WI: The Cold War goes Hot

You said in this thread "we supplied the beef to the world"... but now no one's buying it, and even they wanted to they can't get it. Meanwhile, all those people now need jobs. Those effects are going to add up.
And? If people elsewhere in the world can't eat that beef, that means that it's all available for Australians (and maybe Kiwis). I believe, in fact, that was the point Rickshaw was trying to make; that Australia was super-self-sufficient in agriculture, so it wouldn't starve if global trade collapsed.
 
And? If people elsewhere in the world can't eat that beef, that means that it's all available for Australians (and maybe Kiwis). I believe, in fact, that was the point Rickshaw was trying to make; that Australia was super-self-sufficient in agriculture, so it wouldn't starve if global trade collapsed.
Sure, I was using that for an example.

But what about the environmental effects? The psychological effects? The likely refugee problems? The need to repurpose and build up industries and tech that were shipped in or supplied elsewhere?
 

marathag

Banned
Was there any point in the 50s that WW3 could start?
Eisenhower gave pre-delegated Launch Authority to the Joint Chiefs and Commander of SAC, om worries that the Soviets could do a decapitation strike and take out much of the US leadership, preventing an immediate nuclear response

So in theory, any of them could gone full Jack D Ripper and start a strike on the USSR
 
Eisenhower gave pre-delegated Launch Authority to the Joint Chiefs and Commander of SAC, om worries that the Soviets could do a decapitation strike and take out much of the US leadership, preventing an immediate nuclear response

So in theory, any of them could gone full Jack D Ripper and start a strike on the USSR
You act as if the launch codes were all set to 00000. /s
 
Sure, I was using that for an example.

But what about the environmental effects? The psychological effects? The likely refugee problems? The need to repurpose and build up industries and tech that were shipped in or supplied elsewhere?
All of those are basically solvable or...overrated. Refugees, for example, are somewhat controlled by the large water gap between Australia and Indonesia (to say nothing of anywhere else), and, well, there's patrolling with the ADF and sinking boats. Harsh, but given OTL Australia behavior after a nuclear war doing that would probably command virtually universal support from the population. Psychological issues might cause long-term problems, but they're not the kind of thing that will cause society to collapse or anything, they'll "just" mean a probably higher rate of suicide, higher rates of domestic abuse and alcoholism/drug abuse, and somewhat lower overall economic effectiveness. "Repurposing and building up" is well within the competency of a "crisis" government that takes command of the economy, which (looking at OTL Australian performance) is fairly likely to happen.

So, I don't think that any of the problems you list will dramatically undermine Australia. It will certainly be in a bit of a hand to mouth situation for a few decades, but they won't be suffering a general societal collapse or anything of that sort.
 

marathag

Banned
You act as if the launch codes were all set to 00000. /s
JFK and McNamara really thought the PALs could stop the military, they had the only keys.
Whoops.

It's not much written about, but there was a purge of sorts after the CMC, but the code 'secret' was missed for a decade
 
So, I don't think that any of the problems you list will dramatically undermine Australia. It will certainly be in a bit of a hand to mouth situation for a few decades, but they won't be suffering a general societal collapse or anything of that sort.
Again, there are two different ideas here. "Australia won't get away free" is not equal to "Australians will envy the dead." I feel as if you and Rickshaw think I'm holding the latter idea and only the latter idea, which I am not.

As I've said before, if I had to pick the country best suited to survive, it'd probably be Australia. I just challenge it'd be brushing off the fallout as if nothing had happened.

JFK and McNamara really thought the PALs could stop the military, they had the only keys.
Whoops.

It's not much written about, but there was a purge of sorts after the CMC, but the code 'secret' was missed for a decade
Honestly, the more I hear about the Cold War the more I think it's amazing we didn't find out how well Australia would do.
 
If the war was in the fifties, could the US come out of it ok, without a collapse of law and order? I imagine Europe is still screwed.
The US would be hurt, but probably survive. The Soviets didn't have the capabilities to reliably deliver nuclear weapons as finely tuned as the Americans did at that point, or as numerous.

Remember, that's why Sputnik freaked everyone out. If they could get that into space...
 
