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.
So humanity would totally survive a nuclear war?
I guess it depends on what your definition of "totally" is!So humanity would totally survive a nuclear war?
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 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.
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.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.
There's not really been that much released on US targeting, either. Enough to get a flavour, but mostly from the early 1960s.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.
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.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.
On the contrary, nuclear war is based purely on rational thought. It's a cold calculus of threats, capabilities, and costs.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.
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.