Able Archer '83: The Aftermath

[History Learner]

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.

 

[rfmcdonald]

I think that expecting South Africa not to get targeted in an early 1980s global nuclear war is deeply unrealistic. Consider that at this point, South Africa is a right-wing authoritarian polity that is waging war (open and otherwise) against various Soviet allies in Africa, a heavily armed country that was widely recognized as either a nuclear weapons state or on the verge of being a nuclear weapons state, a country with a geopolitically very important location astride sea routes, and a key rival of the Soviet Union in (for instance) the export of key strategic metals and other minerals.

Why wouldn't the Soviet Union spare at least a few nukes for South Africa?

 

[History Learner]

I think that expecting South Africa not to get targeted in an early 1980s global nuclear war is deeply unrealistic. Consider that at this point, South Africa is a right-wing authoritarian polity that is waging war (open and otherwise) against various Soviet allies in Africa, a heavily armed country that was widely recognized as either a nuclear weapons state or on the verge of being a nuclear weapons state, a country with a geopolitically very important location astride sea routes, and a key rival of the Soviet Union in (for instance) the export of key strategic metals and other minerals.

Why wouldn't the Soviet Union spare at least a few nukes for South Africa?

Mixture of not having enough and range of said ICBMs; most Soviet weapons can't reach that far and the ones that can are meant to hit NATO nuclear targets like fortified ICBM silos and the like.

 

[Torten]

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.

Mexico City will be a pile of radioactive slag.

Honestly, the USA would probably collapse in such a situation. Being hit with 2000 ICBM's would probably destroy anything of relevance anyway, and given the scale of the country, the remmant of the North Carolinan state government is unlikely to pay much more than lip service to the USA government in Idaho.

 

[History Learner]

Mexico City will be a pile of radioactive slag.

Honestly, the USA would probably collapse in such a situation. Being hit with 2000 ICBM's would probably destroy anything of relevance anyway, and given the scale of the country, the remmant of the North Carolinan state government is unlikely to pay much more than lip service to the USA government in Idaho.

Well, how? The distance from Vladivostok to Mexico City is 11,331 KM which exceeds the range of all Soviet ICBMs except the specialized R-36 variants meant for counter-force strikes on American ICBM silos. Likewise, again, beyond the distance there are numbers; the Soviets had 1,398 ICBMs and 936 SLBMs so a 2,000+ strike on CONUS basically leaves them with nothing to hit Canada or other U.S. targets with (Diego Garcia, Clarks AFB in the Philippines, Guam, etc). Mexico City would thus, most likely, rank very low on the lists of targets.

 

[rfmcdonald]

Mixture of not having enough and range of said ICBMs; most Soviet weapons can't reach that far and the ones that can are meant to hit NATO nuclear targets like fortified ICBM silos and the like.

Submarine launched missiles, then.

In a global nuclear exchange, there is every reason for the Soviets to spare some nuclear weapons for Johannesburg and Cape Town and Simonstown. South Africa is a well-armed country that has demonstrated its hostility to Communism and the Soviet Union, progressing to the point of mounting attacks on multiple Soviet client states and developing nuclear weapons, all out of a stated desire to contribute to the wider aims of the West. There is no reason to think it must escape.

You do not need many weapons at all to wreck South Africa as a country.

Soviet Nuclear Targets - South Africa

If the Cold War ever escalated into a full scale nuclear World War III (like during the Cuban Missile Crisis) what would have been South Africa's fate?

www.alternatehistory.com

Mexico City will be a pile of radioactive slag.

Honestly, the USA would probably collapse in such a situation. Being hit with 2000 ICBM's would probably destroy anything of relevance anyway, and given the scale of the country, the remmant of the North Carolinan state government is unlikely to pay much more than lip service to the USA government in Idaho.

I do think that Mexico might well escape, at least attacks on population centres. It is much less clear to me that the oil industry will escape attacks (Venezuela is also deeply vulnerable, I think).

 

[rfmcdonald]

I do think that there is a reasonable chance that New Zealand might escape attacks entirely, and a lesser chance that Australia will follow suit outside of attacks on strategic facilities like Pine Gap. They may be part of American alliances, but they are remote from the Northern Hemisphere that they might be low priorities.

