WI: The Cold War goes Hot

There are still thousands of nuclear weapons in the world, and more countries have, could have, or want them since the Cold War. And with West/Russia relations plummeting...

The risk is absolutely still there. It's just not as omnipresent and overkill as it was.
It absolutely will happen, I'm sure of it.
 
I think all civilization ending is overkill. Is anyone going to bother to nuke Montevideo or Lima? Places will survive and be able to maintain a 1950s level of tech at least.

Also was either power planning on nuking India?
 
As I have recounted before - Australia would be relatively unharmed in a nuclear exchange as would most of the Southern Hemisphere. We simply do not have the targets worth wasting nuclear warheads on downunder. Our cities are too far apart. Neither the fUSSR or USA would have nuclear warheads to spare when they would be using them on each other. There is a world outside of the US and fUSSR.
 
As I have recounted before - Australia would be relatively unharmed in a nuclear exchange as would most of the Southern Hemisphere. We simply do not have the targets worth wasting nuclear warheads on downunder. Our cities are too far apart. Neither the fUSSR or USA would have nuclear warheads to spare when they would be using them on each other. There is a world outside of the US and fUSSR.
In an utter MAD scenario then Oz and NZ both lost major cities and faci lites from sub based launches. A lot more survives comparatively, but the countries are still hit.

In a more realistic scenario then Oz and NZ are probably mostly unharmed.

There are still radiation problems either way of course.
 
As I have recounted before - Australia would be relatively unharmed in a nuclear exchange as would most of the Southern Hemisphere. We simply do not have the targets worth wasting nuclear warheads on downunder. Our cities are too far apart. Neither the fUSSR or USA would have nuclear warheads to spare when they would be using them on each other. There is a world outside of the US and fUSSR.

Problem is that there won't be much of a world left. Europe, USA and Russia basically are gone, and so's the Med, almost certinally Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Iraq and also Kuwait, both Koreas, and probably China (in a use it or loose it we're firing everything we've got scenario), India probably takes some strikes as does Pakistan, probably from each other and maybe China. Singapore's probably gone, so too is Hong Kong and Japan's deffo taking hits. Those nice big oil fields in Borneo? They're in range of the Yankee's that the Soviets often deployed to the Indian Ocean, and Australia's probably going to take a few hits, same with South America (mostly from sub launched missiles).

Yes Australia may be more intact than others, but almost all the major transport hubs nearby are gone, as is any oil supply. I know Australia has huge caddle herds, but what about grain crops? If they have to be imported, well that's not going to happen any time soon. Australia may survive and won't have been rubbed off the map like Europe, but its still in a huge amount of trouble as trade, oil, food supplies grind to a halt. And then there's the global weather effects and the mauling the ozone layer's going to take.
 
Last edited:
I studied nuclear war fighting strategies during my Master's degree. We had Des Ball just before he had been sucked into the Pentagon's orbit. He made it clear that Australia would be relatively unscathed by a general exchange. We simply are too far down the fUSSR's list if priorities to be worried about.

In 1983 we were self-sufficient in most industries - we made many things here. Sure, electronics might be a bit of a worry but their loss would not be earth shattering from our perspective. We had our own oilfields, we had our own gasfields, we exported a whole shed load of primary foodstuffs, we were much better off than you lot appear to give credit for. It was the northern hemisphere who looked south for it's beef, it's lamb, it's wheat, it's corn and so on and so on. You might be stuffed but Australia and New Zealand would be OK.
 
I think all civilization ending is overkill. Is anyone going to bother to nuke Montevideo or Lima? Places will survive and be able to maintain a 1950s level of tech at least.

Also was either power planning on nuking India?
How exactly? Where is this 1950's tech coming from? No one makes tubes anymore. Your car has an ECU that takes an engineer to maintain and good luck getting spares. Much of your small to medium industry has been swallowed up by globalization and if you have any nice shiny modern factories there's a good chance they are full of automation and parts and materials were sourced from somewhere on the other side of world that's either rubble or beyond reach after the collapse of international trade.
I studied nuclear war fighting strategies during my Master's degree. We had Des Ball just before he had been sucked into the Pentagon's orbit. He made it clear that Australia would be relatively unscathed by a general exchange. We simply are too far down the fUSSR's list if priorities to be worried about.

