I was just wondering how a nuclear war would play out today - in a post Cold War world - where not only the US, NATO, Russia and China would have nuclear weapons but also Pakistan, India and (possibly) North Korea.
Who would be hit, and how severely?
This is very hypothetical, since the current geopolitical climate really doesn't open up for a big war between nations.....not yet anyway.
But say that it is....
Directly?
It all depends who starts it. There can be a local nuclear war between India and Pakistan. This would affect the climate and mess around with the growth of food all over the world, according to the late Carl Sagan and international scientists.
- Locally, probably around 1000 000 000 people would perish.(most of India and Pakistan and surrounding states where fallout would settle). I think Pakistan and India has a few hundred warheads (size not known) between them, plenty to wipe out the whole area and more.
US vs Russia today, would drag in states like Israel (nuking Iran and probably most of the middle-east and Russian-friendly areas). China as well, not sure which side China would be on in such a case (probably the US). It will most likely trigger a full scale exchange anyway and leave most of the world (north to south, east to west) in a smoldering, radiant mess.
North-Korea is currently targeting South-Korea (Soul) and Japan (probably the western end of it, since their rocketry still kind of sucks). They have maybe 3-5 warheads and very few means to carry them, so South-Korea would most likely be wiped out. The answer would be a total annihilation of North-Korea by the US.
Again, China is a wildcard here.
Because, they have been in wars and clashes with Russia many times, during WW2 they were fighting with the allies against the axis powers (and also against Russia at the beginning of WW2 and in the 50's).
During the cold war (from what I have gathered), in the event of a full scale nuclear war, China would nuke the Soviets and it's allies.
As someone mentioned already, the amount of nukes today, compared to the height in 1983, is about 1/10th. (when calculated in Megatons available). At the time, they could "blow up the world 100 times over", so I suppose they can only blow up the world around 10-20 times today. :)
- In other words, still overkill.
Are there any nations, or regions, that could avoid being affected by direct hits or even severe fallout in such a scenario?
Very few nations would avoid getting hit somehow (since there are so many different alliances and interests). I do not agree at all tha Africa would be spared. South Africa is allied with the US, most reports say they have nukes as well, developed in cooperation with Israel.
Many other nations in Africa is under the control of US, China and Russia and contain resources and strategic value. A few Islands around the world would probably not get hit. There would still be radiation and climate change all over though.
There are more nuclear-based power-stations dotted around today as well. Remember Chernobyl? Imagine the various nuclear-power complexes being hit and you suddenly have 50-100 Chernobyl situations added to the mess :>
Surely the principal targets have changed since the early nineties. As have the possible aggressors. Surely, a nuclear exchange today would not just follow the demarcation of an ideological dichotomy between Capitalism/Democracy vs. Socialism/Communism. Or would it follow an almost identical pattern to that imagined in the Cold War?
Probably very close to it. Russia, US, and other larger nations have basically the same interests and alliances today as they had before 1991.
The biggest change is eastern Europe, where more nations are now in NATO and are allies with the west. Still, Europe as a concept would be wiped out, so it doesn't really matter.
Additionally, how powerful are the weapons today? More or less?
Less powerful, but more effective.
Soviet had weapons ranging up to 15-20 megatons deployed and at the ready. The us had 1-5 megaton bombs at the ready. Both had smaller nukes as well.
With the advent of MIRV's, they found that several smaller nukes, is more efficient then one big one, if you are going to level a city or deny land or take out enemy troops. Thus, the sizes of the warheads shrunk, I am not sure what they are today, probably between 250 - 500 kilotons (1/4 - 1/2 megatons each). One strategic, ballistic MIRV-based missile can probably hold 12-24 of those. (not sure about the numbers here).
Hiroshima was 15 kilotons...so they are big, even though they are "small".
The amount of destruction would be larger, the amount of released radiation and fires etc about the same, and the number of deaths would be higher.
Ultimately, how severe would the final effect be in various regions of the world?
According to calculations and the consensus of C. Sagan and later scientists. A full scale nuclear war today, would bring the world to a halt and put us back into medieval times. Most people would die from starvation, because of failed crops and the lack of import/export. (the world grain reserves still can only feed the world for around 3 months).
I live in Ireland and, to be honest, I am not sure how severely affected we would be in such a situation. We are certainly not prepared for the possibility and probably never really were.
Russia would most likely nuke Ireland, because deep down, you are allies with England when the *beep* hits the fan (even though you are neutral, the waters around Ireland, the airports and the airspace would most likely be allowed for the English/UK forces to use).
So they would most likely nuke Ireland for good measure.
If you weren't, Ireland would be severely affected by a smoldering and radiant UK, so it would lead to famine, radiation poisoning and most likely a refugee problem that would collapse the nation.
I would like to hear what people think.
That's what I think ^^
reply
share
chuggliams
9 years ago
That's pretty impressive thinking! Well thought-out and written.
reply
share
hugh1971
8 years ago
The 1966 film 'The War Game' is in many ways more pertinent than 'Threads' now, because it was about a small scale limited nuclear strike on Britain. That's probably more likely nowadays than all out nuclear war.
If you haven't seen it it's well worth it, as good as if not better than 'Threads.'
'Monsters? We're British!'
reply
share
CorpseCandle
8 years ago
From what I gather though the thinking behind a limited nuclear exchange was faulty. In the 1960's you still had leaders of nuclear armed nations preparing to win a nuclear war.
What transpired as closer to the truth is that any use of nuclear weapons would esculate into a full scale nuclear conflict. In Countdown To Looking Glass the newcaster interviewed Newt Gingrich and he spoke about this.
By the 1980's not only was the idea of nuclear war being winnable debunked but so was the notion that nuclear weapons could be effective tactical tools that wouldn't lead to a rise in the conflict.
I suppose though not impossible to pull back from the brink of a nuclear exchange it's much more likely that any exchange of nuclear weapons would result in an increase of their use.
Unless you mean a single terrorist attack on a city. Which to be fair would make more sense.
reply
share