Some of them. The Alpha Jet, A-10, and a few others had rough field capability, but Able Archer would have been a “bolt from the blue”. Those aircraft would have been highly unlikely to have been dispersed from their main fields.
But not F4 F16 and F15 ?
without airbases they are screwed ?
 
I think there are two different ideas here, that "Australia would be screwed in WWIII" = "Australia is heavily nuked."

I absolutely agree that there were far more important targets in western Europe and North American for the Soviets to worry about. But when I'm saying it's probably screwed I'm talking more about the secondary and tertiary effects of nuclear war - the economic, social, and environmental. Perhaps, as you constantly argue, Australia would be just fine. But with the global supply chain and networks being wiped out, there are going to be huge problems for the Aussies. Were you really that self-sufficient, or that easy to make so? You said in this thread "we supplied the beef to the world"... but now no one's buying it, and even they wanted to they can't get it. Meanwhile, all those people now need jobs. Those effects are going to add up.

Could they have dealt with it? Don't know, I'm not Australia. Don't know what if anything Canberra planned for such a doomsday scenario. But I think you're insistent "we'll be fine" is probably too optimistic. The problems that would confront the country would be all but insurmountable for any nation.
Today Australian beef commands higher prices than it did in 1983. It is in high demand. The home price has been driven up as a consequence. If a war had broke out in 1983, we'd have been fine. We overproduced all primary commodities. We produced most of our secondary needs - we made our own automotive products, we produced most of our own agricultural needs. Australia was once ironically referred to as "the lucky country" and it still is.
 
Last edited:
And? If people elsewhere in the world can't eat that beef, that means that it's all available for Australians (and maybe Kiwis). I believe, in fact, that was the point Rickshaw was trying to make; that Australia was super-self-sufficient in agriculture, so it wouldn't starve if global trade collapsed.
Basically, yes that was the case I was making. Northern hemisphere? They are rooted. Southern hemisphere, they are basically OK.
 
Problem is the infrastructure is gone, 1980's high intensity farming isn't going to function without supplies of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides and spare parts for all the machinery. Even if the nuclear winter isn't a new ice age it's going to the year without a summer, except its going to be more like the decade without a summer. You are going to have large numbers of refugees fleeing from towns that might not have been nuked but lack the basic essentials of life, all of them heading towards the farming regions looking for food.
threads has the most realistic senario, regression even for survivors, to a middle ages level of living. eating rabbit almost raw, and 4 grade english levels.
 

marathag

Banned
Which is more important? Life or standard of living?
depends what you call life, doesn't it?

as in just eating enough calories to avoid weight loss if not doing physical exertion?

Living, or just slowly dying? Getting to that whole bit about the living envying the dead?
 
depends what you call life, doesn't it?

as in just eating enough calories to avoid weight loss if not doing physical exertion?

Living, or just slowly dying? Getting to that whole bit about the living envying the dead?
I think you are making an artificial distinction. Most Australians would revert to a 1940s level of Standard of Living IMO. They wouldn't be dying on the streets from starvation. Their industries would continue and more than likely improve somewhat 'cause there isn't anyone else they can rely on, now is there? North America, Europe, Japan are all stuffed. Anything south of the Equator is going to keep on going.
 
Non-Strike Australia will revert to the 1940s and then collapse backwards as critical pathways in electrical, high pressure regulation, electronic and pharmaceutical collapse. In addition the dramatic rapid economic contraction combined with full employment is going to cause an instant inflationary pressure which the government will use emergency measures on. In 1960 this will mean mass internments and/or use of summary powers. In 1980 this’ll mean sectoral internments. After 1987 the economy collapses as critical production areas no longer exist to adequately serve core commodity demands (think clothing textiles and footwear, particularly textiles.)


A government of national unity will almost certainly be formed and the Governor General will authorise sweeping emergency powers. Elections are unlikely, unless third parties are effectively banned. This takes what constitutes Australian democracy back to the 1750s.

As the economy further contracts excessively productive industries that remain will be down sized to fill the needs of a population of 10-20 million. Economies of scale that don’t support the high levels of productivity historically seen in 1920 when we were part of the Empires scale.

