[R_G]

The thing about an all out nuclear war I found interesting was that in reality the whole earth would not be englufed in it.

A large part, probably, but not the whole world.

Some countries would not have been bombed but suffered the effects of radiation, Switzerland being one.

Considering the entire Cold War and picking certain times, what countries could have escaped unscathed?

I think if nukes were exchanged in the 80s only the United States, Britain, Israel and Eastern Europe would have been affected outright.

I really don't think for instance that East Russia would have been bombed to hell, the borders with China anyway, while I cannot for the love of me see countries like New Guinea and Peru be affected.

[MB.]

The thing about an all out nuclear war I found interesting was that in reality the whole earth would not be englufed in it.

You should read Herman Khan's On Thermal Nuclear War.

Short answer; yes, in one way or another the whole earth would be engulfed in the conflict. All nations suffering some degree...

I think if nukes were exchanged in the 80s only the United States, Britain, Israel and Eastern Europe would have been affected outright.

If there had been a total nuclear war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries, say, shortly before 1989 or even 1991, the entire earth would effectively have been covered by a cloud of dust and radiation. Basically every urban center on the continental united states would have been totally destroyed, as would have Europe, and Russia (and many cities and countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America from unintentional fire). Hundreds of millions would have died (nearing a billion causalities, at the least over 500 million fatalities (500-1000 megadeaths)) and hundreds of millions more would face imminent starvation and death (say, 1000-2000 megadeaths).

The notion that 'only' a dozen or so countries would have been effected is preposterously wishful thinking.

while I cannot for the love of me see countries like New Guinea and Peru be affected.

They would be effected in many ways, most immediately by economic plight and health degradation from radioactive fallout.

[secator553]

I really don't think for instance that East Russia would have been bombed to hell

Why do you think so? Industry centers as Chelyabinsk, Ekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk. Naval bases in Vladivostok and Petropavlovsk. Oil centers in Tyumen, Surgut, Khanty-Mansiysk. The most powerful рydro power plants of Russia are Sayano–Shushenskaya Dam, Boguchany,Bratsk. Large number of military plants of Sibiria and Far East Russia.

All this facts sais that there was no any chance for Sibiria and Far East Russia to survive.

There is that Chukotka maybe have nothing to bomb in east, but because of its proximity to Alaska there could be the area for heavy ground battles, so it had no chance to survive too.

[redcarpet]

Pacific nations, Central and South America I imagine. Not much, lol

[Frank_Carbonni]

Africa, South America, and Pacific nations would not be directly effected.

The nations of NATO, Warsaw Pact, and other various nations that might get involved in the conflict would be hit. Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Japan, China, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Australia, New Zealand, Cuba, Taiwan, India, Pakistan, and so on would get hit depending on whether or not they got involved.

The short-term? Nuclear winter lasting about a year would severely reduce harvest yields and would lead to famines in what was left of the countries directly hit as well as potentially causing famines in Third World nations that weren't. Hundreds of millions die in the immediate nuclear exchange and hundreds of millions more die within a few years later of starvation, radiation poisoning, and cancer. Every major city (and many minor ones) in the struck areas is in ruins. The surviving leaders leave their bunkers and find out they are not regarded as anything special by surviving commoners and that they rule a state which no longer exists.

The long-term? The nations that weren't directly effected go into an economic depression for a few decades with export markets or sources of aid. However, they still have a written language, some technological expertise, and a relatively intact infrastructure (albeit, not much). The various nations of Africa and Latin America war with each other with impunity and vie for power in their respective regions unmolested by outside influences. Eventually several contenders emerge and become dominant in their respective continents within a several decades. Once they become stable both economically and politically they begin to develop from left over Western technology and expand upon it. Europe, North America, much of the Middle East, and much of Asia are no longer radioactive, but are feudal societies with a few modern gadgets and methods left over from the pre-nuclear war period (basically Somalia with white people). Clans, tribes, and warlords control much of these regions. Literacy is about 10% and superstition rules the day while Africa and South America are experiencing a kind of golden age. As the decades and centuries pass Africa and South America eventually host powerful technologically advanced nations while most of the rest of the world is either still stuck in the dark ages or just starting to recover. Eventually the new powers start exploring Europe, North America, and Asia and possibly colonizing them.

