WW3 1962 - Recovery Time?

How many years until the world reaches OTL 2017 standard of living?


  • Total voters
    142

missouribob

Banned
Warning: This will be a long one.

How long would it take for an ATL in which the Cuban Missile Crisis went hot to reach OTL's 2017 standard of living/technology?

I am using the targeting data from @Amerigo Vespucci's thread, the Cuban Missile War, for the United States:

• Washington, D.C. (3 missiles)
This is the most critical target in the United States, beyond even Cheyenne Mountain. It’s the peacetime center of the government, and the immense blow to American pride and prestige, as well as the confusion and chaos its destruction will create is immense, and will not be overlooked. One missile for the Pentagon, Capitol Hill, and the White House. It’s overkill, but the target is of great enough importance that given the inaccuracy of the Soviet missiles, three will be needed to ensure completion. End result: Lake Washington.

• Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado (2 missiles)
Wartime headquarters of NORAD, this bunker is entombed within the mountain. While it’s not likely to be destroyed, given the inaccuracy of the weapons used against it, it will likely be knocked off line by detonations close by that will rupture cables and communications, disconnecting it for some time from the defense of North America. Suspended within the mountain on enormous springs and shock absorbers, the bunker will be tossed around, and injuries and possible deaths will result. Imagine being inside an earthquake, underground. Even ground-bursting weapons – these will likely not detonate until they hit the ground, unlike weapons used against soft targets, which explode at 5,000-10,000 feet to ensure maximum destruction – should not destroy the base, as a direct hit is not likely. End result: Broken bones for those inside, massive wildfires, NORAD HQ knocked offline for several hours to several weeks.

• Offut AFB, Omaha, Nebraska (2 missiles)
This is the headquarters of the Strategic Air Command, and where Gen. Curtis LeMay, CINC-SAC, will be located during the fighting. The base and city nearby will be utterly destroyed, and the bunker below has a good chance of being knocked out as well, but little is known about it, due to the fact that it is an active command, not retired like Cheyenne Mountain. End result: Omaha and Offut destroyed, SAC HQ knocked offline for several hours to several weeks.

• Syracuse, New York
One of the three centers for the SAGE (Semi Automatic Ground Environment) system, the SAGE system is what makes NORAD work. State-of-the-art computer systems, tied in to the three early-warning radar lines and interceptor bases across Canada, as well as links to ships at sea and aircraft in the air, enable the SAGE system to vector individual fighters to individual bombers as they are detected in flight. This is a massively complicated system of coordination, roughly similar to the British sector stations during the Blitz, but far more advanced. Syracuse’s SAGE Combat Center is located above-ground, in a giant facility with a four-story video screen and half an acre of computers. End result: Syracuse destroyed, Syracuse SAGE Combat Center offline.

• North Bay, Ontario
This is the third of the three (the first being Cheyenne Mountain) main SAGE Combat Centers in North America. Located 700 feet underground, it can survive a nearby hit. However, due to the fragility of computers at the time, and the need to have near-instantaneous communication with fighter bases and radar stations across Canada, even a near-miss will be disastrous. With all three main SAGE Combat Centers destroyed or knocked off line, the backup BUIC (Back Up Interceptor Control) units will take over, but at a reduced rate of effectiveness. End result: North Bay destroyed, SAGE center crippled.

• Groton/New London, Connecticut
Groton is the headquarters of the United States’ submarine fleet, and is of critical importance in that it is a soft target that houses nuclear weapons – ballistic missile submarines. While all of these will be at sea, the destruction of the Groton/New London submarine base will destroy a large number of warheads waiting to be transferred onto submarines, will destroy the large submarine construction facility located there, the training facility located there, and possibly any submarines unable to sail away, due to drydocking or other problems. End result: New London and Groton destroyed, several submarines sunk, submarine yards destroyed, SSBN (Strategic Submarine, Ballistic, Nuclear) reloading capability reduced.

• Charleston, South Carolina
In addition to being the largest city in the state of South Carolina, Charleston was at the time home to the Charleston Navy Yard, one of the largest ports of the United States Navy, and a major home port for several ballistic missile submarines. Though all are at sea at this point in the hostilities, the destruction of Charleston will greatly reduce the effectiveness of the Atlantic Fleet and hurt the resupply efforts of any ballistic missile submarines that survive their initial attacks. In addition, Charleston has great historical value and a medium-sized shipbuilding industry. End result: Charleston destroyed, economy of South Carolina crippled, loss of Charleston Naval Base, several ships sunk.