I also think South America will be spared. The dictatorships dominant at the time might well be right-wing, but not only are they not Western allies they often oppose the West. Argentina, which before the Falklands War had become a top supplier of grain to the Soviet Union, comes to mind. The only country that I think might get hit would be Venezuela, at the time a pro-Western country with an oil industry deeply integrated with the United States. Maybe also French Guiana with the Kourou space launch site?

Africa is anyone's guess. If, as I think is plausible, South Africa does suffer a half-dozen bombs aimed at key military, industrial, and government targets, anything is a possibility. Angola, with its oil, and Nigeria, likewise, strike me as plausible candidates for regional power status. Perhaps they might enjoy extensive trade with South America?

 

[History Learner]

Submarine launched missiles, then.

In a global nuclear exchange, there is every reason for the Soviets to spare some nuclear weapons for Johannesburg and Cape Town and Simonstown. South Africa is a well-armed country that has demonstrated its hostility to Communism and the Soviet Union, progressing to the point of mounting attacks on multiple Soviet client states and developing nuclear weapons, all out of a stated desire to contribute to the wider aims of the West. There is no reason to think it must escape.

You do not need many weapons at all to wreck South Africa as a country.

Soviet Nuclear Targets - South Africa

If the Cold War ever escalated into a full scale nuclear World War III (like during the Cuban Missile Crisis) what would have been South Africa's fate?

www.alternatehistory.com

Problem with the submarine missiles is the same as ICBMs; range and even more limited numbers in this case. The Barents Sea (GIUK Gap) and Pacific launch points are too far from South Africa but, likewise, priority is on the U.S. and associated NATO targets for obvious reasons. Total ICBM and SLBM estimates for the Soviets in the early 1980s puts them around 2,000+ missiles, which sounds like a lot until you consider the following:

Spoiler: Nuclear Targets in the U.S. Map

 

[SinghSong]

Problem with the submarine missiles is the same as ICBMs; range and even more limited numbers in this case. The Barents Sea (GIUK Gap) and Pacific launch points are too far from South Africa but, likewise, priority is on the U.S. and associated NATO targets for obvious reasons. Total ICBM and SLBM estimates for the Soviets in the early 1980s puts them around 2,000+ missiles, which sounds like a lot until you consider the following:

Spoiler: Nuclear Targets in the U.S. Map

So then, in this sort of scenario, what would be left of the United States? Looks to me like South Dakota and Idaho, if they're lucky enough (say, if the few nuclear missiles targeted their way fail to reach their targets), are the only two states which could conceivably escape scott-free; with the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and pretty much all of Eastern and Southern Oregon (with the exception of Medford, which could also conceivably be lucky enough to survive, in the event of launch or re-entry failure of the sole nuclear missile likely to be targeted there) also standing out IMHO as places which could emerge as primary refugias and population centers in the aftermath. What do you reckon?

 

[History Learner]

So then, in this sort of scenario, what would be left of the United States? Looks to me like South Dakota and Idaho, if they're lucky enough (say, if the few nuclear missiles targeted their way fail to reach their targets), are the only two states which could conceivably escape scott-free; with the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and pretty much all of Eastern and Southern Oregon (with the exception of Medford, which could also conceivably be lucky enough to survive, in the event of launch or re-entry failure of the sole nuclear missile likely to be targeted there) also standing out IMHO as places which could emerge as primary refugias and population centers in the aftermath. What do you reckon?

Not much, honestly, which is why I think the remnants of the U.S. Government would flee to relatively unaffected Mexico and then ultimately merge into them as a hybrid nation, bringing with them surviving U.S. technology, military assets and skilled refugees in the form of millions of displaced American survivors.

