AHC: have Nuclear warfare that does NOT start the apocalypse

[SpaceRome]

Your challenge is to have a post 1949 use of nuclear weapons that does not start the chain reaction that dooms the entire world. Can be either an attack of a nuclear power against a non-nuclear one like the OTL example of WWII Japan, or a limited exchange that doesn't devolve into firing the full extent of the world's nuclear arsenal.

Where - and when - could this possibly be done?

 

[Lalli]

WW3 at worst without apocalypse could occure in 1962. Lot of Europe would be devastated but still not apocalyptic world altough everybody would suffer.

Probably it is possible to get Sino-Soviet War at end of 1960's without apocalypse.

And there is always possibility with Indo-Pakistani nuclear war.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

Only possible if a nuclear power nukes some non-nuclear power that other nuclear powers don't give a damn about.

 

[TDM]

Found this nifty graphic for comparative arsenals at various points post war


Global nuclear weapons stockpiles (1945–2025)[1]

Country	1945	1950	1955	1960	1965	1970	1975	1980	1985	1990	1995	2000	2005	2014	2020	Projections[2]
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]
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]
China	0	0	0	0	5	75	180	205	243	232	234	232	235	260	400[6]	1500 (for 2035)[7]
France	0	0	0	0	32	36	188	250	360	505	500	470	350	300	290[3]
United Kingdom	0	0	14	42	436	394	492	492	422	422	422	281	281	225	225[3]	260 (up to 2030)[8]
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]
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]
Israel	0	0	0	0	0	8	20	31	42	53	63	72	80	80	80-90[3]	65-85 (for 2020)[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]
South Africa	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0[9]	3[9]	6[9]	0[9]	0	0	0	0	0[10]
Kazakhstan	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1,410 (1991)[13]	0	0	0	0	0	0
Ukraine	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	2,321 (1991)[14]	0	0	0	0	0	0
Belarus	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	At least 81 (1991)[15]	0	0	0	0	0	0
Lithuania	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	20-60 (1991)[16]	0	0	0	0	0	0
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

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!

 

[Garrison]

It would also be more likely to happen if the A-Bomb arrives too late for WW2 so it remains just a big bomb in the eyes of most and so it gets used in some other conflict later.

 

[Captain Seafort]

globally we're likely OK if say India and Pakistan go for it, although the situation in South Asia will be dire!

Or if North Korea does something stupid - with the same caveat that the Korean Peninsula is unlikely to be a pleasant place afterwards.

 

[SpaceRome]

Or if North Korea does something stupid - with the same caveat that the Korean Peninsula is unlikely to be a pleasant place afterwards.

Right, NK is unlikely to get even Chinese support in the aftermath of using a nuke. Would the US/Japan/what's left of SK strike back with nuclear strikes of their own, though? I'd assume they would just start something akin to the gulf war on steroids, a massive UN-sanctioned invasion.

 

[Captain Seafort]

Right, NK is unlikely to get even Chinese support in the aftermath of using a nuke. Would the US/Japan/what's left of SK strike back with nuclear strikes of their own, though? I'd assume they would just start something akin to the gulf war on steroids, a massive UN-sanctioned invasion.

Japan and South Korea obviously wouldn't, due to not having any.

If US troops in South Korea were on the end of a nuclear strike, I expect the US would respond in kind against North Korean C2 and any potential remaining nuclear weapons/nuclear weapons infrastructure, and follow up with an invasion, with a combined warning and guarantee to China that it would stop at the Yalu.

 

[Crust3038]

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!

Do you have a statistics for the number of mated nuke+missile/carriers/gravity-bomb-casing pairs too? Yes, the US did have 18,638 nukes in 1960, but how many of them were in their basic warhead form and in strategic storage in rear areas?

 

[Monk78]

I still think that even at the height of mid 1980s limited nuclear war is possible, ending in a stalemate in Europe, and probably a devastated Germany

 

[SirCecil]

Your challenge is to have a post 1949 use of nuclear weapons that does not start the chain reaction that dooms the entire world. Can be either an attack of a nuclear power against a non-nuclear one like the OTL example of WWII Japan, or a limited exchange that doesn't devolve into firing the full extent of the world's nuclear arsenal.

Where - and when - could this possibly be done?

I'll restate what I said in a previous thread; it's easily doable if you get nuclear weapons used in the Korean War, and you could follow that up with or have as a separate idea Operation Vulture.

