If the West and Russia had launched full nuclear war on each other at the height of the Cold War how bad would it have been?
>>603453
Very bad.
>>603453
if during cold war berlin and parts of europe would be a glass desert because of high concentration of stationed forces on a small area
>most life exterminated
>planet uninhabitable
pretty good outcome desu
>>603453
Major metropolitan areas of the United States, Europe, and Russia would have been glassed. The Southern Hemisphere, assuming they don't do anything, would be spared from the nukes, but not the effects.
Regional governments in the United States, Europe, and Russia would take over. Areas such as the Midwestern United States, Scandinavia, Balkans, Siberia, would probably be spared by nuclear attacks.
Survivors in any glassed cities would suffer the effects of nuclear fallout unless they have shelters (e.g. Moscow Metro).
Basically, superpowers get glassed, survivors get saved, and everyone has to worry about China.
>>603692
>Midwest would not get hit.
It would be the heaviest hit since that's where we stored the nukes.
>Counterpop ever being doctrine
You'd be safer off in New York. There weren't enough warheads to take out all the other warheads.
>>603528
>Le NuKlear winter meme
Lel
>>603453
Nukes will never be used by two NNP states. The costs are far too high.
>>603502
>You'd hit troops
Back in the day we planned to hit their nuked before they got off the ground. Since we almost had the same amount and we couldn't resin most of our nukes went to blowing up their nukes
I think its harder thinking of countries that wouldnt be bombed than those that would be, one side or the other could justify bombing nearly everyone on the planet
>>603453
First you have to define what you mean by height of the cold war. I assume you either mean cuban missile crisis or the 80s and the new escalation under reagan.
In the sixities wouldn´t have been full wipeout. I assume even both superpowers would have survived as states. Probably major devastation in both UDSSR and the USA. The question is would they have started a conventional war before the exchange :
If yes: Also major devastation in europe.
If no : China and the states of europe are the new major powers.
In both cases, collapse of global economy, logistics and sudden end of the bipolar world order.
In the 80s: Basically game over. Even if you are one of the edgelords on this board denying nuclear winter the sheer potential of the arsenals was so big that humanity at the very least would have regressed to the stone age, let me explain why:
>>603692
Its naive to assume both superpowers would spare regions like scandinavia,china or the balkans. At the very least the US would have nuked Chinas population and industrial centers to prevent the emergence of china after the nuclear war. The same goes for other regions, the balkans mostly were alligned to the soviet so even if jugoslavia is spared it would be overrun by refugees and irradicated by the fallout from its neighbouring countries. For the rest of the world there are local conflicts that would escalate sooner or later: Without US backing israel probably would have to resort to its nuclear weapons to prevent the arabs from overrunning them. South Africa would have launched their bombs against black population centers and neighbouring black countries in a vein attempt to preserve white dominance. Poo in Loo and Pakistan launching towards each other. So nearly all major regions in the world are destroyed and irradicated.
Whats left ? Mostly shithole third world countries or neutral countries rapidly overrun by refugees and whats left of the militaries of Nato and Warsaw Pact. 1/2
>>604000
2/2
All of this in combination with the total collapse of global agriculture, industry production, logistics and trade. No one would produce modern fertilizer, medicine etc. global petroleum production would come to a grinding halt so what little is produced wouldn´t been distributed because there is no oil for the merchant marines. So you have a bunch of ethincally divided quasi colonial states dependent on their former overlords who are now glass. Soon the nations would fight over what little modern technology is left, this leads to further regression of food production. Sooner or later whats left of humanity is basically on a pre industrial level at the very least.
Oh and don´t get me started on biological weapons both sides would release in the wake of total war, these would inevitably spread in the wartorn third world. Have fun stopping these without modern medicine...
>>603453
If the Soviets fired first maybe 10% of the US population would die from the bombs and the after-effects, life expectancy would be lowered due to the wrecked economy and poverty, what would follow is a conventional war, possibly involving China and other countries shocked by their belligerence, the soviets would inevitably lose in any case.