 

[archangel]

IMHO, it may not be practical or feasible to move the surviving US government to Mexico. It is more likely that it moves to a less affected part of the US. The surviving State governments would likely also move to less damaged parts of their repective states and coordinate however possible the recovery efforts (some states might be extensively damaged and be run locally or through cooperation among local entities, at least until the US government appoints someone to ccordinate it, or state governments are reconvened).
I'm not privy to their continuity of government plans, but there should be some closeness to this.
However, depending on the level of damage incurred by Mexico and the climatic effects that would be experienced after ww3, there might be a significant number of US refugees presumably into the northern and more developed parts of Mexico. Depending on the ability of northern Mexico to integrate them, this could, in the middle/long term (25/50+ years), make that area more developed than the more southern parts of Mexico and even parts of the US (depending on the level of damages and pace of recovery for each US state).

 

[SinghSong]

Not much, honestly, which is why I think the remnants of the U.S. Government would flee to relatively unaffected Mexico and then ultimately merge into them as a hybrid nation, bringing with them surviving U.S. technology, military assets and skilled refugees in the form of millions of displaced American survivors.

And why would any Mexican government support or endorse the prospect of becoming a hybrid nation, and being merged with the USA on the insistence of the remnants of the U.S. Government, in the aftermath of such a cataclysmic event? IMHO, it'd be more plausible for Mexico, if they're relatively unaffected and emerge from this as the premier power in North America, to simply reclaim all of their land formerly lost in the Mexican Cession and Texas Annexation, before the mass influx of gun-toting refugees and militants from the post nuclear apocalyptic USA result in some populist being voted into power as El Presidente on an election pledge to "Build a Wall" to keep the US of American illegals out...

 

[Charles EP M.]

Mexico would probably like the tech, skilled survivors, and weaponry, but a formal merger? More likely "come to Mexico and bring your stuff, we have sanitation and drinkable water" to specific Americans

 

[History Learner]

And why would any Mexican government support or endorse the prospect of becoming a hybrid nation, and being merged with the USA on the insistence of the remnants of the U.S. Government, in the aftermath of such a cataclysmic event? IMHO, it'd be more plausible for Mexico, if they're relatively unaffected and emerge from this as the premier power in North America, to simply reclaim all of their land formerly lost in the Mexican Cession and Texas Annexation, before the mass influx of gun-toting refugees and militants from the post nuclear apocalyptic USA result in some populist being voted into power as El Presidente on an election pledge to "Build a Wall" to keep the US of American illegals out...

Because it allows Mexico to integrate all of the surviving U.S. military assets, technology and survivors much easier and also allows Mexico to lay a legal claim upon all of the former territory of the U.S. with a legal veneer. You'd rather acquire Texas or Utah much easier through diplomacy, by presenting yourself as the legal successor of the United States, then by sending in the troops to lay claim by force. It also grants them, as stated earlier, claims to land beyond the old Mexican cession.

 

[Charles EP M.]

I don't see how the integration is so much easier that way (versus "we are a functioning nation, move here") that the Mexican populace would accept a merger to no longer be Mexico, with a now-weaker state.

 

[SinghSong]

Because it allows Mexico to integrate all of the surviving U.S. military assets, technology and survivors much easier and also allows Mexico to lay a legal claim upon all of the former territory of the U.S. with a legal veneer. You'd rather acquire Texas or Utah much easier through diplomacy, by presenting yourself as the legal successor of the United States, then by sending in the troops to lay claim by force. It also grants them, as stated earlier, claims to land beyond the old Mexican cession.

But it also forces Mexico to share responsibility and liabilities for all of the USA's debts and war crimes, as the legal successor of the United States. And there are going to be exponentially more of these than ever before, since they and the Soviet Union would have just nuked pretty much the entire developed world into oblivion, and even after the dust settles, there's going to be zero chance of anyone else having a clue who fired first. You seriously think any largely unscathed nations be willing to merge with, and accede to the authority of, either the USA or USSR, in the immediate aftermath of both nations having being directly responsible for deliberately killing more civilians across the globe, in the space of a few hours, than the Nazis and Imperial Japanese combined managed to kill in the entire duration of WW2?