Beyond that, another easy one is Israel using nuclear weapons during the Yom Kippur War, although that has an apocalyptic level exchange as a possibility.

 

[TDM]

I still think that even at the height of mid 1980s limited nuclear war is possible, ending in a stalemate in Europe, and probably a devastated Germany

1). That would be against both sides established protocols and targeting plans

2). Why would one side take the risk of holding back and getting taken out by the other and losing any ability to do anything about it?


I could see maybe some outside chance of direct confrontation staying conventional if we got very, very lucky, but not if it goes nuclear in anyway


EDIT: sorry I'm assuming you are talking NATO vs Warsaw Pact because of the points about Europe and Germany and not nuclear exchanges between Nuclear powers outside of those groups

 

[Gunnarnz]

Nuclear ASW weapons and SAMs could possibly be used without causing a general exchange. They're probably going to be detonating in places where there aren't many civilians, so it might be possible to keep at that level or even walk things back if there are a lot of cool-headed people on each side. Still not easy to prevent an exchange, though, especially if your strategic assets (bombers and subs) are getting vapourised.

 

[West234]

Tactical use of nuclear weapons by minor powers would be a possibility I think the most likely to use it would be South Africa, Israel, and North Korea. Both South Africa and Israel would have used their nuclear weapons to strike back at their neighbors if the survival of their states was ever threatened though I think a case could be made for South Africa tactically using nuclear weapons offensively in something like their intervention in Angola. If a war between North Korea and America sparked up again some time post-1985 it would only lead to a small-scale nuclear exchange between the two especially because it is quite likely many of the Nork Korean missiles would have been shot down. While all these would be destructive none would be nearly world-ending.

 

[TDM]

Do you have a statistics for the number of mated nuke+missile/carriers/gravity-bomb-casing pairs too? Yes, the US did have 18,638 nukes in 1960, but how many of them were in their basic warhead form and in strategic storage in rear areas?

No sorry that was just from 30 secs on Google, you make a good point though!

However given is says Nuclear weapons and has the US total for 1945 at 2, I think they are going for theoretically deployable, rather than say basic packages.

 

[Marius]

A limited exchange between India and Pakistan wouldn't necessarily lead to a global apocalypse.

 

[aaronupright]

Found this nifty graphic for comparative arsenals at various points post war

(SNIP)

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!

There is no realistic scenario of a nuclear war in South Asia that does not see China absorbing multiple nuclear strikes from India. And that before counting the various deployments of both nations in the ME.

A limited exchange between India and Pakistan wouldn't necessarily lead to a global apocalypse.

See above.

 

[InterCity110]

Isreal vs another Arab country, such as Iran?

 

[Zireael]

A limited exchange between India and Pakistan wouldn't necessarily lead to a global apocalypse.

India has a "permanent alliance" with Russia and Japan, and Pakistan is a "major non-NATO ally" of USA, therefore it's unlikely that it would remain a limited exchange

 

[Nelson Mikeson]

Found this nifty graphic for comparative arsenals at various points post war


Global nuclear weapons stockpiles (1945–2025)[1]

Country	1945	1950	1955	1960	1965	1970	1975	1980	1985	1990	1995	2000	2005	2014	2020	Projections[2]
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]
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]
China	0	0	0	0	5	75	180	205	243	232	234	232	235	260	400[6]	1500 (for 2035)[7]
France	0	0	0	0	32	36	188	250	360	505	500	470	350	300	290[3]
United Kingdom	0	0	14	42	436	394	492	492	422	422	422	281	281	225	225[3]	260 (up to 2030)[8]
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]
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]
Israel	0	0	0	0	0	8	20	31	42	53	63	72	80	80	80-90[3]	65-85 (for 2020)[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]
South Africa	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0[9]	3[9]	6[9]	0[9]	0	0	0	0	0[10]
Kazakhstan	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1,410 (1991)[13]	0	0	0	0	0	0
Ukraine	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	2,321 (1991)[14]	0	0	0	0	0	0
Belarus	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	At least 81 (1991)[15]	0	0	0	0	0	0
Lithuania	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	20-60 (1991)[16]	0	0	0	0	0	0
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

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!

One thing I didn't understand and keep trying to find an answer on is why the US lost the nuclear edge over the USSR by 1980? Not why the Soviets reached nuclear parity, but why the US stopped producing more nukes after 1975?