at this in the last few months; don't have a link handy but should be easy to find with the search!

Basically, the most likely results of an OTL missile crisis gone hot is:

USA: significant but survivable damage (0-50 cities lost)
Western Europe: severe damage, all capitals and most major cities destroyed
WARPAC/USSR/PRC: radioactive rubble
Rest of the world (inc. Aus/NZ): no direct effects, but significant issues with fallout/famine/economic dislocation.

Specific outcome is variable and depends on the details of the scenario, but that is a fairly well-agreed average outcome.

So humanity would totally survive a nuclear war?
 
So humanity would totally survive a nuclear war?

The short answer is yes, the slightly longer answer is that it depends on when and under what conditions the nuclear war takes place. The 1980s, for example, would probably inflict the maximum possible damage but even then humanity would survive. There would be a LOT of casualties, and life afterwards would be very different, but it's not going to lead to extinction.
 
So humanity would totally survive a nuclear war?
I guess it depends on what your definition of "totally" is!

But yeah, in '62 humanity would certainly survive. It's likely that technological civilization survives, barring some unforeseen catastrophic climatic effects. There is still an unimaginable loss of population and production, so my feeling is it'd take probably 50 years to recover. The sheer number of variables involved in that could mean the recovery time is an order of magnitude on either direction.

An exchange in the '80s is a different story. A lot more delivery vehicles means more widespread destruction. Society is more integrated and less able to tolerate such a shock. I am pessimistic that any significant civilization survives long term in the northern hemisphere. Again, humanity would survive, especially in the southern hemisphere.
 
I guess it depends on what your definition of "totally" is!

But yeah, in '62 humanity would certainly survive. It's likely that technological civilization survives, barring some unforeseen catastrophic climatic effects. There is still an unimaginable loss of population and production, so my feeling is it'd take probably 50 years to recover. The sheer number of variables involved in that could mean the recovery time is an order of magnitude on either direction.

An exchange in the '80s is a different story. A lot more delivery vehicles means more widespread destruction. Society is more integrated and less able to tolerate such a shock. I am pessimistic that any significant civilization survives long term in the northern hemisphere. Again, humanity would survive, especially in the southern hemisphere.
I don't know IIRC the USSR's plan for nuclear war in the 80's was to basically try and kill anyone associated with the US or thought to be. I think that most mid-African nations were the ones not targeted and probably the best bet to survive. Leading to a scenario where out of the birthplace of humanity we begin to try and rebuild ourselves.
 
I don't know IIRC the USSR's plan for nuclear war in the 80's was to basically try and kill anyone associated with the US or thought to be. I think that most mid-African nations were the ones not targeted and probably the best bet to survive. Leading to a scenario where out of the birthplace of humanity we begin to try and rebuild ourselves.
It's hard to know for sure what the Soviet warfighting strategy exactly was, as unlike the US there has never been any significant release of nuclear targeting documents. There is definitely the thought that they would strike at least the capitals of US-aligned nations.

However, I think the thought that the USSR (or US) would expend a significant portion of their nuclear assets on this is far-fetched, IMO. Southern hemisphere targets of the Soviets would be AUS/NZ for sure, and possibly major urban areas in South America and South Africa. Thing is, there aren't that many delivery vehicles that have the range, meaning unless the Soviets went full on into FOBS you're likely to see a couple of subs tasked to those targets. Not a small chance they get sunk or have some other issue prevent them from fully destroying those targets.

To me it makes more sense to leave those nations intact and use nuclear blackmail to force them to help rebuild you then to damage/destroy them, but this is nuclear war we're talking about, rational thought comes a bit further down in the priority list than usual!
 
It's hard to know for sure what the Soviet warfighting strategy exactly was, as unlike the US there has never been any significant release of nuclear targeting documents. There is definitely the thought that they would strike at least the capitals of US-aligned nations.
There's not really been that much released on US targeting, either. Enough to get a flavour, but mostly from the early 1960s.
Thing is, there aren't that many delivery vehicles that have the range, meaning unless the Soviets went full on into FOBS you're likely to see a couple of subs tasked to those targets.
Apparently they planned to use systems like the Project 659 (ECHO I) submarines that were totally obsolete against the major powers to deal with minor powers. The point was to make sure that (say) Brazil wasn't able to industrialize quicker than the Soviet Union could recover. In the case of most less-developed countries, this isn't too hard - one device on the capital takes out virtually the entire government, transport network, and most industry above the level of primary industries.
this is nuclear war we're talking about, rational thought comes a bit further down in the priority list than usual!
On the contrary, nuclear war is based purely on rational thought. It's a cold calculus of threats, capabilities, and costs.
 