• Norfolk, Virginia (2 missiles)
Norfolk is the largest American naval base on the East Coast. It is the home port to the vast majority of the United States’ Atlantic Fleet, and is the site of a very large shipbuilding industry located in Norfolk and nearby Newport News. At least one aircraft carrier will be in drydock at the time, and a large stockpile of naval nuclear weapons is at the base. In addition, Naval Air Station Oceana is close by, as is the Marine Amphibious base at Little Creek, Langley Air Force Base, and Yorktown Weapons Depot. End result: With one detonation on the north side of Hampton Roads, and another on the south side, both Newport News and Norfolk will be completely obliterated, as will all the naval, marine, and Air Force bases in the area. NAS Oceana, furthest to the east, will suffer heavy damage, but may not be totally destroyed, due to its distance from Norfolk. Virginia Beach will suffer light damage.

• San Diego, California
San Diego is one of the largest cities in California, and is also the home of one of the largest naval bases on the West Coast. It is the home to Miramar, training facility for pilots of the US Marine Corps, and Coronado is home to one of the two training facilities of the US Navy Seals. In addition, North Island Naval Air Station has a large contingent of aircraft. End result: A blast over the harbor will obliterate Coronado, North Island, and anything in port, as well as damaging Mischer Field at Miramar and destroying the city. Nearby Camp Pendleton is out of the blast zone, but may suffer broken windows, depending on atmospheric conditions at the time of the blast.

• Tucson, Arizona
In 1962, Tucson was still a small town, but also home to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, site of the Air Force’s “boneyard,” a storage facility for unused aircraft and a major repair facility. In addition, Tucson was also home to the 12th Strategic Aerospace Division, a combined force of missiles and bombers. Today, it’s home of the only preserved Titan Missile silo. End result: Tucson, Davis-Monthan completely destroyed. Surrounding missile silos remain intact, however, as these are scattered in the hills south of the town.

• Barksdale AFB, Bossier City, Louisiana
Bossier City is located in northwestern Louisiana, near the Texas and Arkansas borders. A suburb of Shreveport, Louisiana, it is also home to the Louisiana Army Ammunition plant. Barksdale AFB in 1962 is home to the headquarters of the Second Air Force, a major component of SAC. End result: Barksdale AFB destroyed, Shreveport in flames, 75% of the city leveled instantly, heavy primary damage to the western portions of the Louisiana Army Ammunition plant. Secondary explosions may further damage or destroy the plant.

• Ellsworth AFB, Rapid City, South Dakota
Home to the 821st Air Division, Ellsworth is today home to the B-1 bomber. In 1962, it was a major B-52 bomber base, and the Air Division included a large missile component as well. End result: Ellsworth AFB and Rapid City destroyed, missile silos intact, as these are hardened targets and are far from the base.

• Grand Forks AFB, Grand Forks, North Dakota
Home to the 319th Bomb Wing, 449th Bombardment Group, and 4133rd Strategic Wing in 1962, Grand Forks is a major bomber base. End result: Grand Forks AFB destroyed, broken windows and light damage in the town itself.

• Forbes AFB, Topeka, Kansas
Home to the 21st Air Division, Forbes AFB controls a large number of ICBMs as well as a substantial number of bombers. Topeka is also the capital of the state of Kansas, and thus center to a state government. End result: Forbes AFB destroyed, massive damage to the City of Topeka, but no damage to the missile fields to the west of the city, or to the town of Lawrence to the east.

• Fairchild AFB, Spokane, Washington
In 1962, Fairchild was the home of the 18th Strategic Aerospace Division, an umbrella organization that combined the B-52 bombers and KC-135 Stratotankers of the 92nd Bomb Wing with squadrons of Atlas ICBMs located nearby. Today, Fairchild helps Washington State achieve the distinction of having more nuclear weapons than four countries combined, thanks to the location of a nuclear reserve depot on the base. End result: Fairchild AFB destroyed, possible damage to unstable Atlas missiles, (the missiles must be kept pressurized at all times in order to provide support for the missile, or destruction of the missile will result – this caused problems when a dropped tool could rupture a fuel line and cause an explosion, due to the weak fuel tanks and lines.) Spokane west of the river destroyed, damage to the city’s eastern portion.

