Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

[merxa]

mongrelfolk (mongrelmen)
gyno sphinx, andro sphinx
bullywug
liontaur (wemic)
treant
landshark (bulette)
dragon turtle
hippogriff

[Prak]

Ok, so I figure y'all might be able to help me with something I've so far been mostly unable to work out on my own.

I'm tinkering, off and on, on a game that's set in an alternate Earth where the cold war went nuclear in 1960-- Basically, a Soviet early warning system misread a light reflection as a missile from the US, and, in the heightened tensions after the U2 spy plane incident and the breakdown of the Paris Summit, fires off a retaliatory strike against the US. Who then also retaliates. The game would take place in the post nuclear apocalypse wasteland, sort of a "Mad Max, but the 50s are the most recent cultural era" thing.

What I keep trying to find is good, but fairly concise information on what the, well, fallout of that would be. I can find nuclear arsenal stats, I can find some information about what scientists thought the aftermath would be, but it's harder to find any information, at least that isn't very academic, about what the aftermath really *would* be, how devastating to global populations such a scenario would be, and how long those who were able to shelter would have to stay in shelter before really being able to return to the surface in any true way. I've basically found enough to know that scientists of that time were ridiculously, outrageously optimistic, due simply how new atomic weaponry was at the time (ie, it's hard to know how long nuclear effects will persist when you've only had the bomb for about a decade).

Can anyone point me towards some good "what if the cold war had gone hot and nuclear war happened in the 60s?" information that is accessible to someone who is decently science literate, but by no means an academic?

Edit: I mean, granted, there is literally no reason for me to feel slavishly constrained by real science for a game, but I would like to have some idea of what we know would happen, so I can at least knowingly break from reality where I feel necessary.

[Kaelik]

Ok, so I figure y'all might be able to help me with something I've so far been mostly unable to work out on my own.

I'm tinkering, off and on, on a game that's set in an alternate Earth where the cold war went nuclear in 1960-- Basically, a Soviet early warning system misread a light reflection as a missile from the US, and, in the heightened tensions after the U2 spy plane incident and the breakdown of the Paris Summit, fires off a retaliatory strike against the US. Who then also retaliates. The game would take place in the post nuclear apocalypse wasteland, sort of a "Mad Max, but the 50s are the most recent cultural era" thing.

Strange that you would use this instead of the actual thing that almost caused a nuclear war in the 60s, when during the Cuban emargo the soviet's had a nuclear missile sub in the water there. The sub had been out of contact so long that the US and the Soviet's changed the rules on how many "warning" depth charges you were allowed to drop. So when a US destroyer dropped more than the old amount, the Captain and Soviet Politburo member on board agreed to a launch, but coincidentally the sub had two Captains, and the second captain refused the nuclear launch.

Seems like a more natural outgrowth then "a warning system" given what was going on in the 60s.

What I keep trying to find is good, but fairly concise information on what the, well, fallout of that would be. I can find nuclear arsenal stats, I can find some information about what scientists thought the aftermath would be, but it's harder to find any information, at least that isn't very academic, about what the aftermath really *would* be, how devastating to global populations such a scenario would be, and how long those who were able to shelter would have to stay in shelter before really being able to return to the surface in any true way. I've basically found enough to know that scientists of that time were ridiculously, outrageously optimistic, due simply how new atomic weaponry was at the time (ie, it's hard to know how long nuclear effects will persist when you've only had the bomb for about a decade).

Can anyone point me towards some good "what if the cold war had gone hot and nuclear war happened in the 60s?" information that is accessible to someone who is decently science literate, but by no means an academic?

Edit: I mean, granted, there is literally no reason for me to feel slavishly constrained by real science for a game, but I would like to have some idea of what we know would happen, so I can at least knowingly break from reality where I feel necessary.

Is this the thing you are saying was hopelessly optimistic? Because I doubt you are going to find a more "realistic" assessment anywhere if so.

https://ota.fas.org/reports/7906.pdf

I'm not saying it isn't optimistic. I'm just saying the ICC report on Climate change is hopelessly optimistic too. No one is going to write a serious analysis of global catastrophe that is both academically rigorous and anything less than hopelessly optimistic.

[Thaluikhain]

There's a lot of good stuff over at: http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3/index.php

In particular, part 3 of a 3 part series by Stuart Slade (who passed away not long ago)
http://www.tboverse.us/HPCAFORUM/phpBB3 ... f=11&t=117

Stuart Slade was a civilian in the military industrial complex, part of his career involved determining which nuclear devices to use and where to cause the most death and destruction.

Fair warning, the forum there is hard core right wing. There's a lot of information there if you sift out the politics, though.