Personally, I don't see Mexico doing so. I'd say a USA-Canada merger's the more likely option, since both nations' population centers would be equally devastated, and they'd have little to nothing left to lose from it. Or alternatively, a more unified, supranational Commonwealth of Nations might be on the cards, in which case, Canada might prefer to be a founding member of the Australian, Indian and/or South African-led 'Commonwealth Union' instead. And one could also envision a very different MERCOSUR emerging from the Latin American Integration Association, which still existed at that time. IOTL's MERCOSUR, Mexico's been an observer state from the very beginning, but never joined, largely due to the dominance of trade with the USA, and diplomatic pressure from the USA not to join- ITTL, one could easily imagine the LAIA giving rise to a 'Latin American Union'/alternate version of CELAC instead, in the immediate aftermath of WW3, with a pledge towards 'ever greater union', and with Mexico electing to be one of its founding members...

 

[Charles EP M.]

Would Mexico even want any of the US's territory other than Texas's oil fields? Any nationalistic We Got It Back would be outweighed by having to be responsible for lawkeeping, feeding etc all these irradiated people and also they can vote* people into the Mexican government if they're part of the land. Probably getting oil is easier if you just go for neocolonialism and prop up the Texan Republic government out of Arlen.

* Assuming post-war Mexico is democratic or nominally democratic

 

[Yossarian]

So then, in this sort of scenario, what would be left of the United States? Looks to me like South Dakota and Idaho, if they're lucky enough (say, if the few nuclear missiles targeted their way fail to reach their targets), are the only two states which could conceivably escape scott-free; with the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and pretty much all of Eastern and Southern Oregon (with the exception of Medford, which could also conceivably be lucky enough to survive, in the event of launch or re-entry failure of the sole nuclear missile likely to be targeted there) also standing out IMHO as places which could emerge as primary refugias and population centers in the aftermath. What do you reckon?

The jetstream and prevailing wind patterns over the Plains mean South Dakota, Minnesota, and the UP are all right in the path of fallout from strikes on the silos in Wyoming (all those big, big groundbursts).

Note also that the 2000-warhead scenario is a first-strike (which explains the number of counterforce targets, designed to prevent retaliation) while the 500-warhead scenario is a second-strike (hence the emphasis on countervalue targets, a from-hell's-heart-I-stab-at-thee kind of deal). So the nature of the postwar period will depend on whether the WarPac strike is a counterforce strike to prevent what the Kremlin thinks is an impending first strike, or a more panicked 'launch everything and kill 'em all' situation.

Helpfully, the 1990 FEMA exercise that created the 500- and 2000-warhead scenarios mentioned further up the page also generated the following fallout maps (per Wikipedia/imgur):

Two scenarios based on seasonal weather patterns


Generalised fallout risk



FEMA also worked up state-by-state maps (which appear to be based on both the 500- and 2000-warhead scenarios) that indicate who's best off. Those are too large to post here, but here's the link:

With all that said and done, let's squash some myths:

• Mexico does fine: Not a chance. Mexico City will be a pile of ashes. As the war escalates, the superpowers will have greater incentives to hit countries friendly to their adversary. Leaving a neutral intact, even if they're only vaguely inclined towards the other guy, runs the risk of giving your adversary a headstart on recovery. Expect the usual wish-fulfilment neutrals (Mexico, Brazil, Sweden, Finland, et al) to eat at least one major warhead each.

Other major neutrals are also in the firing line; if you're too neutral, you're clearly up to something and could pose a threat to either/both crippled superpowers once the dust settles. India, Iran, Egypt can expect to receive doses of instant sunshine.​

​

Even if not every major centre is targeted, at the very least striking a capital with a reasonably-sized 550KT warhead will both throw a non-nuclear state into disarray, burden them with casualties, and limit their capacity to organise and support your primary adversary.​