• Lockbourne AFB, Columbus, Ohio
Home to the 801st Air Division, Columbus is also the capital of the state of Ohio, and a large city in its own right. End result: Lockbourne AFB destroyed, southern half of Columbus in flames. Central and northern portions of the city damaged.

• New York City, New York
You shouldn’t need to ask why New York would be hit. Ideally, due to its size, it would be hit by several nuclear weapons, but I imagine that only one missile would be targeted there, simply because of its proximity to the Canadian border and thus availability to bomber attack. For the sake of argument, I’ll target the missile at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, which in 1962 was still very much in operation. End result: Brooklyn, lower Manhattan destroyed, 50% of the city in flames, massive panic, damage to eastern portions of Staten Island and New Jersey. Broken windows as far north as Yonkers. Newark damaged, Statue of Liberty knocked over, Empire State Building and Chrysler Building obliterated.

• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, in addition to being one of the most populous cities in the United States, also has great historical meaning and is home to the Philadelphia Naval Yard, again one of the largest naval bases on the East Coast of the United States in 1962. End result: Philadelphia virtually destroyed. Broken windows as far as the Delaware border, with fires raging unchecked for miles.

• Colorado Springs, Colorado
Colorado Springs is the peacetime home of NORAD, one of the major centers of the US Air Force, and is home to the US Air Force Academy. In 1962, Ent Air Force Base would likely be the primary target, as it is the center of peacetime Air Force activities. The northern portions of Fort Carson also adjoin Colorado Springs. Today, the Air Force’s Space Command is located in Colorado Springs, as is the current primary base of NORAD. End result: City of Colorado Springs destroyed, Air Force academy destroyed, Ent Air Force Base destroyed, northern portions of Fort Carson destroyed, but most portions escape damage, including the training ranges.

• Detroit, Michigan
In 1962, the American automobile industry had not yet been overtaken by foreign imports, and so Detroit was as crucial to America’s economy as any other city in the country. Nearly 90 percent of the automobiles in the United States were American-built, providing jobs for millions of people, not just in Detroit, but also in factories across the country. End result: Downtown Detroit and neighboring Windsor are destroyed. Heavy damage as far as Dearborn Heights. Dozens of factories destroyed. Production outside Detroit suffers for lack of Detroit-built parts, fueling national economic depression.

• San Francisco, California
This one isn’t so much San Francisco as it is Alameda and Oakland, but a hit on either of those two places will affect San Francisco as well. Alameda is home of the third-largest naval base on the West Coast. In addition, the Oakland Army Base and Alameda Naval Air Station are also within range of a single hit. End result: A hit on Alameda will vaporize the Oakland Army Base, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda supply depot, NAS Alameda, and most of downtown Alameda. The Oakland Bay Bridge will be completely destroyed, and Oakland itself will suffer major damage, as will the eastern shore of San Francisco, including the Naval Station. Damage will extend across the city. The Golden Gate Bridge will suffer moderate to light damage, but should survive with scorching. Berekley will be destroyed.

Those are the targets I feel most likely to be hit in a 26-ICBM attack. They provide a mix of Air Force and Navy targets, as well as civilian targets. Targets have been chosen to maximize the number of American nuclear weapons destroyed, as would likely be the case in a real Soviet attack. Some notable cities and targets not on the list:

• Bangor, Washington – Not a sub base until the advent of Trident submarines.
• Kings Bay, Georgia – See above.
• Boston, Mass. – Likely bomber target.
• Ottawa, Canada – Likely bomber target.
• Seattle, Washington – Likely bomber target
• Los Angeles, California – Not as big a city in 1962, lacks major military bases.
• Honolulu, Hawaii – Likely submarine target
• Chicago, Ill. – Likely bomber target
• Minot, North Dakota – Likely bomber target
• Wright-Patterson AFB – Testing facility, no combat aircraft present
• Cape Canaveral – Testing facility, no military missiles present

Assume China and Europe have been heavily hit. The Soviet Union no longer exists.

Other variables to consider.