*My hypothesis on the eventual rise of South America and Africa is based on the hypothesis that in many regards that Europe became the dominant region for technology, philosophy, politics, and trade after both the Black Death and Genghis Khan swept through Asia and the Middle East. The Black Death also hit Europe, but Europe was relatively unscathed from the Mongol invasions which devastated China and the Islamic Empires, which clearly eliminated actual and potential competitors of European states while the Europeans were given a chance to develop Chinese and Arab advancements while those civilizations were in ruins.

[Igor Antunov]

The nations with the largest homogenous populations. For example China could have lost 99% of it's population, and still preserved itself (culture, languages, main ethnicity etc).

[Smilin' Dave]

The nations with the largest homogenous populations. For example China could have lost 99% of it's population, and still preserved itself (culture, languages, main ethnicity etc).

This ignores regionalist pressures in Chinese society, which crosses cultural and ethnic 'barriers'. China would also have had a significant disadvantage in that it had a fairly centralised system. Losing that system, say because someone just nuked Beijing and the leadership is nowhere to be found, would leave the regional branches with few resources and little legitimacy. Thus the nation of China could very well have collapsed.

[MB.]

China could have lost 99% of it's population, and still preserved itself

Are suggesting that 1,311,408,450 people could die in a nuclear war in china yet the nation of china would somehow continue to exist?

[Igor Antunov]

Are suggesting that 1,311,408,450 people could die in a nuclear war in china yet the nation of china would somehow continue to exist?

Not in it's present territorial extent or ideological form, but the nation and culture would survive, yes.

Losing that system, say because someone just nuked Beijing and the leadership is nowhere to be found, would leave the regional branches with few resources and little legitimacy. Thus the nation of China could very well have collapsed.

History has numerous examples of this happening, and the nation of China survived. You're thinking about the peoples republic of china, which isn't the entirety of the nation and culture of china. China extends to Taiwan, and the 30 million chinese diaspora living abroad in other countries, who preserve their culture on foreign soil.

[MB.]

but the nation and culture would survive, yes.

I cannot imagine a scenario where 99% of the population of China is killed and yet the rest of the world and civilization as we know it is not destroyed as well.

[Igor Antunov]

Populations are scattered worldwide, most countries would not be directly struck by nuclear weaponry, only the great powers would annihilate one another. For example Africa would probably be best off, followed by south america. And the Chinese population in Africa is growing, currently stands at around 500,000.

[Ter]

Hey ho, you are forgetting the Indian Subcontinent.

We are fairly self-sufficient in terms of food and we have way over a billion people also.

Ter

[Smilin' Dave]

History has numerous examples of this happening, and the nation of China survived. You're thinking about the peoples republic of china, which isn't the entirety of the nation and culture of china. China extends to Taiwan, and the 30 million chinese diaspora living abroad in other countries, who preserve their culture on foreign soil.

The whole popular historiography of the Chinese peoples exaggerates continuity largely due to ignorance. It glosses over changes that took place or rifts that existed because people are unaware that they existed. No serious scholar of China will tell you China has always existed as a single nation. Honestly, have you even seen the geography and numbers involved in the Taiping Rebellion? It wasn't a little flare up, it was a massive seperatist movement.

Your comment about the diaspora is particularly foolish when you look at the history of the Chinese diaspora equally absorbing culture from thier host countries... you know, like every diaspora.

The Chinese culture isn't some magical structure that emerged in ancient history and never changed or divided.

most countries would not be directly struck by nuclear weaponry

Actually some war plans called for the use of weapons against:
- Potential threats (eg. other uninvolved nuclear powers). Theorists referred to weapons designated for this role as the 'nth country reserve'.
- Basing facilities, or potential basing facilities, that either superpower might use. That covers parts of Africa, South East Asia and South America.
- Early warning facilities.

Up until the 1960s China was always included in the US nuclear war plan, because it was part of the 'Communist bloc'.