A pre-emptive strike by the US would result in the successful neutralization of Soviet warheads, complete US victory at the cost of millions of Russian lives. It would have probably been worth it to prevent the countless more lives lost or destroyed by civil wars the communists started in the undeveloped world.
Fallout radiation would be all but gone in a year. Worldwide environmental effects would only last a few years tops, the equivalent of a large volcano erupting.
>>604037
>Beeing this ignorant about nuclear war.
Gosh i thought the 50s are over...
>>604037
Is this a troll post?
>>604037
How many nukes do you think the soviets had, three?
>>603453
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threads
>>604037
>Fallout radiation would be all but gone in a year
Holy Jesus
>>603453
Bad, tens of millions of people killed immediately, and more as the effects of disease and the like make themselves felt.
However, widespread erasure of civilization isn't likely to happen: People vastly overestimate the deadliness of nuclear weapons and underestimate the ability of civilization to hang on.
>>604044
>>604132
>>604145
>>604184
Our ICBMs could re-enter and detonate in less time than they could detect them and launch their own and we knew exactly where they were. The most harmful radionuclides have half lives of just days.
If you were a few miles away when it happened and decided to stay outside while the blast wave made its way towards you so you could draw in some nice deep breaths full of fission materials, then yes, you will probably get leukemia or something. Otherwise stay indoors for as long as your canned beans last and you'll be fine.
Chances are your life would improve, you'd have to stop playing your video games and there would be a lot of manual labor work available.
>>603453
The entire northern hemisphere goes to shit, and remains shit for the next 40 years as everything is irradiated or in utter chaos. Beyond the obvious, immediate economic crisis, instant closing of borders and paranoia, every non-belligerent nation would see themselves better off in the long term.
There will be 10 or 20 years of worry as the third world is forced into import substitution and starts building factories.
Africa pretty much becomes mass ethnic conflicts as they have 0 industry except for South Africa, which will have fun times with the Apartheid.
If it doesn't get nuked. China will probably try and conquer Japan, east Russia and South Asia and fail horribly, but still retain the top dog position. No idea how the would do on the industry aspect.
South America will end up with Argentina as a regional super power followed by Brazil. Sadly, Mexico either gets nuked or swarmed by american refugees.
India, honestly no idea. If it doesn't get glassed by the Soviets there's Pakistan, though they can't harm them as the Indians can. Probably becomes isolationist and concentrates in keeping refugees out. They'd need decades to achieve industry and will probably end up in an arms race with China.
>>604000
> South Africa would have launched their bombs against black population centers and neighbouring black countries in a vein attempt to preserve white dominance. Poo in Loo and Pakistan launching towards each other. So nearly all major regions in the world are destroyed and irradicated.
I don't think were are that stupid.
>>604016
>Whats left ? Mostly shithole third world countries or neutral countries rapidly overrun by refugees and whats left of the militaries of Nato and Warsaw Pact
You overestimate refugees
> No one would produce modern fertilizer, medicine etc.
The technology would probably be reacquired, assuming scientists survive. China and SA will by ok with petrol as they produce their own if I'm not mistaken
>>604000
What about Australia and NZ?
>>604274
>what are nuclear submarines
>>604171
nuclear winter has been overexaggerated though
also Threads is based off of a flawed UK simulation where the USSR drop 200+ MT on the UK, in reality I doubt they would drop that much on us
still, good couple of movies
>>604000
There's a good chance that Argentina would be one of the last remaining habitable places on earth, and therefore white
>>604321
AUSTRALIA
>>604290
>I don't think were are that stupid.
Nothing to do with stupid. The elites were well aware of the slaughtering of white farmers in rhodesia. In a post-nuclear-war situation it is very imaginable that the apartheid elites are trying to surpress the black population by using the bomb against the homelands. It would be more of a last resort and blackmail strategy followed by negotiations i guess. Don´t forget they have the reasonable fear of massive ethnic slaughter, similiar to israelis in a situation like this.