1. Nuclear Winter – A 100 bomb atomic war with warheads the size of Little Boy used today would produce a nuclear winter strong enough to kill a billion people. WW3 in 1962 would see thousands of thermonuclear/hydrogen devices used. Any surviving nation like the United States would need to survive a dramatic reduction in food production. @Hnau put it better than me over a year ago:

It seems to me that the climate models have moved consensus back to predicting nuclear winter would be an existential risk, either for our species or civilization. The smoke clouds would dissipate throughout the atmosphere, in two weeks even Argentinians would be looking up at a global smog effect. You'd be looking at a decade of cold summers and colder winters, and the ozone layer would be depleted, increasing ultraviolet radiation.

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSciAmJan2010.pdf

Considering higher rates of undernourishment in the 1960s, the lower level of infrastructural development in the Third World, and the unavailability of agricultural technologies that could make crash programs feasible, I think half of the world's population surviving to 1975 would be a best-case scenario. Keeping even more than a billion humans by that would be an impressive achievement for the species. Even a regional nuclear war with only 100 Hiroshima-size explosions today would likely cause a billion deaths, but if a wider-scale exchange happens in the 1960s with hydrogen bombs... that's the kind of event that could knock out industrial civilization as we know it.

http://www.psr.org/nuclear-weapons/nuclear-famine-report.pdf

2. Plutonium poisoning - Edit - I have concluded that there have never been enough nuclear weapons on our planet to cause the extinction of our species via plutonium poisoning. For more info go to this link: https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_nuclearweapons.htm

3. Biological weapons - Another wildcard is the state of the American and Soviet biological weapons programs. There could be the chance of accidental (or in the case of the Soviets) intentional release. By 1962 the Soviets had several biological warfare facilities and had a smallpox factory from post-WW2. 1962 was before the Biopreparat program though. For the purposes of this thread let us assume that the Soviets don't release their weapons and that any that are unintentionally released would remain locally contained.


With those perimeters set let's discuss. How long would it take such a world to recover from WW3? What would be the social, economic and political effects of such a conflict? Specifically how would the United States develop? Would race relations ever reach OTL? Would the sexual revolution still occur? Would this reconstructing United States place a greater focus on Civil Defense? What would become of the United States government? Officials? Bureaucracy? What would be the new Capital? How would the state and local governments fit in all this? I've placed some reference threads below that have also touched on this subject.

@Blue Max had a great idea a few years back about how urban planning and civil defense might evolve in such a post war world...

I've thought that a Hobbiton scenario might well be the long run result in the aftermath of a nuclear war. It would be the best of a bunch of bad choices--cities and specialization is non-negotiable to sustain a modern economy, but cities are extremely vulnerable to nuclear attack.

However long it takes to rebuild/repopulate from the aftermath, people will be confronted with the question of how to build heavy industry without facing obvious disaster in the face of nuclear war?

And there really aren't any good answers to this problem. If a nation or the entire world has been devastated by nuclear war, suddenly cities became the killing fields. Blast, Burn, Radiation, Starvation, Strife, Disease.

Building cities underground doesn't quite work. They need food, water, and logistical supply. They could be more robust against attack, be partially self-sufficient, and some locations might even be able to supply their own power, water and perhaps basic things like steel and glass.

@Emperor Norton I also had some thoughts on this.

There are a few ways I can see the "hobbiton". One is where it is a city, just underground; so there are buildings and streets, its just that instead of sky the buildings are to the top of whatever interior was carved out, and likely connected to the above ground buildings. Another is where it'd be like the vault concept from Fallout, albeit with people going outside so long as there is not actually an atomic war. It could also be borderline a shopping mall configuration.

I think ideally it'd be something like this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underground_City,_Montreal

Reference threads:

Cuban Missile War Timeline - https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/the-cuban-missile-war-timeline.65071/

Voices of Doomsday, Cuban Missile War Offshoot - https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/voices-of-doomsday.385922/

Great Nuclear War, Wiki and fandom of the Cuban Missile War Timeline - http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Great_Nuclear_War

Thread on list of probable targets - https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-war-which-large-cities-would-survive.385593/

Study on Civil Defense strategies - http://atomic-skies.blogspot.de/2013/09/rock-to-hide-me.html

Thread on the construction of underground cities - https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ahc-hobbitons-instead-of-suburbs.319853/

Thread that imagines what such a world would look like with more Civil Defense before hand - https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/dbwi-challenge-prevent-world-war-iii.121320/
 
Last edited:
PHarobably world has reached level of 2017 by ear 2050 altough some areas, speciality former USSR, are still pretty shitty places. Nukes weren't so destructive on 1962 like these were on 1980's.

