Able Archer '83: The Aftermath

History Learner

Well-known member
So, 1983 had a LOT of close calls with Nuclear Armageddon just barely being avoided according to many. However, let's say the balloon did go up, so to speak, and the nukes were lobbed back and forth in the Fall of that year. Once the dust settles, what comes after? Most research suggests Nuclear Winter, beyond a cooling effect in the immediate term, is a myth so we don't have to worry about that; same with Fallout rendering the world uninhabitable ala On The Beach or other like minded fiction. Given the combined ICBM total of NATO, Warsaw Pact and China as being ~5,000 or less, the Southern Hemisphere for the most part will get off okay with much reduced nuclear weapons exchange sans areas like the Middle East. Overall though, most of the immediate damage would be confined to the Northern Hemisphere.

It seems obvious Australia, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico would emerge as big players. The biggest question for me is the fate of India; neither the Soviets nor the Americans have any reason to target them, while Pakistani has no nuclear weapons at this point. That leaves the question of whether or not China will take the opportunity to use some of its arsenal to strike a few areas within it, given their limited size, or reserve their stockpile solely for the USSR, Vietnam and Taiwan. Given the multiple insurgencies at the time, the lose of command and control via the destruction of New Delhi (and perhaps a few other cities) would probably be enough to collapse them in a serious civil war.

Presuming the above, the Post-War order can thus have some guesses made. I'd imagine the remnants of the U.S. Government would very quickly set up shop in Mexico City and coordinate with the Mexican government on recovery of what's left of the United States, recalling surviving forces, handling American refugees in Mexico, etc. I'd imagine said U.S. remnants would eventually fold into a new confederation with Mexico, which would result in a hybrid nation in North America which could come to take the place of the U.S. handily if given a decade or two to properly formalize everything. Brazil becoming a superpower is obvious, perhaps leading a Pan-South America bloc only challenged by the aforementioned "Mexico" in the Americas. Australia would obviously also be powerful, but not to the same degree as the former two.

The real winner here, although not the most powerful, would be South Africa. It's likely SADF would institute a military government to control the situation, which was well within their capabilities to do and is aided by the Apartheid-era autarky policies that would minimize the economic damage of the nuclear war. The removal of Soviet and Chinese support to Black African states means SADF can only achieve decisive results in its border conflicts, instituting UNITA control in Angola and RENAMO in Mozambique, probably also toppling Mugabe in Zimbabwe. With millions of European and American refugees, it's likely South African can achieve a White plurality or even majority here, while also exploiting the Bantu-Zulu ethnic conflict to divide and rule.

Given enough time, I'd imagine you would see some successor nations emerge in the Northern Hemisphere from the ashes of the old, although I imagine a far amount of colonialism on the part of the Global South into the North would likewise occur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP
It seems obvious Australia, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico would emerge as big players.

I'm not so sure about that, simply because there is evidence(proof? I haven't seen it, but the late Stuart Slade, who did work in the nuclear war planning business, did say this in more than one occasion) the Soviet Union wanted to spread the pain around, precisely to avoid the rise of a power simply because it wasn't hit by nuclear war.
 
I'm not so sure about that, simply because there is evidence(proof? I haven't seen it, but the late Stuart Slade, who did work in the nuclear war planning business, did say this in more than one occasion) the Soviet Union wanted to spread the pain around, precisely to avoid the rise of a power simply because it wasn't hit by nuclear war.

Staurt Slade of TBO? Color me a bit skeptical of him, given what I know of his works. Even presuming the desire was there, there just simply enough weapons to do so:

The poster who keeps referring to Managing Nuclear Operations should look closer at the material.

The idea is that the Russians would launch a preemptive strike hitting US silos, and then force a surrender. There are several issues with this scenario. I will tackle them one at a time.

1) Number of warheads.

The Russians currently have about 1500 strategic warheads in service. The number fluctuates to some degree, due to maintenance cycles and other issues, but 1500 is a good place to start.
The US has 450 MM III silos in service. It is a common misconception that you need 450 warheads to attack this force. You actually need many more. When you develop an attack option, your first task is to determine how sure you need to be of a target's destruction. For something like an early warning radar you might only need a 70% probability that the target will be destroyed.

For a silo, it is probably 90%.

So the Russian planner will look at his weapons and their capabilities, and use a mathematical formula to determine how many warheads he needs to send. You look at the WLS (warhead lethality score) to see if the warhead, given its yield, can even destroy the target, if it goes off on target. You also look at the overall reliability of the weapon, it's probability of pre-launch survival, its ability to penetrate enemy defenses, and many other factors. A simplified version of this formula can be found in Managing Nuclear Operations, Page 380.