(Personally, I'm not seeing fallout as the terrible and exciting concern it's normally made out to be, compared to boring common-or-garden problems you get in any failed state)

[Prak]

Ok, so I figure y'all might be able to help me with something I've so far been mostly unable to work out on my own.

I'm tinkering, off and on, on a game that's set in an alternate Earth where the cold war went nuclear in 1960-- Basically, a Soviet early warning system misread a light reflection as a missile from the US, and, in the heightened tensions after the U2 spy plane incident and the breakdown of the Paris Summit, fires off a retaliatory strike against the US. Who then also retaliates. The game would take place in the post nuclear apocalypse wasteland, sort of a "Mad Max, but the 50s are the most recent cultural era" thing.

Strange that you would use this instead of the actual thing that almost caused a nuclear war in the 60s, when during the Cuban emargo the soviet's had a nuclear missile sub in the water there. The sub had been out of contact so long that the US and the Soviet's changed the rules on how many "warning" depth charges you were allowed to drop. So when a US destroyer dropped more than the old amount, the Captain and Soviet Politburo member on board agreed to a launch, but coincidentally the sub had two Captains, and the second captain refused the nuclear launch.

Seems like a more natural outgrowth then "a warning system" given what was going on in the 60s.

I mean... I have a late 90s/early aughts California public school education. I don't know a lot about the Cuban Missile Crisis, and there were, so far as I've been able to find, a lot of times when the Cold War "almost went hot." I think I was sort of inspired by the 1983 close call, when a single soviet Lt. Colonel averted nuclear war simply by being aware that the monitoring systems could misread light glinting off of clouds and reasoning "if this were really a nuclear attack, there'd probably more than 5-10 missiles." Except I want something close to the 50s, so I created a similar event in 1960. But certainly there are a lot of candidates for "when the bombs were launched."

What I keep trying to find is good, but fairly concise information on what the, well, fallout of that would be. I can find nuclear arsenal stats, I can find some information about what scientists thought the aftermath would be, but it's harder to find any information, at least that isn't very academic, about what the aftermath really *would* be, how devastating to global populations such a scenario would be, and how long those who were able to shelter would have to stay in shelter before really being able to return to the surface in any true way. I've basically found enough to know that scientists of that time were ridiculously, outrageously optimistic, due simply how new atomic weaponry was at the time (ie, it's hard to know how long nuclear effects will persist when you've only had the bomb for about a decade).

Can anyone point me towards some good "what if the cold war had gone hot and nuclear war happened in the 60s?" information that is accessible to someone who is decently science literate, but by no means an academic?

Edit: I mean, granted, there is literally no reason for me to feel slavishly constrained by real science for a game, but I would like to have some idea of what we know would happen, so I can at least knowingly break from reality where I feel necessary.

Is this the thing you are saying was hopelessly optimistic? Because I doubt you are going to find a more "realistic" assessment anywhere if so.

https://ota.fas.org/reports/7906.pdf

I'm not saying it isn't optimistic. I'm just saying the ICC report on Climate change is hopelessly optimistic too. No one is going to write a serious analysis of global catastrophe that is both academically rigorous and anything less than hopelessly optimistic.
[/quote]

I don't think I've seen that particular report before. I was talking more about what scientists in the actual 50s thought would happen.

[Kaelik]

Well maybe the report will help you then.

[Thaluikhain]

Except I want something close to the 50s, so I created a similar event in 1960. But certainly there are a lot of candidates for "when the bombs were launched."

Hmmm...not an expert, but had ICBMs really taken off by then? I think a lot of weapons would be delivered by plane at that stage. I'm not sure if this would change your scenario, though.

[Prak]

Oof. Good point, Thaluikhain. I'll have to check on that when I get home later today, along with what you and Kaelik have provided

[Kaelik]

Except I want something close to the 50s, so I created a similar event in 1960. But certainly there are a lot of candidates for "when the bombs were launched."

Hmmm...not an expert, but had ICBMs really taken off by then? I think a lot of weapons would be delivered by plane at that stage. I'm not sure if this would change your scenario, though.

Yes, the US already had ICBMs in Turkey and Italy ready to hit Moscow in the 50s.

[Thaluikhain]

While I know they existed, were they a large proportion of the nuclear arsenal yet, though?

[Kaelik]

I don't think the US has ever had enough missiles for even a large fraction of it's warheads.

Today the US has 5,800 warheads but "only" has 400 ICBMs.

In 1961 the US had 18k nuclear warheads, and "only" 64 ICBMs, so the fraction looks real different, but explosive wise I think the 64 ICBMs in 61 and 140 in 1962 represent a pretty significant explosive potential such that I'm not sure the total blowing everyone to bits part would look that different.