My assumption:

USA:

Recovers to level of 2017 sometimes on 2010's or early 2020's. Washington D.C. probably is capital again on 1990's if not earlier.

British Isles:

Revovers around same time as USA but society might be very different depending what damage nukes have caused.

France:

Probably on 2030's, depending how badly it is devastated.

Italy:

Hard to say. Italy might be hit badly but not sure how badly.

Germany:

Probably sometimes on 2050's. It would take worst damage after Eastern Bloc.

Eastern Bloc (not include USSR):

Probably sometimes on 2050's or bit later depending how much Westenr powers are supporting nations of the area.

Former USSR:

Recovering will last very long and by 2050 area is still totally ruined and ruled by local warlords and other stuff. Altough there might be some highly organised states.

Northern Europe:

Norway and Denmark are badly hit and recovery is unsure. Iceland probably not suffer much if any. Sweden is probably pretty safe altough it might take some undirect damage. Finland is damaged badly but might recover by 2050's. But big issue is still massive Russian refugee waves.

China:

It depends how badly it is hitted. Recovering might last several decades anyway.

Korea:

Probably sometimes on 2050's or bit later.

Japan:

By 2050.

Rest of the World:

World is generally recovered in few decades altough they wouldn't be hit.
 

missouribob

Banned
Lalli - I don't have that rosy of a view for the rest of the world. Given the nuclear winter that they will face it seems likely that most of the globe falls into anarchy or civil wars in the immediate aftermath. We are talking about a decade of significantly lower crop yields with no international trade (outside of maybe U.S. aid to Europe/Allied Asia).
 
The world would be like Humpty Dumpty after his great fall, young people would hear their elders wax nostalgic about the summer of 1962 and just presume that they were losing their minds after too many years of backbreaking work and trauma. 2017 standards of living would be relegated to the realms of science fiction.
 

missouribob

Banned
The world would be like Humpty Dumpty after his great fall, young people would hear their elders wax nostalgic about the summer of 1962 and just presume that they were losing their minds after too many years of backbreaking work and trauma. 2017 standards of living would be relegated to the realms of science fiction.
For the whole world? Surely there would be places that have reached at least the 1960s standard of living again. For example Los Angeles would probably be the primate city of the West Coast and considered the gateway to the pacific in terms of trade.
 
For the whole world? Surely there would be places that have reached at least the 1960s standard of living again. For example Los Angeles would probably be the primate city of the West Coast and considered the gateway to the pacific in terms of trade.

No doubt there'll be places with enough food and shelter for people to live in relative comfort but personal cars, washing machines, and TVs? I can't see it.

The world is going to go backwards for quite some time and afterwards it will be too disjointed to try to get back to where it was. No doubt a type of mercantilism will return with places like LA perhaps being prosperous for some because of it but even in the large trading ports life will be almost unrecognisable.
 

missouribob

Banned
No doubt there'll be places with enough food and shelter for people to live in relative comfort but personal cars, washing machines, and TVs? I can't see it.
I'm not sure I agree with you here. This isn't a late 60s nuclear war but an early 60s one. A good bulk of America's (let alone Japan/South Korea's) industrial and human capital still exists. After twenty to thirty years of statist reconstruction I don't see why by the 2000s a nice post-war consumerist boom wouldn't be in full swing with a more integrated Western Hemisphere, Oceania, South Africa, parts of East Asia and some nations of Europe developing an ATL version of globalization.

I mean that is but one path but it is a likely one IMO.
 
I'm not sure I agree with you here. This isn't a late 60s nuclear war but an early 60s one. A good bulk of America's (let alone Japan/South Korea's) industrial and human capital still exists. After twenty to thirty years of statist reconstruction I don't see why by the 2000s a nice post-war consumerist boom wouldn't be in full swing with a more integrated Western Hemisphere, Oceania, South Africa, parts of East Asia and some nations of Europe developing an ATL version of globalization.

I mean that is but one path but it is a likely one IMO.

We also still have the Port of New Orleans so we can trade with Latin America and Europe. Wall Street can set up anywhere, so even if the former site of New York is a wasteland they can just use Chicago or Atlanta or LA. A lot of auto parts were made in places other than Detroit, and the assembly would just need to be moved. The toughest nut to crack is how to maintain an agricultural surplus with a colder climate.
 