It is: DE=PK*PTP*PLS*PRE
Where DE is Damage Expectancy
PK is Probability of killing the target (given CEP, yield, HOB, target hardness)
PTP is the probability of penetrating defenses
PLS is Prelaunch survivability.
PRE is Probability of reliable function.

So lets look at a typical Russian counterforce weapons the SS-18 with its 800Kt warhead.
Pk is 1 because it will destroy the target.
PTP is .9 because it is possible that US ABM defenses get a kill
PLS is 1 because this is a first strike
PRE is .8 based on what we know of Russian rockets. They are pretty reliable.

This gives us a DE of .72, far below the .9 we need to provide. So we add another warhead.

The upshot of all this is that those 450 silos will each need between 2 and 3 warheads (depending on the system) giving us between 900 and 1350 warheads needed. Lets split it, and say we need 2.5 warheads per silo to reach out goal. 1,125 warheads. Leaving the Russians with 375 in reserve.
Should be plenty, right?
Well, lets see...

2) Time needed to respond.
On page 136, MNO gives us a timeline of how long it takes for the NCA to make a decision and for the decision to be carried out. It shows that the US ICBMs will be launching right as the Russian warheads arrive. Does this mean that retaliation is pointless?

No.

There are several factors that affect the arrival time of RV's. The primary concern is that of fratricide. MIRVs are limited to an area where all their warheads must land. This is called the footprint.
The Footprint is different for each weapon but it is an oval and can be 100 km on its long side.
It is likely that you will have several targets nearby in a given ICBMs footprint. If one warhead goes off on its target, it can damage or destroy the other nearby warheads. Even if you wait, you have issues, because following RVs will have to pass through the turbulent hot air from previous explosions. RVs are at the mercy of physics. They are unpowered and guided only by the calculations of gravity and drag. Introducing the turbulent and unpredictable environment of a mushroom cloud will have negative consequences for your accuracy.

Lower accuracy means lower Pk, which means we are adding even MORE warheads.

Those 375 reserve warheads are dropping like sentry gun ammo on LV-426.

Back to timing.

So we now know that the warheads can not arrive all at the same time, making it extremely likely that a significant portion (perhaps as much as 50%) of the US ICBM force has survived and is now on its way to Russia

So now lets pause and look at the situation.

The 200 or so remaining Russian nuclear forces are on submarines and cruise missile aircraft.
The US has about 110 (25% of US ICBMs escaped. Lets give the Russians a break here) warheads on their way to Russia. They will be targeted at Russian command and control systems. The reason that this response is picked is because the best option for the US was to cut the Command and Control links between their subs and the Russian leadership.
The US retains about 128 ready SLBMs (the rest are in port and will require between 2 hours and 7 days to make ready) with about 500 warheads.

In the scenario, the Russian leader now calls the US and asks for surrender? Why?

Actually, no, he doesn't.

3) Depressed trajectory
The US attack option would also order the deployed US SSBNs to fire a large number of their missiles at command and control targets. The SLBMs can use a technique called depressed trajectory to decrease flight time at the expense of range and accuracy. Since the targets in this case will not be silos, the accuracy loss is not a major concern.
The other advantage is the short flight time of these weapons. The Russians will have about 3 minutes from detection to the first detonations on top of their command centers.
It is unlikely the Russian leadership will even have a chance to pick up the phone to ask the US president for surrender, before his communications are disrupted. If he is not killed.

In short, the idea that the Russians could execute a first strike that would be effective in crippling the US nuclear forces and forcing a surrender is not grounded in reality.
Even if we assume that the US does not deploy its SLBMs, the US is still in possession of a major warhead advantage, an intact command and control network, and the ability to launch a DT attack using those SLBMs that the Russians would have little time to react to.

The Russian situation is dire. Their surviving nuclear weapons are in submarines that patrol in protected bastions hear their coasts and are unable to deliver DT type attacks. Their command and control systems have been disrupted by the surviving US ICBMs, and they have not accounted for NATO at all.
At this point, the Russians would be better off calling the US to surrender, rather than to demand it themselves.

Now, granted, the Soviets had more missiles in the 1980s than Russia has today, but this paints a pretty clear picture.
 
The real winner here, although not the most powerful, would be South Africa. It's likely SADF would institute a military government to control the situation, which was well within their capabilities to do and is aided by the Apartheid-era autarky policies that would minimize the economic damage of the nuclear war.
I'm guessing Apartheid would never end in this TL then.

