1980's Nuclear War: How Many Megatons Shall Drop on Other States?
- Thread starter Simeon
- Start date
Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa would probably be treated like de facto members of NATO, though given their distance from Russia and lack of serious power projection, they probably wouldn't be hit very hard. Mexico, the Philippines, and Switzerland might be attacked as well, for the same reason. Other than that:
Nobody outside the nuclear planning staffs of the US and Russia knows, and they're not telling. In fact, at least for the US, even the planning staffs don't know, not for certain. At least in theory, the SIOP hasn't been a single plan since the 1960s, it's a menu of options with various withholds, so the president could, e.g., chose to hit Russia but exclude eastern Europe and China from the strike. How that would actually work in practice, and whether or not a president would choose that in the pinch, we've fortunately never found out. I don't know if the Russians have a similar approach, or if they still have a rigid plan.
That said, I'm generally pretty skeptical of claims that either side planned to target third parties in a major way during a nuclear exchange. I've never seen any evidence that this was planned. There are a few exceptions: US and Russian naval and air bases in third party countries, for example, like Subic Bay in the Philippines, those would probably be hit. Possibly major oil infrastructure. But, in general, the claims that one or both sides planned to target random neutrals have no real evidence behind them and they don't make any strategic sense. Why waste bombs on Peru or Uganda? What purpose does that actually serve? Even after Russia and the US have nuked each other to slag, these third states are not military threats - Chile isn't going to invade Russia, for goodness sake. Especially since the US, and I would suspect the Russians, planned to retain a portion of their arsenal as a post-exchange reserve. And if you've nuked them, you can't trade with them for food to feed the starving remnants of your people, or fuel to keep what's left of the transport net running. There's no upside to attacking the neutral states.
Nobody outside the nuclear planning staffs of the US and Russia knows, and they're not telling. In fact, at least for the US, even the planning staffs don't know, not for certain. At least in theory, the SIOP hasn't been a single plan since the 1960s, it's a menu of options with various withholds, so the president could, e.g., chose to hit Russia but exclude eastern Europe and China from the strike. How that would actually work in practice, and whether or not a president would choose that in the pinch, we've fortunately never found out. I don't know if the Russians have a similar approach, or if they still have a rigid plan.
That said, I'm generally pretty skeptical of claims that either side planned to target third parties in a major way during a nuclear exchange. I've never seen any evidence that this was planned. There are a few exceptions: US and Russian naval and air bases in third party countries, for example, like Subic Bay in the Philippines, those would probably be hit. Possibly major oil infrastructure. But, in general, the claims that one or both sides planned to target random neutrals have no real evidence behind them and they don't make any strategic sense. Why waste bombs on Peru or Uganda? What purpose does that actually serve? Even after Russia and the US have nuked each other to slag, these third states are not military threats - Chile isn't going to invade Russia, for goodness sake. Especially since the US, and I would suspect the Russians, planned to retain a portion of their arsenal as a post-exchange reserve. And if you've nuked them, you can't trade with them for food to feed the starving remnants of your people, or fuel to keep what's left of the transport net running. There's no upside to attacking the neutral states.
"Neutral" states that are willing and able to be of help to the "enemy" after an exchange or those who could represent a threat to "you" may get some nuclear persuasion. Those in neither category are a waste of effort. Both sides will retain nukes and some delivery systems for post conflict leverage. The non-nuclear states will have no means of countering this, and most neutrals have conventional militaries that represent no threat to either major bloc. Of course, there has been a lot of chatter over the years that even if China officially sat out of a USSR-NATO conflict, if it went nuclear in a big way both sides would hit China.
Riain
Banned
An important thing to remember when talking about southern hemisphere targets like Australia, NZ, SA and Chile is that a MIRV missile can only disperse its warheads in an oblong about 200 miles long and 100 miles wide in the direction of the missile trajectory. A single 10RV MIRV aimed at Australia won't take out the 10 most important targets, so Australia will require many missiles to take out target groups in NSW, Vic, Qld etc. Given the Soviets had about 1400 ICBMs, 850 SLBMs and a few hundred bombers by the time the US is hit there just aren't that many suitable weapons to spare on the likes of Australia etc.