The USSR had at least 3300 nuclear weapons. Assuming 2/3 to 1/2 work and are not destroyed that is any where between 2200 and 1650 nuclear weapons. Western Europe alone would see at least half at most 90% of those weapons, and whatever is not used on them will be used on Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines and possible Thailand, and South Vietnam. Australia and New Zealand will be targeted by subs as well as South Africa. Parts of North Africa and Southwest Asia, especially the Suez Canal and the oil producing regions will be bombed. The fact is China will be hit by both sides, the Sino-Soviet split has happened, I would not be surprise if at least 10% of the Soviet arsenal at least is dedicated to China. Subs will target the Panama Canal and oil producing regions of South America. For the US and Canada in total at least 100-150 nuclear weapons may end up going off, almost all subs and ICBMs. My guess 75-95% of all bombers will be shot down before they reach their targets, depending on how good the air forces are and how close they are to the Warsaw pact. In fact much of US allied Eurasia and China and the MENA region may end up being hit by bombers simply because of the air cover. Yugoslavia gets destroyed as well by both sides.

In the end though what that means is that Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Ireland and Spain maybe spared, Spain might be hit because you know Franco. But much of the world loses the majority of its oil production. The UK and US make sure that the USSR, China, North Korea, North Vietnam, Cuba and Yugoslavia do not exist in any way beyond hunter-gather for the next thousand years.

In Western allied Europe and Asia all military bases are gone, any parts that have to deal with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are gone as well as oil production and refinement and all major capitals are gone as well. The fact remains their is not enough left to hit cities like Manchester, Hamburg maybe spared. Chaos and fallout will be terrible. Total for them both somewhere 1000 and 1300 nuclear weapons. They are sent back 1000 years as a result.

In South Africa, Australia and New Zealand will get at most a dozen nuclear weapons total. There is the possibility that maybe one or two subs could do the damage. Again capitals and oil facilities will be targeted. They are sent back 100 years as a result.

At least 5 for Panama Canal.

Much of coastal America and Canada also get hit badly by subs. Every major harbor, naval base and oil refinement and production facility are hit. Total I am thinking of the 100-150 three/fourths will be coastal. The interior will get between 25 and 40 nuclear weapons. What that means is that the US and Canada are sent back to 1800.

The relative good news is that the Green/Agricultural revolution that occurred post WWII has not yet happened and that means agricultural systems in much of the Latin America, Africa and Asia is still diverse and sustainable. Although it was vulnerable to regional droughts and other disasters, most of the world had not moved to mono agriculture and mechanized industrial farming for commercial use. Without biological weapons, which I doubt would not happen, deaths would be low from starvation. However, medical and technological advances slow to a crawl. By now they might be 1970's level tech. Now I won't go into guessing religious and political advances, but keep in mind oil is gone by and large. For transportation and industrial use they are reduced to steam, sail and horse. Also sadly industry at this time is home based largely.

My guess the world population remains at 2-3billion for along time.
 

missouribob

Banned
The toughest nut to crack is how to maintain an agricultural surplus with a colder climate.
I'm guessing less meat, soy for protein, more investment in agriculture relative to OTL and maybe a "de-mechanization" of agriculture for a decade or two? Not enough fuel, tractors, harvesters or spare parts in the 70s? Well tons and tons of internal refugees have human labor to supply. Also maybe a buffed up version of the Bracero program?
 
I'm not sure I agree with you here. This isn't a late 60s nuclear war but an early 60s one. A good bulk of America's (let alone Japan/South Korea's) industrial and human capital still exists. After twenty to thirty years of statist reconstruction I don't see why by the 2000s a nice post-war consumerist boom wouldn't be in full swing with a more integrated Western Hemisphere, Oceania, South Africa, parts of East Asia and some nations of Europe developing an ATL version of globalization.

I mean that is but one path but it is a likely one IMO.

A good bulk of America's industrial and human capital will still exist in the immediate aftermath but that's going to be whittled away in the following years. Things are going to be cold for quite some time and America might not be able to feed itself. A competent statist reconstruction is going to be focused on autarky, agronomics, and heavy industry, you're probably going to be looking at a state monopoly on most of the resources necessary for a consumer market to thrive, and that's even before we get to the problems around lack of investment.

These problems could eventually be resolved if you had foreign markets for outside investment but most surviving authority is going to be practising it's own brand of protectionism. The US presumably still has some of its navy intact and more than a few nukes left, enough to "open" nations that don't want to share their natural resources, but that's not much of a Marshall Plan.
 
