AHC: have Nuclear warfare that does NOT start the apocalypse
- Thread starter SpaceRome
- Start date
For All Time but with some Supersonic Low Altitude Missiles and Haig not taking over until after Jim Jones manages to get his Atomic Crusade going against the Second Soviet Civil War and then he has to use nukes in the coup, thus mostly everywhere is a crappy mess but civilization will be fine just depressing lol
To be very pithy about it 'quality over quantity' when it came to covering all the targets as much as you wanted them to be covered
I don't think in either case would their allies go nuclear for them or risk being hit in return
Yeah, but by 1985 the Soviets had basically double the US nuclear stockpile. As poor as the Soviet nuclear arsenal may be, they had an overwhelming superiority in numbers and I fail to see the US being able to destroy all missiles in silos. Eventually, the Soviets would be able to inflict more damage as the numbers decide in the end.
No because the USSR was trying to make for up less accuracy with larger and more warheads hitting the same area. Also there's not really much 'eventually' to this. Yes you would keep some back for weird just in case situations, but generally it was both would launch massive immediate attacks precisely because you know a lot of the other side's missiles were aimed at your missiles and if you don't launch ASAP you may loose those missiles you hold back. And the only reliable way to stop missile coming at you was to hit them on the ground* (all this is why mobile launch systems were a big thing as well. So both sides built in assumptions and redundancy about not all their missiles be successful, on target or even there to be used if desired.
Basically both sides reached saturation point in abstract terms of 'we can hit every city and every (known about) silo, base military air strip and so on'. It then became about how they could make absolutely sure that what they definitely wanted destroyed would be destroyed no matter what, while still being able to probably destroy targets lower down the priority list and still have some left for just case or even less important targets than either of those. Redundancy and over kill was a key part of this for both sides, it just for the USSR with less accurate and less reliable and IIRC in some cases slower to launch (and thus more susceptible to being hit before launching) weapons, they went with more. (there's a whole lot more to this the resources both were able to put into development the choices that pushed them towards, the SALT treaties etc).
*anti missile systems is whole nother topic that has a big impact on theory and practice, it also why IRBM's with strategic warheads with shorter flight times got everyone's backs up as well.
Last edited:
That would be worse, that three way border in the mountains might end up a flash point
Last edited:
No one wants to die. MAD is a safe principle to promote and announce but if push comes to shove I don’t believe Americans ever had the intention of committing a national suicide because Hamburg or Paris got nuked. There’s be tit-for-tat nuclear exchanges for a while but not an all out nuclear exchange leading to mass extinctions. Nuclear weapons are also not as powerful as they appear in popular media.
Depends on how you want to define a nuclear weapon. If someone cooks up a dirty bomb from medical or radioactive waste, you could have a nonstate actor, or a state with a terror attack. If a nonstate actor gets into a nuclear waste dump, it could get very interesting.
You could also have someone set off a backpack nuke. There would be no way to know who did it.
Or you could use a stealth bomber or stealth sub to attack one of the smaller nuclear powers like Israel or South Africa in an alternate history scenario. The bomb goes off but no one knows why. You could have a lunatic in charge of one of the larger nuclear powers who just decided to do it. There might be a time lag before it could be figured out who did it through espionage or other means.
You could also have someone set off a backpack nuke. There would be no way to know who did it.
Or you could use a stealth bomber or stealth sub to attack one of the smaller nuclear powers like Israel or South Africa in an alternate history scenario. The bomb goes off but no one knows why. You could have a lunatic in charge of one of the larger nuclear powers who just decided to do it. There might be a time lag before it could be figured out who did it through espionage or other means.
Last edited:
How and why would China be hit if the focus was an Indo-Pakistani nuclear war?
You need a limited exchange, between countries with smaller stockpiles or unwilling to use their full arsenal.
Between nuclear powers, and historically, I go with:
Between nuclear and non nuclear powers
Present/future events:
Between nuclear powers, and historically, I go with:
- The 1950s Korean war goes nuclear
- An Indo-Pakistani war
Between nuclear and non nuclear powers
- The Israelis loose the Yom Kippur war and use nuclear weapons
- More farfetched, the Falklands War doesn't happen. Tensions between Argentina and Chile remain high, and by the mid-1980s the Argentine population isn't accepting the ruling on those useless pieces of rock in the passage of Drake. Argentina and Chile go to war, Pinochet uses chemical weapons against Argentina, surprising everyone, Argentina had stockpiled enough uranium for one or two bombs and manages to nuke Chile in retaliation. Wouldn't work in 1978 because AFAIK, there wasn't enough uranium stockpiled. But maybe it works if the project is started earlier.
