Would non NATO/Warsaw Pact nations be targeted in a nuclear war?

Inspired by this thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/recovery-time-from-1983-world-war-three.404624/

If a complete nuclear exchange broke out in the 1980s, would non NATO/WP nations be targeted?

By non NATO/WP I mean nations that weren't officially in either group but may have been allied or completely neutral.

Would the US/USSR target any nation seemed to be of remote value to the other side?

Would they go out of their way to ensure that no country survives the exchange intact?
The Soviets had 36,000 DELIVERABLE nuclear weapons, the U.S. had 23,500. Both sides have jacketed weapons available (actually all that is necessary is to install/attack a pre-made jacket to a regular weapon). The Soviets had deliverable stockpiles of several biological agents, including engineered smallpox and anthrax, various toxins and plant blights. It is entirely possible that every city, on Earth, with a population over 100k is hit by one side or the other (in some cases by BOTH sides). The various oil fields around the world would destroyed, any port that could provide support, even at gunpoint, to either sides naval forces is gone.

500 years or so is if the Soviets and Americans (along with the rest of the nuclear powers) are slightly sane in their targeting and if the Soviets keep Pandora's Box closed.

Both sides go all in and the human race is back to hunter-gathers (in fact it is likely that those groups that remain are the primary source of survivors thanks to lack of contact with the outside world). If the engineered bio-weapons are put in play, with the reality that NO ONE will have any immunity, outside of a few Soviet leaders, a 95%+ die off is entirely possible. Game over.
 
Last edited:
I am fairly certain that both Sweden and Finland would be attacked by at least one side should the Big One break out.
 
Several neutral nations would suffer from WW3 directly or undirectly. Finland would be devastated badly and hardly Sweden and Austria would are much better. Middle East, North Africa and East Asia would are too devastated.
 
I am fairly certain that both Sweden and Finland would be attacked by at least one side should the Big One break out.

Several neutral nations would suffer from WW3 directly or undirectly. Finland would be devastated badly and hardly Sweden and Austria would are much better. Middle East, North Africa and East Asia would are too devastated.

Finland's position was rather difficult as it was technically allied to the Soviet Union due to the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. Even if the language of treaty was somewhat ambiguous, there was a danger that Finland could cooperate with the USSR during the hypothetical WW3, at least in the form of military access to Soviet forces moving to Norway and Sweden. We also know that Americans targeted Finnish airports. Besides the fear that the Soviets could use them, Finland was obliged to defend its territory against "Western Germany and its allies" according to the FCM Treaty or ask the Soviet help if incapable to do it itself. This means that it was possible that Finland might have tried to prevent the usage of Finnish airspace by NATO forces thus making Finland potentially hostile even if it had tried to stay otherwise neutral.

From the Soviet perspective, Finland wasn't entirely trustworthy so they were probably prepared to use some force against the country in the event that Finland wouldn't respect the clauses of FCM Treaty. If the USSR moves to Finland, the NATO could do the same (most likely in Lapland) in order to prevent Soviet surprises against Northern Norway and escalate fighting. It is also possible that even if Finland resists the Soviets, the US sees the situation hopeless and nevertheless targets some strategically important areas in Finland in order to prevent their use by the Soviets.
 
Well, France I suppose right off the bat. Since in theory they were not NATO during this period because, ya know, De Gaulle. Yugoslavia does not get off untouched. Finland, as many pointed out, is boned. I don't see a direct strike on Switzerland, but they might get tagged.

As others pointed out, indirect damage is unavoidable.

Also, given resources are located in several non-aligned countries, those might be targeted to deny access to the enemy. Think Brits burning Danish fleet to avoid it falling into Bony's hands.
 
Inspired by this thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/recovery-time-from-1983-world-war-three.404624/

If a complete nuclear exchange broke out in the 1980s, would non NATO/WP nations be targeted?

By non NATO/WP I mean nations that weren't officially in either group but may have been allied or completely neutral.

Would the US/USSR target any nation seemed to be of remote value to the other side?

Would they go out of their way to ensure that no country survives the exchange intact?

Without doubt all the countries in the world were targeted by both US and USSR, meaning there was probably a complete target set for each country, ie. what kind of weapon to use against a particular airfield etc.

Whether or not non-important targets could be attacked by the warring parties is a completely different question. First, the neutrals and out of area countries would most likely be on the bottom of the long list of targets which would be attacked. This would most probably mean that the means to attack them would be resources most vulnerable to counteraction. Ie. manned bombers, old missiles etc. Would these weapons and their command and control apparatus survive the initial onslaught?

Neither US or USSR did not possess an infite amount of actual, deployed, nuclear weapons. Most targets would have been most likely been attacked by many more times than necessary in order to make the elimination sure. For example, Moscow area would have been probably attacked by hundreds or thousands of weapons judging by the number of nuclear weapons allocated to a single radar site. A number of nuclear weapons would have been kept as a reserve as well.

But hitting every city over population of 100 000 with nukes (in 2015 there were 4037 of them, according to some calculations)? Sheer fantasy.

Of course if the nuclear winter goes off like many have speculated the question is rather moot.
 
Well, France I suppose right off the bat. Since in theory they were not NATO during this period because, ya know, De Gaulle. Yugoslavia does not get off untouched. Finland, as many pointed out, is boned. I don't see a direct strike on Switzerland, but they might get tagged.

As others pointed out, indirect damage is unavoidable.

Also, given resources are located in several non-aligned countries, those might be targeted to deny access to the enemy. Think Brits burning Danish fleet to avoid it falling into Bony's hands.

France was in NATO. They just were not in the integrated command structure and did not allow NATO bases on their soil.
 
Vienna is probably the first city to glow. The Panama Canal gets hit, which is going to hurt the country even though the bomb technically hits American soil.
 
I think all countries allied to NATO or even nuclear powers would get hit in one form or another. Australia for example had separate alliances with the US and UK, had fighters in Malaysia, nuclear capable F111s near Brisbane, hosted B52 staging through Darwin and US intelligence/C3 facilities like Pine Gap and Harold E Holt VLF station.

Australia is going to eat a few nukes, but only the crappy ones left over from nuking more important targets in the US and elsewhere.
 
Here's the question: would the Russians target cities in South America? Would Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo and Buenos Aires be on the Soviet first strike list?
 
Here's the question: would the Russians target cities in South America? Would Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo and Buenos Aires be on the Soviet first strike list?

I don't see any reason why they would bother with Latin America. Northern Hemisphere is more important for Soviets. Their main targets are in Western Europe and North America, speciality United States. Nuking of SA not serve any purpose IMO.
 
Here's the question: would the Russians target cities in South America? Would Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paolo and Buenos Aires be on the Soviet first strike list?
Not on their first strike list but probably on their strike list. They would get at least one nuke for their capitals.
 
Top