Not mad max. But for the 95% of Australian survivors who work for a living it will see horrific regression in experienced day to day rule of law, democracy and freedom from government interference. At the standard of living level there will be a continuing series of depression on top of depression until the capital goods stock *capable of being produced* in Australia balances against the commodity needs of 10-20 million.
 
As long as we're being specific...

While the possibilities and variables are numerous, consider the following. South America will escape largely intact, its dictatorships rocked but still in place after the bombs fall. Pinochet, Bignone, and Figureoua will comprise the ABC powers and likely come together as a loose bloc with the rest of South America following their lead. Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean outside of Cuba and Puerto Rico will be largely intact (adios to both). The Bahamas will be bathed in radiation from strikes on Florida and Texas but its infrastructure will be initially intact. More likely than not the region gravitates into the ABC bloc eventually with Mexico becoming a northern Hemisphere power player with many Americans who were able to escape the worst and tourists who happened to be on vacation endong up permanent residents. Perhaps the very irradiated Bahamas absorb refugees from the former US as well.

If New Zealand is hit, it likely stays on the North Island with Wellington getting the brunt. While technologically thats hurts the country, there are enough horses and livestock that the country will survive. More likely than not they scavenge what technology they can and go into a deep isolation save for key partners like Australia. Think Bakufu Japan's foreign policy with a 1920s tech level. If Wellington survives the country will rebound more quickly with a tech base closer to 1945.

Australia loses two to seven sites, each a profound loss but even with Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Pine Gap, Canberra, and Townsville out the country can rebound. Tech levels will vary from 1800 to 1930s but expect a warm shower to be a luxury in most of the country for two or three decades. While a rapid organization of the hinterland and smaller cities is possible, more likely there is struggle over everything from water to gas. Road gangs may form but the desire of most people to avoid outright anarchy will mean cops becomes a lot more powerful in real-world terms, especially in the larger cities that survive. Life here will be hard and deadly but then in a land where seemingly everything wants to kill you...

Hawaii loses Oahu and maybe Nihau/Kauai as well, but it will survive as a very unique culture clash of Anglos and locals who have to work together to survive. If they don't they almost all perish.

Europe is a graveyard by and large, Switzerland becomes the new Shangri-La but likely isolates itself quickly from the outside. Perhaps surrounding areas with something to offer join in but they will not be forgiving to those who try to intrude on Fortress Alpine, otherwise Iberia, southern France, and parts of Italy fare better than the rest. Which is to say more than 1/4 of the prewar population may survive in the 'lucky' areas. This is a continent where the living may envy the dead, especially in Germany, european Russia, and the southern UK.

Japan is much the same way with Hokkaido, southern Kyushu, and Shikoku faring better than the mainland. Expect a new Bakufu equivalent with a lot of anti-American and anti-Soviet sentiment. They will survive and carry on but at a terrible cost, perhaps with subways repurposed into domiciles in some areas.

Siberia, Canada, and Alaska are no-mans-lands with a few enclaves of civilziation against a backdrop of overwhelming wilderness and seemingly incalculabke devastation. Radiation will linger but few people will be alive to see its effects. At whichever Soviet cities survive expect a government to begin pulling together as soon as they are able, but with very limited success for several years.

China is hard to predict, they may survive largely intact or the Russians may figure to take them out lest they push into Soviet territory. Hard to predict.

India and Pakistan initially survive with few relative casualties but eventually neutralize each other as potential powers due to a war. Pakistan loses but India doesn't win, instead shattering into a dozen states that talk reunification as they scheme to be the last one standing. No one wins but everyone loses.

Israel and the Middle East are simply gone, the only victors are the vultures, fungi, and carrion eaters. Survivors here are few, well-armed, and have no qualms about continuing ancient feuds.

Southern Africa degenerates into racial violence and may crack down or disintegrate. But the RSA has nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Expect civil war in a nation that might otherwise have led recovery efforts worldwide. North Africa is toast, and Nigeria emerges as a power in its own right. Oil becomes key to technology and even more valuable...eventually.
 
Top