Good poll! I've pondered this too. I don't know if the recovery of tech and living standards would be linear. I imagine our culture and what we would naturally develop would be so altered that we would probably have 2017 standard of living at some point, but it would look very different than what we enjoy now.
 

missouribob

Banned
To figure out economic/technological development we could try to treat this like an economics problem. Here I'll give it a shot.

So I'm going to take 1962 America and:

-Destroy Europe/Soviet Union/China and massively reduced international trade
-Wipe out New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore, and Washington D.C. the nation's 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th and 9th largest cities respectively along with smaller economic cities and centers of government.
-Add a nuclear winter to further reduce the population and crop yields

Now if we can answer the following questions we about what I listed above we can start to get a sense of things like GDP per capita and remaining amounts of human capital. Here is the list of questions.
  1. How important was international trade to the United States in 1962?

  2. How much will American heavy industry be hurt by the destruction of those particular cities? How much capital would it take to replace the industries within them?

  3. Most importantly IMO, what percentage of the U.S. population would die by 1965/70?
If I can even get a good estimate on number 3 we can start running some numbers.
 
To figure out economic/technological development we could try to treat this like an economics problem. Here I'll give it a shot.

So I'm going to take 1962 America and:

-Destroy Europe/Soviet Union/China and massively reduced international trade
-Wipe out New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore, and Washington D.C. the nation's 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th and 9th largest cities respectively along with smaller economic cities and centers of government.
-Add a nuclear winter to further reduce the population and crop yields

Now if we can answer the following questions we about what I listed above we can start to get a sense of things like GDP per capita and remaining amounts of human capital. Here is the list of questions.
  1. How important was international trade to the United States in 1962?

  2. How much will American heavy industry be hurt by the destruction of those particular cities? How much capital would it take to replace the industries within them?

  3. Most importantly IMO, what percentage of the U.S. population would die by 1965/70?
If I can even get a good estimate on number 3 we can start running some numbers.
I think you are looking at least 1/3 of the US dead at least
 

missouribob

Banned
I think you are looking at least 1/3 of the US dead at least
I was thinking the same. So a 33 percent reduction in the population by say 1972 (artificial end date of nuclear winter). Population goes from 186.5 million to 125 million. Now if we can figure out how big of a reduction in real GDP 33 percent of the U.S. population dying, a collapse of international trade, reallocation of resources into agriculture/heavy industry and the loss of those cities are in $ terms I can develop a full economics analysis. A rough analysis but a full one.

Edit - I just ran the numbers. Assuming 33 percent reduction in population from 62 to 72 due to nuclear war/winter we are left with 125 million in 1972. From 1972 to 1980 I simulated a post-famine baby-boom with 2 percent growth in real population. 1980 to 2017 is 1.5 due to a societal focus on population increase. The effects of immigration aren't modelled.

1972: 125 million
1980: 146 million
1990: 170 million
2000: 197 million
2010: 228 million
2017: 254 million

If we can get some ideas on the GDP situation we can start painting a picture in this ATL America...
 
Last edited:
I was thinking the same. So a 33 percent reduction in the population by say 1972 (artificial end date of nuclear winter). Population goes from 186.5 million to 125 million. Now if we can figure out how big of a reduction in real GDP 33 percent of the U.S. population dying, a collapse of international trade, reallocation of resources into agriculture/heavy industry and the loss of those cities are in $ terms I can develop a full economics analysis. A rough analysis but a full one.

Edit - I just ran the numbers. Assuming 33 percent reduction in population from 62 to 72 due to nuclear war/winter we are left with 125 million in 1972. From 1972 to 1980 I simulated a post-famine baby-boom with 2 percent growth in real population. 1980 to 2017 is 1.5 due to a societal focus on population increase. The effects of immigration aren't modelled.

1972: 125 million
1980: 146 million
1990: 170 million
2000: 197 million
2010: 228 million
2017: 254 million

If we can get some ideas on the GDP situation we can start painting a picture in this ATL America...
I think you might be over estimating recovery time and how bad disease spread will be. I think for a good long while population recovery will be slow. That 1980 number might be more for 2010. Remember the US and Canada has been sent back 100-150 years, it will be a long time, decades before America goes back to an oil using society.
 