...On the contrary, nuclear war is based purely on rational thought. It's a cold calculus of threats, capabilities, and costs.

Of course, the paradox of all that rational thought was that we managed to create a system that could have knocked human civilization back a thousand years. Yes, we managed to get through the Cold War, but there was nothing inevitable about that and a good deal of luck involved. While there may have been rationality behind the theory of nuclear war, it is still dangerously vulnerable to mistakes of judgment and irrational leadership. By the 1980s, the destructive power available on both sides was such that a nuclear conflict would have been utterly catastrophic. Humanity would have been lucky to wind up at a new equilibrium of 1700s technology. The only difference between such a conflict in 1962 and 20 years later is that the United States and most of the Southern Hemisphere would have remained intact, which would have ensured that there was no loss of the ability to maintain an industrial/technological civilization.
 
There's not really been that much released on US targeting, either. Enough to get a flavour, but mostly from the early 1960s.

Apparently they planned to use systems like the Project 659 (ECHO I) submarines that were totally obsolete against the major powers to deal with minor powers. The point was to make sure that (say) Brazil wasn't able to industrialize quicker than the Soviet Union could recover. In the case of most less-developed countries, this isn't too hard - one device on the capital takes out virtually the entire government, transport network, and most industry above the level of primary industries.

On the contrary, nuclear war is based purely on rational thought. It's a cold calculus of threats, capabilities, and costs.

True, most of the SIOP data is old but convenient enough for a '62 exchange!

Interesting point re: subs, fits my thinking. Any sources out there about this, always thought it was quite interesting. My point that there is a significant chance these strikes don't come off is strengthened though, as even with significant force degradation post-strike US/NATO/ANZUS and non-aligned navies have a fighting chance to detect and sink an Echo.

Sure, targeting decisions et al. are based on rational choices. But they are rational decisions made in the context of nuclear war - a supremly irrational concept.
 
Echos (and Julietts) were very vulnerable to ASW assets of the 1960's, especially since they had to end up relatively close to targets and launch from the surface as well as being noisy as hell. One of the common threads of the nuclear war "thinking" was that he who ends up with the most toys wins. its not so much as "does Brazil industrialize faster than the USSR can fix itself" as "who controls the products". If, after everything stops flying one side or the other has a significant deliverable weapons stock left, they can tell those undamaged countries what to do. You can bet that the side with nuclear capability still left, or with a significant advantage will be telling the undamaged countries what "aid" they need. Certainly with the USSR the threats will be open, provide or else...and there is nobody in the southern hemisphere in the 60s (or even now) who can get to a nuke quickly and secretly.
 
US has the overwhelming advantage in deliverable fission assets to the targets with 3500 warheads and B-52s along with other systems, the Soviet arsenal is one-sixth to one-fifth that size and delivery systems in place restrict their fission weaponry to one-way trips via TU-4 aircraft and maybe M-4 bombers. Soviets had 36-72 missiles capable of delivery, the US had over 200. So bye-bye USSR, especially if the Soviet colonies of Eastern Europe decide it is a good time to revolt against Moscow (Very likely in Poland, Hungary, and probably Czechoslovakia). The USSR will have the advantage on the ground and their key players would probably the means to hunker down if they get sufficient warning, but there is no guarantee of that and Moscow will be hit by at least two different strikes. Presuming the Soviets get 50% through they are also likely to hit military targets, if memory serves theirs was a counterforce strategy (hit them at the places most likely to hit you back, I.e. military bases and command centers) whereas we employed countervalue (hit them in places they live and deprive them of the will to fight). Certainly a large part of the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic is hit hard, as is coastal California, and a few other key targets. In the end, it is likely the US and Canada survive in a battered form (possibly merging) with Europe and northern Asia reeling for at least a decade (former) or two (latter). Power would re-focus in the southern hemisphere with Brazil, South Africa, India, Japan, and probably China emerging as the new powers with Argentina, Egypt, Mexico, New Zealand, and Australia in a close second-tier. There will be little tolerance for war for some time, and a billion dead from all cause effects would not be unreasonable.
 
Top