In 1983 we were self-sufficient in most industries - we made many things here. Sure, electronics might be a bit of a worry but their loss would not be earth shattering from our perspective. We had our own oilfields, we had our own gasfields, we exported a whole shed load of primary foodstuffs, we were much better off than you lot appear to give credit for. It was the northern hemisphere who looked south for it's beef, it's lamb, it's wheat, it's corn and so on and so on. You might be stuffed but Australia and New Zealand would be OK.
Until the surviving military elements of the combatants turn up and start requisitioning what they need at gunpoint, and of course the refugees start turning up in waves, and this assumes that Australia and New Zealand aren't heavily impacted by the climate change caused by a massive exchange. Oh and also that your optimistic assumption that no one will nuke them holds true.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Besides the Cuban Missile Crisis, Able Archer in November 1983 was the closest we ever came to nuclear war. Let's say the Able Archer 83, the Cold War turns into the Hot War (meaning Nuclear war occurs between the US and USSR). How does this affect both the US and USSR and the world? Who wins- The United States or the Soviet Union?

View attachment 646928
Who Wins? In 1983?

Cockroaches and Water Bears.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I live next to three major nuclear targets. I’m not likely to survive even a limited exchange.
I feel you.

Had what, during the height of the Cold War, were a ton of First/High Second strike targets, starting with what the Soviets would likely have given a double dip (ground and air bursts) being around 7 miles away (with two First Strke and very high 2nd) essentially colocated) and a high second being about a a mile and a half down the road from the house.

We'd get killed a lot.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
As I have recounted before - Australia would be relatively unharmed in a nuclear exchange as would most of the Southern Hemisphere. We simply do not have the targets worth wasting nuclear warheads on downunder. Our cities are too far apart. Neither the fUSSR or USA would have nuclear warheads to spare when they would be using them on each other. There is a world outside of the US and fUSSR.
Of course Australia had/has at minimum, high 2nd Strike targets, especially during the Height of the Cold War, when both sides had completely insane deliverable stockpile inventories.

HMAS Kuttabul and HMAS Stirling have repair and support facilities that can services bout RN and USN warships (same reason the U.S. would have hit Cam Ranh Bay, and possibly Indian Navy port facilities) including SSN and SSBN. Australian yards can provide dry dock level repairs for everything short of an Iowa Class Battleship and super carrier. Australian air bases can support B-52s and FB-111 (and starting in 1986 the B-1B).

Specific U.S./Joint U.S./Australian bases include Pine Gap is a MAJOR U.S. satellite control facility, Naval Communication station Harold Holt is VLF transmission site (that is the system the USN uses to communicate with SSBN), the ECHELON at Kojarena. All of those facilities were in operation in 1983 and every one of them is critical to Strategic Force Command and Control. In a full exchange scenario Pine Gap and Holt are more important targets over the first 4-8 hours (likely in the first hour or upon initial launch authorization) than Fort Hood or Camp Pendleton.

In 1983 it is very likely that the Soviets had a Delta II or III assigned specifically to targets in Australia, Singapore and possibly southern China, along with a second boat in the IO to act in a clean-up role for the entire region. Depending on targeting priorities Australia would have taken between 20 and 60 Special Weapons, likely all in the 500kT category.
 
"Very likely" is not definite. As I had related, the fUSSR had much higher priority targets in the USA and Europe where most of it's missiles would have been assigned. The Soviets would have been much more worried about the possible failure of their missiles to waste them on a largely empty land full of very few people.

Pine Gap is really the only likely target and that is near Alice Springs in the centre of Australia, a long, long way from the nearest major population centre. North-West Cape was active in 1983 and it might have made a second target but again that is a long, long way from any major population centres. Airbases? Valueless unless they actually have B-52s stationed there, which they didn't and wouldn't. The same for dry docks and dockyards, there were few if any US Navy ships in the southern Pacific of any real value. The US was much more interested in hitting the fUSSR and perhaps it's allies than was in stationing a major weapon systems in an out of the way place like Australia.