To figure out economic/technological development we could try to treat this like an economics problem. Here I'll give it a shot.

So I'm going to take 1962 America and:

-Destroy Europe/Soviet Union/China and massively reduced international trade
-Wipe out New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, Baltimore, and Washington D.C. the nation's 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th and 9th largest cities respectively along with smaller economic cities and centers of government.
-Add a nuclear winter to further reduce the population and crop yields

Now if we can answer the following questions we about what I listed above we can start to get a sense of things like GDP per capita and remaining amounts of human capital. Here is the list of questions.
  1. How important was international trade to the United States in 1962?

  2. How much will American heavy industry be hurt by the destruction of those particular cities? How much capital would it take to replace the industries within them?

  3. Most importantly IMO, what percentage of the U.S. population would die by 1965/70?
If I can even get a good estimate on number 3 we can start running some numbers.

I'm going to hold back from drawing too many firm conclusions on this and just present some data. This isn't a rigorous digging, just some basic stuff from Google and off the top of my head from what I know about the US economy in 1962.

International trade was a far smaller component of the US economy than today. Nominal GDP was $605 billion with exports being $27.7 billion (4.4% of GDP) and imports being $24.3 billion. Currently, exports are 14% of GDP.

A large part of the US consumer economy will survive the missile attack fairly intact. The loss of Detroit is a problem for the auto industry, but a lot of plants will survive in undamaged cities such as Flint (Buick), Toledo (Jeep plant and numerous parts suppliers) Cleveland (assembly and parts), Kenosha (main AMC plant), Chicago (assembly), Los Angeles (assembly). The aviation industry will fare reasonably well. General aviation was centered then as now around Wichita. The main Douglas DC-8 plant at Long Beach will be OK as will the main Boeing 707 plant at Renton. Convair at San Diego is in trouble. Consumer electronics were manufactured mainly in the midwest and there is, apart from Detroit and Columbus, not a whole lot of damage. IIRC, two main centers for this were the GE facilities in Schenectady and the RCA plant at Indianapolis. The furniture industry was centered in the South as was the textile industry. In short, most of the consumer economy is going to be OK. Moreover, there was a lot of spare capacity out there leftover from the Second World War. An example would be the assembly plant at Willow Run, a part of which was then used by GM. The steel industry was then concentrated in unhit cities: Pittsburgh, Youngstown, Gary, IN and Birmingham, AL. Farm machinery production would have been undamaged. International Harvester was at Rock Island, IL and Louisville. John Deere was at Moline, IL. (Note: the Moline/Quad Cities area would have been a very good target if one wanted to cripple the farm machinery industry.) The shipbuilding industry will not be in good shape with Norfolk, New London, New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco hit.

On the number of dead, it will depend on what assumptions one makes. The 1962 US population was 186.5 million. I'd say the worst case here is perhaps 50 million dead, which I'd estimate as being on the high end. The fallout from the East Coast is going out to sea and you just won't have the massive number of ground burst silo attacks that would come later, which will minimize fallout and reduce casualties. It is important to remember that the vast majority of the United States will be untouched by missiles or fallout therefrom. That leaves bombers. Air defense is hard, but the Soviets only had about 160 turboprop Bear bombers at the time. You can play with the numbers there as to how many might get through and be able to mount a successful attack.

Bombers aside, the US is going to survive as a functioning political and economic entity. Manufacturing was fairly widely distributed and it seems likely that most major industries are going to retain some production capacity. This is contingent, however, on a few big assumptions including minimal impact from bombers, biological weapons, nuclear winter and widespread postwar pandemic. Those are huge assumptions and not particularly realistic. The question is how bad it gets, which is arguable either way.
 

marathag

Banned
The USSR had at least 3300 nuclear weapons

Most were in the form of short range missiles (SCUD,FROG) and Gravity Bombs. Bad for Europe.

The US had 27,600. SIOP had only slightly modified the previous target list that had put over a Gigatons worth on Moscow and suburbs.
 
Most were in the form of short range missiles (SCUD,FROG) and Gravity Bombs. Bad for Europe.

The US had 27,600. SIOP had only slightly modified the previous target list that had put over a Gigatons worth on Moscow and suburbs.
Hence why I wrote up to that nuclear tipped torpedoes would be doing a lot of the damage. I doubt 10% of the USSR's bombers would reach the US and Canada.
 
Top