[angelfromanotherpin]

The chart I saw said that of those 5.8k warheads, less than 1.4k are deployed (in missiles or at bomber bases), ready to be used. Modern ICBMs can carry up to 8-10 warheads each, so 400 missiles could easily carry more than the entire deployed US nuclear arsenal.

[Kaelik]

The chart I saw said that of those 5.8k warheads, less than 1.4k are deployed (in missiles or at bomber bases), ready to be used. Modern ICBMs can carry up to 8-10 warheads each, so 400 missiles could easily carry more than the entire deployed US nuclear arsenal.

I'm denied access to that chart for some reason, but:

5.8k is the same number as 5,800.

The Minuteman III missile, the only current in use land ICBM carries a single W78 warhead.

The Old Atlast D: which was half the ICBMS in 61 and like 1/4th in 62 also launched only a single W49 warhead. E and F, the other half and 3/4ths had a W38.

I don't know what the Submarine launched ICBMs handle for warheads.

So the modern 400 Minutemen Missiles contain just 400 warheads.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Upon further research, subs use the Trident II, which has a theoretical capacity of 12 warheads, but are loaded with an average of about four due to treaty restrictions.

[Kaelik]

Upon further research, subs use the Trident II, which has a theoretical capacity of 12 warheads, but are loaded with an average of about four due to treaty restrictions.

Does the chart I can't access say how many sub ICBMs there are deployed?

I guess the real question is how many in the 60s, but I think that would be a lot harder to find.

[Prak]

It's genuinely difficult for me to find much information beyond general arsenal sizes and *very* general targeting info. But that may have more to do with my search method and looking for more accessible documents than any actual lack of information. End of the day, I may just have to take a few maps, missile arsenal numbers, blast radii statistics and photoshop and figure out what the fictional strikes in my game looked like for myself.

Which is honestly probably the better idea, anyway. I'd still like to find some info on what the aftermath would be like with some kind of timeline towards vague re-inhabitability, but maybe that's in the stuff linked up thread. Haven't taken a look yet

[angelfromanotherpin]

Does the chart I can't access say how many sub ICBMs there are deployed?

Nope. This is the best I can find:

14 Ohio-class SSBNs, armed with Trident II D5 SLBMs, form the sea-based leg of the U.S. strategic deterrent triad. Four of these vessels previously carried the Trident C-4 missiles, but have been retrofitted with the longer-range, more accurate D5. Assuming an average of twelve operational submarines with 24 launch tubes each and four warheads per missile, these boats carry roughly 1,152 warheads. [6] However, given that normally only eight to ten of the Ohio-class submarines are deployed at one time, and that their launch tubes will be reduced from 24 to 20 in accordance with the requirements of the New START treaty, the actual number of warheads in the field is closer to 720. [7]

[deaddmwalking]

This might be helpful

That sets an upper limit for how many warheads were in use.

This website details how many were held by the US Navy, and shows the number at sea. In 1960 there were approximately 2000 warheads afloat. This includes on surface vessels (like aircraft carriers). There were 5 George Washington class ballistic missile submarines, each armed with 16 Polaris missiles. Each carried a single 600 kiloton warhead.

[tussock]

The thing about 600 kT warheads launched from Subs, is they have about three times the radius of effect of the Little Boy / Fat Man bombs dropped on Japan. That's nine times the area. But they can't hit anything mobile, so, they just erase entire cities. Which is why they're that big and not bigger, really, that's enough.

16 Polaris missiles removes 16 cities from the map. Millions of people.

The planned Soviet response was to invade Europe. Nukes first, hitting enemy cities and major bases with big long range ones and anything else military with little tactical artillery ones, followed by Tanks by the tens of thousands, and troops by the millions. No point sitting home when it's a radioactive wasteland anyway, take the war to them, fight on their land, make them nuke their own ground to stop you. They were quite happy to shift their entire population if need be, just like they did in WWII to avoid the Nazi genocide.

NATO, essentially, had absolutely no idea they would do that, and had no defence against it. None. Just a straight up loss.

So, post-exchange, the soviet army controls all of Europe and North Africa, and a lot of cities full of a great many millions of people are all dead. Great Britain is annoying to invade so probably just gets it's population largely removed, there's only like twenty big cities there.

The US is impossible to invade, but also, with all their European troops dead, and no airfields, invading Europe to liberate it is, well, they have their own problems after losing a few coastal cities in the major exchanges. It's difficult to project power when all your military ports are still on fire, and it's rude to nuke Europe to "save them". Especially when they already nuked Cuba and wind blew the wrong way and the radiation is killing people in Florida already. Or you know, what's left of Florida after that one Russian sub got most of it's missiles launched.