>You overestimate refugees
Whats there to overestimate? Everyone who survived is trying to get the hell out of blast zones and into states that still have functioning infrastructure. A lot of the refugees would be armed in one way or another. In the states they arrive in at the very least ressources would be consumed a lot faster, crime would skyrocket and the security forces would be overstretched.
>The technology would probably be reacquired, assuming scientists survive. China and SA will by ok with petrol as they produce their own if I'm not mistaken
Not sure if China and SA produce enough to fullfill their own need, also i think at least china would be nuked, while SA would have to fight gigantic civil unrest and other african countries trying to plunder south africa.
>
If it doesn't get nuked. China will probably try and conquer Japan, east Russia and South Asia and fail horribly, but still retain the top dog position. No idea how the would do on the industry aspect.
China achieved his big industrial might through the west. I seriously doubt they would be able to build a meaningful industry quickly after a nuclear war. After all there would be nearly no western know-how or support. We all know how the big leap-forward ended.
>>604321
If the Soviets/US don´t nuke South America and they aren´t fucked up by wars between south american nations. But most definetly one of the nicer places to live in such a scenario.
>>604297
those only came around in 1968
>>604295
Designated Earth re-populators
>>604336
South Africa is an interesting one, if the rest of Africa descended into complete anarchy I think a lot of blacks and coloureds would support the apartheid state rather than see their hometowns, villages etc collapse into civil war
>>604274
The long term enviromental effects of even a short term nuclear winter would ensure massive starvation across the entire globe.
While you may think that the concept of a nuclear winter are overblown, that doesn't mean that the amount of dust thrown into the air wouldn't heavily affect the next five years after the war.
Even five years of poor crops would lead to worldwide famine. Not to mention the long term effects of radioactive sickness of animals, water and humans all over. There's wildlife in northern europe TODAY that exhibit a heightened dose of radiation from the Chernobyl accident, which happened 30 years ago and several thousand of miles away.
What you're describing is perhaps an exchange of 10 nukes each.
>>604342
>Australia repopulates Earth.
>Only shitposters left.
>Better to let everyone die then tbqh familia
>>604347
Possible indeed but two questions remain:
1. How long? 5 years. 10 years?
2. What about the neighbouring countries. Under the apartheid SA was the country were most people in africa immigrated to. In a post nuclear war situation where africa turns into one giant civil war/ethnic cleansing i guess SA would be overrun by refugees.
>>604336
> The elites were well aware of the slaughtering of white farmers in rhodesia.
Would depend on the time period I guess. I'm thinking on the 50s' time period. If we are talking the 80s this is possible, but it would be the Apartheid's last effort to save itself from drowning
> lot of the refugees would be armed in one way or another. In the states they arrive in at the very least ressources would be consumed a lot faster, crime would skyrocket and the security forces would be overstretched.
I mean, you overestimate the hospitality the thirld woorld will show to refugees. Think more along the lines of killing the on the spot.
>Not sure if China and SA produce enough to fullfill their own need
SA does, Argentina and Venezuela are oil producing, and Brazil too.
>After all there would be nearly no western know-how or support. We all know how the big leap-forward ended.
More or less. if it's the 80s they'd be set, if it's the 50s they are fucked.
>If the Soviets/US don´t nuke South America and they aren´t fucked up by wars between south american nations.
Do not underestimate South American unity. We are almost culturally homogeneous, in case of world wide conflict we are almost guaranteed to join forces
>>604347
Not anarchy, but definitely civil war and dictatorships.
Maybe west africa realizes shit's about to go down and tries to form some sort of union, but your average west african officer would just kill if he needs to impose order. The east is fucked as religious conflict will immediately explode and muzzies gonna muzz, leaving the north, which will probably get glassed, and Congo and central africa which is the least developed by a wide margin. The south (that is not S. Africa) had extensive ideological conflict. We may even get real communism going somewhere if the apartheid doesn't DOW them.