Using ICBMs based in Siberia/east of Urals against southern hemisphere targets introduces range considerations due to north-south flight path. The range of an SS-18 missile was roughly 11,000 km and the distances from a Siberian/East of Urals silo to an Australian target would be between 10,000 and 11,000 km, almost due north-south. Put all this together and other than a city busting strike with multiple warheads or one large one, this would be a stretch for more precise targeting. Any South American targets would be out of range, and South Africa is out of range also.
The Soviets had limited mid-air refueling assets at best, and bombers from any base in Russia would not make it even one way if not refueled, and if they were refueled would be one way flights (this is for Tu-95 Bear, jets no way). What all this means is the USSR would have to use SLBM or nuclear armed cruise missiles against these far away targets. These were limited assets, and would have to get relatively close to be in range (depending on the missile/sub combo). Also, depending on the missile, these had accuracy issues.
Bottom line of this is that hitting anyone except NATO/US Allies close (like Korea, Japan) the USSR would probably only hit China, maybe Israel (nuclear state) in all out strike. The resources to hit Australia/New Zealand, South America, South Africa are quite limited if doable at all, and too valuable to be wasted against anything but vital targets. After the war, those places can be dealt with if need be.
The Soviets had limited mid-air refueling assets at best, and bombers from any base in Russia would not make it even one way if not refueled, and if they were refueled would be one way flights (this is for Tu-95 Bear, jets no way). What all this means is the USSR would have to use SLBM or nuclear armed cruise missiles against these far away targets. These were limited assets, and would have to get relatively close to be in range (depending on the missile/sub combo). Also, depending on the missile, these had accuracy issues.
Bottom line of this is that hitting anyone except NATO/US Allies close (like Korea, Japan) the USSR would probably only hit China, maybe Israel (nuclear state) in all out strike. The resources to hit Australia/New Zealand, South America, South Africa are quite limited if doable at all, and too valuable to be wasted against anything but vital targets. After the war, those places can be dealt with if need be.
History Learner
Banned
Adding on to this, in one of the past threads on this it was outlined something like only 3,000 to 5,000 megatons was available to both sides to strike the other's homelands (USA and USSR). Given that and that places like Moscow for example were supposedly due for at least 100+ Megatons makes me wonder if there would be even be enough "spare" mega-tonnage to hit non-NATO allies like SA or ANZ. If that 3,000-5,000 number includes targeting the European allies of both powers as well, you can forget targeting most of the Non-directly aligned nations.
I'd assume that somewhere like Manilla would be hit because of the US Naval base at Suibec bay, Sidney, Canberra and Perth would also probably get hit, as would Wellington and Aukland at a guess. Even if its 'just' a single bomb its still going to be bad enough.
I'd assume that Japan would be flattened, oil targets in the middle east would probably get a few buckets of Sunshine and we can assume that Israel at this point ceases to exist.
The US would probably nuke Lybia (they let the Soviets use their territorial waters), Mexico would probably be seen as a US ally so they'd get smashed. Why bother with Switzerland. maybe a few tactical nukes but otherwise with all the radiation from what was once Europe around and no doubt bio and chemical weapons I think this would be very bad for the Swiss people.
I'd assume that Japan would be flattened, oil targets in the middle east would probably get a few buckets of Sunshine and we can assume that Israel at this point ceases to exist.
The US would probably nuke Lybia (they let the Soviets use their territorial waters), Mexico would probably be seen as a US ally so they'd get smashed. Why bother with Switzerland. maybe a few tactical nukes but otherwise with all the radiation from what was once Europe around and no doubt bio and chemical weapons I think this would be very bad for the Swiss people.
Considering the vast amount of nuclear weapons that both sides had in the 1980s, the targeting in a full exchange would be extremely broad. Why South Africa, New Zealand, Libya and Australia would be left unscathed is beyond me.
In a full out nuclear exchange (the USSR had thousands of tons of bioweapons as well) any area or region that was or could be of strategic value to the other side, however remote, is going to be hit by either the US or the USSR and in some cases both. Whether it be oil, minerals, ports, nuclear reactors, bases, or industry, very few nations in an 1980s full exchange will come out okay (okay meaning not hit by a single nuke).