The removal of Soviet and Chinese support to Black African states means SADF can only achieve decisive results in its border conflicts, instituting UNITA control in Angola
President Savimibi?

"Our journey to victory has begun! Death to the MPLA!"
-Supreme Commander Jonas Savimbi on the eve of the United Offensive, November 7th, 1983

and RENAMO in Mozambique, probably also toppling Mugabe in Zimbabwe. With millions of European and American refugees, it's likely South African can achieve a White plurality or even majority here, while also exploiting the Bantu-Zulu ethnic conflict to divide and rule.
Rhodesia returns with a vengeance.

And there is definitely going to be a white majority in this case with all those refugees.

Though many would probably settle in Angola, as it's a coastal nation bordering the Atlantic and ruled by the clearly pro-Western, anti-communist UNITA under the leadership of President Savimibi.

Also, China would survive mostly intact militarily. The vast majority of Chinese military installations were far away from large population zones.

And the Soviets had a number of secret/semi-secret installations and "closed" cities deep in Siberia.

Places that were off the map and could not be easily recognized by that era's satellite tech.
 
Staurt Slade of TBO? Color me a bit skeptical of him, given what I know of his works.

That's him. I'm given to believe what he said; like I said, he worked in that business(doing target damage assessment among other things, IIRC). I grant you there may not be enough devices for covering these other targets(especially since the missile silos would be targeted), but that there were serious Soviet plans to hit people not involved in an US-USSR War? Makes too much sense.
 
I'm not so sure about that, simply because there is evidence(proof? I haven't seen it, but the late Stuart Slade, who did work in the nuclear war planning business, did say this in more than one occasion) the Soviet Union wanted to spread the pain around, precisely to avoid the rise of a power simply because it wasn't hit by nuclear war.

In such a scenario would it only be the USSR? I suspect both super powers might want China not to emerge as a big winner if they think their going to be broken-backed for the foreseeable future.

HL's response to your post studies one specific scenario, which the Soviets are committed to a surgical strike to knock out the US retaliation capacity and then forced a surrender. Which is not going to be the case if it thinks its already been the target of a 1st strike, which was nearly the case in the most notorious incident as the response is likely to be a massive retalitory strike on population and industrial centres which needs a lot less warheads and also less accuracy.

Assuming he's right about a number winter being a minor factor I doubt Mexico is going to be in a good position as its well north of the equator and is going to see a lot of fall-out as well as refugees fleeing the chaos further north while also affected by economic and other disruption even if it receives no hits itself.

Also doubtful of a majority white state surviving in southern Africa as its also going to be very isolated while with the loss of all outside aid the pro-western groups in the former Portugese colonies are also going to be without support. I wonder if there are major attacks world wide on population centres, which includes the main ports, how many people will be able to make it to the other side of the world? This assumes that other than military targets no nukes hit targets south of the equator and their not massively hampered by fall-out or climatic problems. All the primary southern nations are likely to do better than the north but its still going to be a rough time for all.
 
So, again presuming India collapses, the Big Three will be the Mexican-American Fusion State, Brazil and probably Apartheid South Africa, which have clear expansion paths/influence abilities. Australia and New Zealand will be powerful, although their relative population sizes limit their capacity; presuming a1983 Doomsday-style merger into an ANZC Commonwealth, however, they could definitely solidify themselves as a strong Great Power. Brazil has the easiest path forward, as it only has to contend with the economic blowback of the WWIII while South Africa has to firmly establish its security situation before progressing into Great Power Politics. The Mexican-American state has the most difficult path because, while it's free from effectively all fallout related damages, it will need time to absorb the large numbers of American refugees likely to come to it. Once that's finished, however, they will provide a serious economic boost to Mexico as well as to its military capabilities, enabling it to begin expanding into the former CONUS and helped by the fact that it is a fusion state that is the successor to the old U.S. Government.

I agree with Steve China is going to be hammered by the Soviets, so they're out too.
 
In such a scenario would it only be the USSR? I suspect both super powers might want China not to emerge as a big winner if they think their going to be broken-backed for the foreseeable future.

Oh, most probably China would get hammered from both sides. I also think India would get hit by the USA in a general war. Mexico would be hit, almost certainly.

Brazil has the easiest path forward, as it only has to contend with the economic blowback of the WWIII

In 1983 Brazil was getting out of one of the worst economic crisis in its history, and the stage was being set for a hyperinflation crisis later on the decade(from 1985 on). Economic pro of a nuclear war in 1983: most of your creditors get wiped out. Economic con: so do your markets(Brazil was selling a lot of things to the Middle East in the 1980s). Assuming Brazil doesn't get hit by an ICBM or twelve, the 1980's will be even more chaotic than they were.
 