>>604377
>Would depend on the time period I guess. I'm thinking on the 50s' time period. If we are talking the 80s this is possible, but it would be the Apartheid's last effort to save itself from drowning
Well in the 50s the destruction of a nuclear war wouldn´t be that severe. After all the soviets got their first bomb in 49.
In the 80s i agree with you. The apartheid is on its last legs and there is no UNO or superpowers. They are well aware that the blacks slaughtering them after they take over is realistic possibility. The same goes for them tho, so my estimation is that they would go on the offensive, using one or two nuclear bombs and using the army to impose fear in the blacks. It would be a last ditch effort to strenghten their authority. Without external pressure and with the ruthless use of force it might work for a time.
>I mean, you overestimate the hospitality the thirld woorld will show to refugees. Think more along the lines of killing the on the spot.
I seriously doubt they would be able to. Think more of a barbarian invasions type of scenario, massive wave of peoples simply overrunning the borders. Also its not only third world but shit like switzerland or jugoslavia.
>SA does, Argentina and Venezuela are oil producing, and Brazil too.
Granted, that might be enough oil to keep the few civilized countries running.
>More or less. if it's the 80s they'd be set, if it's the 50s they are fucked.
I doubt that, in the 80s Mao isn´t dead that long. Deng took over in 1976, i guess there simply isn´t enough substance to enable a rapid industrialization in say 82. In 89 it might work.
>Do not underestimate South American unity. We are almost culturally homogeneous, in case of world wide conflict we are almost guaranteed to join forces
Might be but you mentioned the oil producing countries in south america, would they share with the others in south america? Or would greed fuel wars?
this is the definitive guide on what the realistic outcome of a nuclear war would be. It was compiled by experts and uses very well researched sources.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html
like seriously, it's not as bad as you'd think it would be
>>604424
Nuclear war → Mutants → Danger for homo sapiens specie, 1st enemy at thousand years with intelligence, group actions and firearms.
>>604423
>Might be but you mentioned the oil producing countries in south america, would they share with the others in south america? Or would greed fuel wars?
The only "rebel" in the continent is Chile, and they don't produce oil on their own (but produce important copper) and they are the smartest economy we have and would know that going to war when you are potentially the last 9 civilized nations on earth is stupid.
Of all the nations I can think of, Argentina might try something dumb, but international pressure (aka brazil and chile) will call them down.
Even our tin pot militaries and our terrorists would lose strength as they realize both extremes were dumb enough to exterminate each other.
All in all, all countries except for Paraguay and Uruguay produce something vital for the economy and lack something else. Venezuela has nothing else but petrol and depends heavily on imports, Argentina lacks a bunch of things that it can import from it's neighbors and so does brazil and well, everyone else.
It would dawn on everyone that if they were to close each other off they would be facing a crippling lack of strategic resources.
>Think more of a barbarian invasions type of scenario, massive wave of peoples simply overrunning the borders.
Yeah, I did say the northen hemisphere is fucked. But Africa, South America, South Asia and maybe even India will be ok if they are willing to gun down the incoming refugees.
>>604424
He cites quite a few sources but that is written by one guy. It's basically a blog post not "the definitive guide on a realistic outcome of nuclear war compiled by experts".
Also I don't know what you mean by "not as bad as you would think". Have you actually read it?
>>604424
Nigga maybe read the thing you posted?
>At this point about 580,000 have died in the Rio Grande Valley (84% of the original population) and 40,000 are injured (6%); of Travis County's pre-war population, only 50,000 survive (9%)--most of whom have fled to neighboring areas. About 2,000,000 have died from fallout in Texas now, bringing the death toll to 10,000,000. Of the 6,800,000 survivors, 2,000,000 are injured and 2,000,000 are suffering radiation sickness (these two groups overlap). A total of 160,000,000 Americans have died, or 65% of the pre-war population; in the Soviet Union 90,000,000 have died. The death toll in the United Kingdom is 30,000,000 and in Denmark is 3,300,000. World population is now 4,300,000,000.
>Surviving Americans now number 45,000,000, including 4,000,000 Texans. A few million surviving Americans are permanently sterile due to radiation exposure. World population is now 3,300,000,000.