Last edited:
Remember number or warheads does not equal deliverable nukes. There are more gravity bombs, surface to air missiles, etc than there are nuclear capable aircraft to carry them in one lift. Likewise some warheads are nuclear torpedoes (not all on subs), sub launched cruise missile warheads, and so forth. Nuclear warheads for SAMs, backpack nukes, nuclear mines (sea and land). A lot of these warheads are in bunkers. A lot of them can't, under any circumstances, be delivered to targets far away like Australia/New Zealand, South Africa (or even USA). The issue is how many warheads do the Soviets have that can be delivered to targets that far away. This means ICBM, SLBM/cruise missiles, and bombers.
All missiles are single use weapons, if you want to have a shot at reusing bombers you can't send them on one-way missions where there is no way they get back due to range issues. Of course some bombers won't make it to targets, others will get shot down on the way back or crash from damage.
In planning a strike you calculate the readiness of the weapons system, that is how many missiles and bombers are ready to go at a given time (never 100%), then add the odds of it getting there or not do to malfunction, the odds of it getting intercepted, the CEP/accuracy of the delivery system, and the odds of the weapon doing the desired level of damage. do all that and it tells you how to manage system choice, how many weapons, aiming point etc. If you look at the actual delivery systems the USSR has to hit targets in the ANZAC area, South Africa, much of South America, the numbers are actually relatively small.
Given the actual number of deliverable warheads the USSR can place on ANZAC, South Africa, South America, using them early on is tremendously foolish. The realities are that any bomber attacks would be one way even with refueling outbound, and sea launched missile (ballistic or cruise) would take the subs well out of their normal operating areas, out of position for use against most US/NATO forces, and risk them being detected due to longer transits to get there. Using long range ICBMs is simply a waste...they are needed elsewhere, potentially for follow up strikes on US targets that were missed.
All missiles are single use weapons, if you want to have a shot at reusing bombers you can't send them on one-way missions where there is no way they get back due to range issues. Of course some bombers won't make it to targets, others will get shot down on the way back or crash from damage.
In planning a strike you calculate the readiness of the weapons system, that is how many missiles and bombers are ready to go at a given time (never 100%), then add the odds of it getting there or not do to malfunction, the odds of it getting intercepted, the CEP/accuracy of the delivery system, and the odds of the weapon doing the desired level of damage. do all that and it tells you how to manage system choice, how many weapons, aiming point etc. If you look at the actual delivery systems the USSR has to hit targets in the ANZAC area, South Africa, much of South America, the numbers are actually relatively small.
Given the actual number of deliverable warheads the USSR can place on ANZAC, South Africa, South America, using them early on is tremendously foolish. The realities are that any bomber attacks would be one way even with refueling outbound, and sea launched missile (ballistic or cruise) would take the subs well out of their normal operating areas, out of position for use against most US/NATO forces, and risk them being detected due to longer transits to get there. Using long range ICBMs is simply a waste...they are needed elsewhere, potentially for follow up strikes on US targets that were missed.
Riain
Banned
While there was no shortage of warheads there was a shortage of delivery systems with intercontinental range: ~1400 ICBM, ~850 SLBM and a few hundred bombers. In addition while missiles and bombers carry multiple warheads a single missile or bomber can't spread these warheads very widely. As a result the weapons that would be required to hit Australia would coming from the same pool as those required to hit the USA and there are a hell of a lot of targets in the USA that need to be struck, over 1000 ICBM silos for starters, and many would have been allocated multiple warheads.
So what targets in the US don't get hit in order to hit targets in Australia?
In your opinion, if a full nuclear exchange occurs in the 1980s, what countries will go unscathed by nuclear weapons in the aftermath?
Riain
Banned
I couldn't say exactly but it isn't too hard to work out by looking at the number of various delivery systems like IRBMs, planes etc. There is no shortage of short range delivery systems so everything close to NATO/WP is going to get plastered, longer range systems are a bit harder to come by and will have to be used a bit more carefully to cover places like Britain and China so less will be available for less closely aligned countries. The long range systems are quite heavily committed to the US/Soviet heartlands.