What people appear to be forgetting is that the reason why people shoot nukes at one another is to destroy targets of value. There simply are very few and they are far between such targets downunder. Our cities are thousands of kilometres apart and we have few if any targets of any value downunder. People talk about fUSSR stationing missile carrying submarines in the Indian Ocean. My question is why? The fUSSR had most of their missile carrying submarines stationed in their "bastions" where they could protect them and where they were weapons of last resorts. Where were the "bastions"? In the arctic, near Murmansk and Vladivostok. Both a long way from Australia.

Australia was, as I have already recounted largely self-sufficient in most goods. We had our own oil and gas fields. We manufactured most things still in 1983. We exported vast quantities of wheat, corn, beef, lamb, etc. We mined coal, iron ore, copper, lead, etc. We had our own steel works were we refined iron ore. We refined Aluminium. We made cars, trucks, etc. We were not reliant on external sources of supply, except for electronics. In a nuclear exchange we would be largely OK.
 
Please allow me to be the novocastrian workerist shit cunt. I can't help it. Please allow it.

As I have recounted before - Australia would be relatively unharmed in a nuclear exchange as would most of the Southern Hemisphere. We simply do not have the targets worth wasting nuclear warheads on downunder. Our cities are too far apart. Neither the fUSSR or USA would have nuclear warheads to spare when they would be using them on each other. There is a world outside of the US and fUSSR.

We always thought BHP, Dry Dock,[[Williamtown]]. And we weren't thinking soviets. My personal plan was to bicycle (forbidden due to road culture) to the ridge line where I saw all three directly. Simplicity. Maximal exposure.

I studied nuclear war fighting strategies during my Master's degree. We had Des Ball just before he had been sucked into the Pentagon's orbit. He made it clear that Australia would be relatively unscathed by a general exchange. We simply are too far down the fUSSR's list if priorities to be worried about.

Well Cheers to the fUSSR. Us with pinkish diaper parents, at least on the good side, didn't trust final strike allies at the time. Nor did we trust the fUSSR for class reasons. [Removed offensive content]

In 1983 we were self-sufficient in most industries - we made many things here. Sure, electronics might be a bit of a worry but their loss would not be earth shattering from our perspective. We had our own oilfields, we had our own gasfields, we exported a whole shed load of primary foodstuffs, we were much better off than you lot appear to give credit for. It was the northern hemisphere who looked south for it's beef, it's lamb, it's wheat, it's corn and so on and so on. You might be stuffed but Australia and New Zealand would be OK.

Nope nope nope nope. We were pathetic import substitutionalists for many things. We fucked up electronics but could expensively recreated them if and only if Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne weren't taken out. We had a capacity to autonomously replicate 1930s production levels, with assitance, and we could in a 20 year period replicate assistance.


What people appear to be forgetting is that the reason why people shoot nukes at one another is to destroy targets of value. There simply are very few and they are far between such targets downunder. Our cities are thousands of kilometres apart and we have few if any targets of any value downunder.

Dry docks, coal ports, etc.... One does have to admit that Soviet leaders were horrific genocides who hates humanity rather than being in a specific political contest… but many people admit that. Personally I feared "whose ship will use that slip."' to the point of desiring it quick and fast; complete with plan. And it was 60/40 final strike yanks in my fantasy/anti-survival method.

Australia was, as I have already recounted largely self-sufficient in most goods. We had our own oil and gas fields. We manufactured most things still in 1983. We exported vast quantities of wheat, corn, beef, lamb, etc. We mined coal, iron ore, copper, lead, etc. We had our own steel works were we refined iron ore. We refined Aluminium. We made cars, trucks, etc. We were not reliant on external sources of supply, except for electronics. In a nuclear exchange we would be largely OK.

Australia could have reproduced an early modern hysterically self-sufficient economy through political torture and the like. It would have been marginal: the NSW police would have been disgusted at their rates of return.

It could have worked. It would have been dying back into difficult to produce machine tools; filters; precursors (chemical, industrial) etc.

Australia isn't big enough to survive the big bang. People need six months in a leaky boat.

yours,
climbing over the hill to see Mayfield North go blat
Sam R.
 
Last edited:
Top