> About 5% of the land area in Texas is burning. In a few areas conditions permit firestorms to develop. In contrast to the World War II atomic bombings in Japan, continuous fire areas sometimes cover hundreds of square km (or sq. mi.), preventing survivors from escaping. Fires cover about 700,000 sq. km (270,000 sq. mi.) in the United States, 250,000 sq. km (100,000 sq. mi.) in the U.S.S.R. and 180,000 sq. km (70,000 sq. mi.) in Europe. Scattered or continuous fires rage across more than one-third of the area of several states, including North Dakota, Ohio, New Jersey, Maryland, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.
>Smoke downwind of urban fires is also hazardous. The blasts and fires have consumed 70% of the world's industrial capacity. Toxic chemicals have been released in large amounts.
>>604458
>Surviving Americans now number 45,000,000, including 4,000,000 Texans. A few million surviving Americans are permanently sterile due to radiation exposure. World population is now 3,300,000,000.
>2040: Some areas that received fallout from strikes on nuclear power plants and above-ground nuclear waste storage facilities are still uninhabitable and will remain so for some time to come. Genetic defects are found in as much as a few percent of the population born in the northern hemisphere after the war; however, most are not noticeable or are not handicapping. The more profound physical deficiencies are due to malnutrition. Some of the surviving nations have emerged by now as major powers, including Australia, New Zealand, China, Argentina, and Brazil.
it's bad but it's not like humanity has come to a complete standstill though
>>603453
Pretty fucking bad
>>604446
>Yeah, I did say the northen hemisphere is fucked. But Africa, South America, South Asia and maybe even India will be ok if they are willing to gun down the incoming refugees
You mean while most of them are busy fighting their own little wars and producing their own refugees. Not to mention surviving military raiding everything not destroyed by nukes?
>it's bad but it's not like humanity has come to a complete standstill though
Yeah thats true BUT shit like:
>Israel is being attacked by Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. About one-third of Israel's military forces survived the Soviet nuclear attack; they are now occasionally using nuclear artillery shells against attacking troops. Other Arab states are preparing to join the campaign.
or:
>The situation is tense between India and Pakistan: both nations have a handful of small atomic bombs, and India was attacked with Chinese nuclear weapons. Meanwhile civil war is developing in South Africa and various other nations.
>Disorganized forces from Iraq, Iran, and Libya are beginning to join the Arab battle against Israel. North Korean forces have overrun many remaining cities in South Korea. Civil war has developed throughout China: with much of the government and military wiped out by Soviet nuclear attack, surviving communist forces are under attack and ethnic conflicts are developing. Tibet has declared independence. Ethnic conflict is also breaking out among surviving populations in some parts of the Soviet Union and Europe.
>Mid-September 1988: Epidemics are developing among surviving populations, particularly food poisoning, dysentery, and typhoid. Displaced populations, including many injured, are particularly affected; those with radiation sickness are particularly vulnerable, since radiation sickness involves damage to the immune system: susceptibility to disease for those is increased by a factor of 2 to 5. In some locations outbreaks of disease are a consequence of the use of biological weapons.
>>604486
>Crop failures throughout the third world have caused famines in many areas and have also encouraged civil unrest. India has collapsed into civil war. Having devastated Israel, Arab nations are in chaos: the Middle East was heavily dependent on the Western nations economically. Surviving Taiwanese forces are participating in the civil war in mainland China.
>Some third world countries, particularly Latin American countries, are launching raids on U.S. coastal areas by sea. These military task forces scavenge and steal what they can find, from raw materials and food to equipment for industrial, military, and agricultural use. Surviving industrial facilities on the coasts, particularly the Pacific and Gulf coasts, are targeted. A couple of raiding parties have visited the Port of Brownsville's former location and surrounding areas but found little of interest.
This is exactly the shit people talk about in this thread.
It seems as if people forget Russia is our neighbor, just as much as Canada and Mexico. Its pretty bad.