- I don't see apartheid South Africa using nuclear weapons against their neighbors.
Present/future events:
- A second Korean war flares up, Kim takes to heart the analysis from the Rand Corporation that states it may be a rational choice to nuke the South Korean ports at the start of the war to harm South Korean and American logistics and does just that. Even if the USA retaliates in kind, it's still not the apocalypse.
- Ukraine gets the upper hand against Russia and fearing the post war scenario would put them in a disadvantage or at risk of nuclear war with the USA (or NATO tries to enforce a no-fly zone), Russia uses nuclear weapons against Ukraine. The USA doesn't retaliate with nuclear weapons. No apocalypse.
- The Sino-American war happens, the USA gains naval supremacy in the West Pacific and begins to bomb the Chinese mainland. Unable to stop the bombing with conventional means, the Chinese president uses nuclear weapons against American carriers and air force bases in the Pacific, including Japan. The USA may not necesarily retaliate with thousands, or even hundreds, of nukes, so apocalypsis is averted.
India has several reasons to hit China. China was an ally of Pakistan, and an opponent of India (to the point of some low-level (heh) skirmishes taking place in the Himalayas). If India is expecting to receive some Pakistani nukes, they can't be sure all the Indian weapons will survive and they certainly don't want China to be in a position to capitalise on that. They might think that Chinese nuclear retaliation wasn't going to make things much worse.
What cities in China the Indian nukes could hit? and how many of them?
Number of delivery systems is a more relevant metric than number of warheads. There's no point in having much more warheads than for a massive first strike (and submarine second strike): no one's gonna be around for a reload.
So you could say the US kept the nuclear edge by having more accurate nukes and better delivery systems? Also, is there a source comparing American and Soviet delivery systems?
AHFan
Banned
Thanks for the info.Found this nifty graphic for comparative arsenals at various points post war
Global nuclear weapons stockpiles (1945–2025)[1]
Worldwide total 2 304 2,636 20,285 37,741 38,164 47,454 54,409 61,662 ~51,864 38,823 - 38,825 30,971 - 30,973 25,736 15,811 - 15,853 13,400 Lithuania
— — — — — — — — — 20-60 (1991)[16] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Belarus
— — — — — — — — — At least 81 (1991)[15] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ukraine
— — — — — — — — — 2,321 (1991)[14] 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kazakhstan
— — — — — — — — — 1,410 (1991)[13] 0 0 0 0 0 0 South Africa
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0[9] 3[9] 6[9] 0[9] 0 0 0 0 0[10] North Korea
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0[9] 0[12]-1[9] 0[12]-2[9] 0[12]-2[9] 8[9] 6-8 30-40[3] Israel
0 0 0 0 0 8 20 31 42 53 63 72 80 80 80-90[3] 65-85 (for 2020)[10] Pakistan
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0[9] 4[9] 13[9] 28[9] 38 100-120 160[3] 150-200 (for 2021)[11] India
0 0 0 0 0 0 0[9] 1[9] 3[9] 7[9] 14[9] 28[9] 44 90-110 150[3] 250-270 (for 2025)[10] United Kingdom
0 0 14 42 436 394 492 492 422 422 422 281 281 225 225[3] 260 (up to 2030)[8] France
0 0 0 0 32 36 188 250 360 505 500 470 350 300 290[3] China
0 0 0 0 5 75 180 205 243 232 234 232 235 260 400[6] 1500 (for 2035)[7] Soviet Union
Russia
0 5 200 1,605 6,129 11,643 19,055 30,062 39,197 37,000 27,000 21,500 17,000 7,500 6,375[3] 5,977 (in 2022)[5] United States
2 299 2,422 18,638 31,149 26,008 27,519 23,368 21,392 10,904 10,577 8,360 7,700 7,260 5,800[3] 5,428 (in 2022)[4] Country 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2014 2020 Projections[2]
I'd say anything up to late 50's and you are like OK for non apocalyptic nuclear exchange even between the main two (well depending on where you are!) and globally we're likely OK if say India and Pakistan go for it, although the situation in South Asia will be dire!
AHFan
Banned
In my opinion, the exchange would be limited as major allies will apply pressure to cease fighting immediately. Pakistan and India are far enough away that allies will not be able to provide immediate support.
Russia and the United States are unlikely to attack each other over a regional conflict that is beyond their ability to control.