[Diligent]

I have often wondered: being a non-nuclear actor (for the most part) during the Cold War, would Canada have been hit with warheads during such an attack?

I am using the Able Archer 83 time period, in order narrow down the variables and parameters of the potential scenario.

Being both a member and one of the principal initiators of NATO, I suspect the country would have been bombed - but I have yet to find sufficiently compelling sources to provide closure to this question.

[Smilin' Dave]

Canada was integrated into the US early warning system, so it would have been tempting for the Soviets to hit anything remotely useful in Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFB_North_Bay

[Diligent]

Canada was integrated into the US early warning system, so it would have been tempting for the Soviets to hit anything remotely useful in Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFB_North_Bay

Thanks Dave - shall look into the above link further.

Next question (further expanding on the conversation): do you think the Soviets would have expended a portion of their nuclear long-rang ordnance on population centers in Canada, or would they have remained focused primarily on military targets alone? Meaning, would both the Maritime and West Coast centers have been primarily hit to interdict hosted US naval operations there, or do you reckon the Soviets have expanded their ICBM targets to also include non-military population centers such as Toronto, Regina, Edmonton, and other major provincial capitals?

Again, I suspect the chances are high that they would have - seeing as military bases in Canada still seemed very much decentralized during that time.

[Smilin' Dave]

To be honest, I'm not sure. One book (Cold War: A Military History... author's name escapes me) suggested that general nuclear war might not have been a case of both sides just throwing all their nukes at all the targets at once. The stated example in the book was that nuking an enemy capital was a point of no return, not only does it destroy political control but it also creates an unavoidable political reason for the other side to go all in. A political outcome, rather than total destruction, would be attractive becuase their might be something left to lord it over .

It occurs to me that similarly a nuclear power might be tempted to check the results of their attacks against military targets first before 'wasting' shots on population centres. So for example making sure that nuclear silos are comprehensively destroyed, or try to find any mobile launchers. John Hackett in his alternate history of WWIII outlines a Soviet nuclear strike plan that included short pauses for observation of the effects of the first volley, mind you that was for a European-based war, and the pauses included the intermediate weapon systems having to reload. I have little idea how much it would take to reload a missile silo, but I can't imagine it would be easy or sensible in the event of a general exchange.

[Ombrageux]

The Third World would have inherited the Earth. I have always wondered what, circa 1960, the up and coming African, Indian and Arab elites - who had been pursuing "development" so fervently - would have made of their brave new world which they were alone with..

[MB.]

In the event of a nuclear first strike scenario involving the Soviet Union it would have been imperative to destroy or disrupt the ability of the NATO forces to launch a retaliatory second strike while maintaining a sizable contingency of reserve weapons for use in the post-attack environment. Civilian targets would certainly have been destroyed but the objective in any first strike attack is to minimize the potential retaliation of the enemy's second strike capability.

It is imperative to realize that unconditional strategic attack of civilian centers is besides the point in a superpower nuclear exchange under the conditions of Type I deterrence (first strike). In his book, On Thermonuclear War (1960) Herman Khan elaborates two potential 'small' vs 'large' Soviet attacks upon the United States conceiving of 150 and 400 target points respectively (500 vs 2,000 bombs, or 1,500 megatons vs 20,000 megatons). The 'small' scenario reflects the likely strike capacity of the USSR circa 1960 with the 'large' scenario reflecting a more extensive attack, the kind Khan expected to develop in the future. On paper these kind of figures would demonstrated notable 'overkill' assuming urban areas were the primary targets, but as Khan is keen to explain, this was not likely to be the case. A nation such as the United States would likely have survived as a political and military entity even if all of its major urban centers were obliterated by a Soviet first strike.* Given any kind of notification of attack (as the conditions of Type III deterrence were likely to engender) civil defense and precautionary measures (hardening, evacuations, etc) could have further reduced the megadeaths caused by the potential strategic destruction of urbanates, the unilateral targeting of which would anyway be essentially foolish if US/NATO military targets survived the first strike.


*Would the United States then have been able to survive the ensuing non-nuclear or post-attack war with the Soviet Union is a different issue altogether.

[Red Star]

Cold War: A Military History..

David Miller?