Why China would join ? they would rather wait and become only world superpower.
Another scenario - China get nuked,but Japan was mostly spared.We have another superpower,then.
 
Why China would join ? they would rather wait and become only world superpower.
Another scenario - China get nuked,but Japan was mostly spared.We have another superpower,then.
Japan doesn't have any nukes.

Also, what about Israel?
 
Japan doesn't have any nukes.

Also, what about Israel?

But Japan could produce as many nukes as they need if they survived unscatched.And remnants of USA fleet would have them,too.

Israel - arab states would attack,get beaten,nukes start flying and Israel would be burned.
Unless arab states did smart thing and do not attack,then Middle East is not nuked.Problem is - since when arab states did smart things?/in case of joining war,they would burn,too/
 
A radioactive hole in the ground. Probably took parts of the Middle East down with them (i.e. Iran, Iraq, maybe Egypt and Syria). I imagine the Soviets hit Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States too.

Yes.Only good thing would be that ,at least,islamists would be no problem for rest of the world.
 
The rest of the world that hasn't been nuked to oblivion you mean.

One oddity I just thought about: South Vietnam might make a comeback. With the USSR and PRC dead, it's likely Vietnam will become unstable which could give Thailand-backed by the Australians and New Zealand-the ability to support an insurgency against Hanoi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP
Why China would join ? they would rather wait and become only world superpower.
Another scenario - China get nuked,but Japan was mostly spared.We have another superpower,then.

Who said they would join? More a case of both the US and more-so the USSR deciding "If we're going down we have no intention of leaving you standing to take over."

I can't see Japan not getting hit. It has too many US bases and close links to the western allies. Plus the same applies, albeit somewhat less as with China. The Soviets aren't likely to be willing to leave a powerful Japan standing.

Steve
 
Who said they would join? More a case of both the US and more-so the USSR deciding "If we're going down we have no intention of leaving you standing to take over."

I can't see Japan not getting hit. It has too many US bases and close links to the western allies. Plus the same applies, albeit somewhat less as with China. The Soviets aren't likely to be willing to leave a powerful Japan standing.

Steve

Good points.So,both China and Japan are mostly gone.But when China go down,they would send their medium range missiles
which could not reach soviets or USA to Taiwan,Japan and India.So,India would - probably - would go down,too.
 
Good points.So,both China and Japan are mostly gone.But when China go down,they would send their medium range missiles
which could not reach soviets or USA to Taiwan,Japan and India.So,India would - probably - would go down,too.

Good rule of thumb is to assume all Northern Hemisphere powers are gone. Only reason I assume the U.S. survives, in a sense, is because Mexico is fine and thus the remnants of the U.S. Government can re-locate, helping to integrate surviving elements of the U.S. Armed Forces and American refugees into Mexico to create the fusion nation/successor state.
 
Good rule of thumb is to assume all Northern Hemisphere powers are gone. Only reason I assume the U.S. survives, in a sense, is because Mexico is fine and thus the remnants of the U.S. Government can re-locate, helping to integrate surviving elements of the U.S. Armed Forces and American refugees into Mexico to create the fusion nation/successor state.

Why are you assuming that Mexico is fine when one of the primary targets of those nukes are directly to its north, even if none are actually directed at Mexico itself? Apart from the economic chaos that would result and fallout, as well as pollution of the Rio Grande there could be a lot of other impacts. Mexico is well above the equator so even if fall-out and other climatic impacts are largely confined to the north its still going to be hit.

Also I suspect a hell of a lot of Mexicans seeing an 'invasion' of surviving elements of US government and military forces as something to avoid/oppose.
 
Why are you assuming that Mexico is fine when one of the primary targets of those nukes are directly to its north, even if none are actually directed at Mexico itself? Apart from the economic chaos that would result and fallout, as well as pollution of the Rio Grande there could be a lot of other impacts. Mexico is well above the equator so even if fall-out and other climatic impacts are largely confined to the north its still going to be hit.

Also I suspect a hell of a lot of Mexicans seeing an 'invasion' of surviving elements of US government and military forces as something to avoid/oppose.

Because none of those have any real basis in reality. Case in point with your concern over Fallout:

fallout-wind-map.jpg


You seem to have a very outdated perception of what Fallout is, too, for the record; within two weeks everywhere but the direct impact zones are safe and Fallout is no longer a running concern. Hell, there are hundreds of people who have been living in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone since the events there happened in 1986 and that's many times worse-in terms of radioactive output-then what a nuclear bomb would do since we are talking about a reactor with much more fuel.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top