• US takes over Mexico: Haha, good one! ...wait, you're serious? Okay, even assuming the Sovs forget to nail Mexico, the Mexican Government will not only have their hands full with the domestic situation (the PRI has been in power for over 50 years at this point, and was already at the 'comical election-rigging to stay in power' stage), but also be disinclined to admit a tide of refugees, much less to just let the gringos waltz in and start calling the shots. Forget it.
• South America does fine: Mixed bag. Strategic incentives are strong to target at least Brasilia and Mexico City. Venezuelan petrochemical industry likely targeted, possibly Trinidad depending on presence of SSBN in the neighbourhood. The Panama Canal will get absolutely hammered. However, Chile and Argentina might actually make it through in one piece, which is good news for the young democracy in Buenos Aires. Now they just have to figure out how to replace their oil imports.
• Australasia ascendant: In 1983? Nope. NZ and Aus both lose at least their capital and a major city apiece. Both are still in ANZUS at this time and would be safe harbours for the USN. Strong incentive to take them out.
• Africa: South Africa loses at minimum Cape Town, Jo'burg, and Pretoria. They're massively pro-US and engaged in a brutal series of proxy wars involving Cuban and Sov advisors, not to mention all those strategic minerals. Nigeria and Angola present petrochemical targets, and are not outside the realms of possibility. Outside of that, all the states who were reliant on external food aid are in for a hell of a hard landing.

The extent to which a 1980s full-scale exchange would absolutely devastate the industrialised world shouldn't be understated.

 

[Death's Companion]

Would Mexico even want any of the US's territory other than Texas's oil fields? Any nationalistic We Got It Back would be outweighed by having to be responsible for lawkeeping, feeding etc all these irradiated people and also they can vote* people into the Mexican government if they're part of the land. Probably getting oil is easier if you just go for neocolonialism and prop up the Texan Republic government out of Arlen.

* Assuming post-war Mexico is democratic or nominally democratic

Pretty sure the US would still have some nukes left over, trying to carve chunks of it after miraculously surviving WW3 seems a losing proposition.

 

[History Learner]

But it also forces Mexico to share responsibility and liabilities for all of the USA's debts and war crimes, as the legal successor of the United States. And there are going to be exponentially more of these than ever before, since they and the Soviet Union would have just nuked pretty much the entire developed world into oblivion, and even after the dust settles, there's going to be zero chance of anyone else having a clue who fired first. You seriously think any largely unscathed nations be willing to merge with, and accede to the authority of, either the USA or USSR, in the immediate aftermath of both nations having being directly responsible for deliberately killing more civilians across the globe, in the space of a few hours, than the Nazis and Imperial Japanese combined managed to kill in the entire duration of WW2?

Who exactly is going to be in a position to claim the U.S. debt or charge the Mexican dominated union with war crimes? Pretty much anyone who fits that criteria is dead or so reduced in capabilities as to be ignored while being seriously outweighed by the benefits; let the remnants of the USSR whine, so to speak, while the Mexican Army bathes itself in the Great Lakes. I also think you're taking "merger" to mean President Reagan becomes the leader of Mexico or something; I am using merger in the sense that the U.S. formally dissolves itself while granting everything to Mexico in exchange for accepting exile Americans with guarantees of their safety and well being. The "merger" aspect is in the fact that tens of millions of American refugees would certainly change Mexico culturally, by introducing English and American culture directly as opposed to the indirect way it is done nowadays by popular media and tourists.

Personally, I don't see Mexico doing so. I'd say a USA-Canada merger's the more likely option, since both nations' population centers would be equally devastated, and they'd have little to nothing left to lose from it. Or alternatively, a more unified, supranational Commonwealth of Nations might be on the cards, in which case, Canada might prefer to be a founding member of the Australian, Indian and/or South African-led 'Commonwealth Union' instead. And one could also envision a very different MERCOSUR emerging from the Latin American Integration Association, which still existed at that time. IOTL's MERCOSUR, Mexico's been an observer state from the very beginning, but never joined, largely due to the dominance of trade with the USA, and diplomatic pressure from the USA not to join- ITTL, one could easily imagine the LAIA giving rise to a 'Latin American Union'/alternate version of CELAC instead, in the immediate aftermath of WW3, with a pledge towards 'ever greater union', and with Mexico electing to be one of its founding members...

Merging with Canada does nothing to aid in the rebuilding of the destroyed United States or secure the safety of its exile populations elsewhere; Mexico offers that chance. As for MERCOSUR, it doesn't even exist in 1983 and wouldn't for almost a decade OTL.