It changes the cold war, basically. There'll still be a cold war, a super soviet union with probably a different leader, ruling a generally united but extremely restive Europe and Africa, and a more isolated US that's more directly imperial in it's control of the Americas. Now, the Philippines and so on, the US will want to keep the Pacific, and China wasn't near so strong yet, but neither were the Asian tiger economies in existence yet, just big old money sinks for a few years yet, and can the US justify that while rebuilding at home.

And then Sputnik, the whole space race, that shit gets very real. Because you put a beeper in orbit around the world, people already shit the bed about that.

[Thaluikhain]

Not quite.

Firstly, nuclear devices aren't aimed at cities per se, they are aimed at strategically important targets. Ok, that are often in or near cities, but the attacker doesn't care if all of the city is destroyed as long as enough of the important bits are. Which might require multiple devices. Now, I'm not sure about the 50/60s period, but the size of devices has gone down because the accuracy of the delivery system has gone up. Multiple smaller weapons where you want them are better than one big one close enough.

Secondly, I'm led to believe that when the British changed from bombers to missiles to attack the USSR because of Soviet interception capabilities, they were going to launch everything they had against Moscow, to ensure that hopefully enough got through. To put it another way, everywhere outside Moscow was saved (at least from the British) by the Soviets improving their defences. Again, don't remember what year that was, but it's a good example of how it's not one weapon one city.

[Kaelik]

I think it's really a mistake to operate based on hypothetical ideas about what people totally were planning to do with all their nukes in a nuclear war.

I could expect mass desertions from all armies and/or just refusal to do anything when it's clear the entire world is fucking gone, and there's no way that people currently being targeted for nuking their cities would just follow through on some kind of "targeted limited use" plan. I think they are all going to respond to nukes by trying to murder as many of the "enemy" as they can, regardless of what they say their plans are.

[Thaluikhain]

I think it's really a mistake to operate based on hypothetical ideas about what people totally were planning to do with all their nukes in a nuclear war.

True. As an aside, there are modern academics that have suggested WW3 in Germany would have been not unlike WW1. Once nukes are involved everyone digs in deep cause nobody is in a hurry to launch an attack (of the tank/infantry kind) at the enemy and get slaughtered.

I could expect mass desertions from all armies and/or just refusal to do anything when it's clear the entire world is fucking gone, and there's no way that people currently being targeted for nuking their cities would just follow through on some kind of "targeted limited use" plan. I think they are all going to respond to nukes by trying to murder as many of the "enemy" as they can, regardless of what they say their plans are.

Absolutely, there's no targeted limited use, one flies they all fly, and everyone knew that. Escalation ladders and all that weren't relevant to anything once it goes nuclear. But that's not to say that people would necessarily end up hitting cities at random, and even if your goal is simply to kill as many people as possible you want to be selective in what cities, and also where in specific cities, you are going to use your weapons. Having said that, the US got private think tanks to determine where and what devices to use because originally they'd simply plan on sending a nuclear device against each target they wanted to destroy, and it didn't initially register that sometimes those targets could be in the same building and only required one. I don't know when that change occurred.

As another aside, the Soviets, (AFAIK) were planning to attack neutral, or even allied countries. Because anyone that gets left alone is a superpower once the dust settles and the word superpower has been redefined. Don't know when that thinking came about, though.

(Using what Stuart Slade has written about his time in the industry as my source for everything after the second quote, and I think it was US Army officer course to do with military history for the source for after the first)

[Prak]

Well, and as much as a part of my brain wants to know "what would really happen," ultimately, I'm working on "Mad Max-style adventure, except the 50s is the 'most recent pop culture era'." Saying "the nukes destroyed the entire Northern Hemisphere as we know it, and seriously impacted the Southern Hemisphere" is not the largest break from reality in the game, given that I'm putting in radiation-unleashed Coop Devils, because I like Coop's art, and radiation-enlarged insects, because "50s era pop culture."

It's more that I want to have a realistic base to go off of than I want to perfectly replicate what might have actually happened.

[deaddmwalking]

Then assume that all of the major cities were targeted. Most of the campaign happens in the wilderness of Canada outside of the radiation zones. People do go into the irradiated cities to scavenge supplies; Toronto and Chicago are about as far as people go because New York and Washington are the worst places. There's no contact with other civilizations, so what happened to Europe and the USSR remain unanswered questions. Persistent rumors abound about pockets of civilization surviving and/or maintaining society, but there's no route to get from where you are to where they're supposed to be.

[Prak]

Why Canada? There's a ton of the US that is flyover country still, and there was even more in the 50s and 60s. Even if you posit that the Soviets bothered to target the Wyoming National Guard Base in Capser with an RDS-37, that still leaves most of Wyoming not significantly nuked. And the Soviets only had 1600 missiles in 1960. Like, yes, firing off all of their 1600 missiles at the US and a few allies would fuck up the planet, but... there's a lot of the US that's going to be only mildly more irradiated than Canada.