How would a nuclear WW3 actually go?

So did a little research and a full nuclear exchange wouldn't actually make anything unhibatible.
So what would actually happen if WW3 broke out in 1980 and soviets invaded western europe with the help of tactical nukes and that escalated into full blown exchange? Who would win in the end?

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Soviets would 100% win, they prepared for nuclear war, they build an underground city in moscow and all their war vehicles had NBC protection.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      not sure a couple hundred people living as moles for centuries until the surface becomes habitable, by which point they won't be able to live in those conditions anyway qualifies as "winning" in any way shape or form anon, if anything I'd say the loser gets off better in that scenario

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >le nuke fallout meme
        Moscow would be fine within weeks and help from the rest of the country would arrive soon after

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Who would win in the end
      Loaded question. Nobody wins following a nuclear exchange because there's nothing to win. Even assuming their successors would follow COG is a bigger stretch than the chance they'll survive underground long enough to come back to the surface.

      >le nuke fallout meme
      Moscow would be fine within weeks and help from the rest of the country would arrive soon after

      >B-but the movies and video games told me that nuclear war would destroy civilization

      Yes you are right for westerners, but the soviet union would survive

      I mean a nuclear war

      The sheltered measures taken by these nations was never meant to preserve any bulk of their populations. It was simply to ensure that enough people would survive in order to face the extreme evolutionary bottlenecks they would face.

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >So did a little research and a full nuclear exchange wouldn't actually make anything unhibatible.
    Finish your schoolwork Billy

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >B-but the movies and video games told me that nuclear war would destroy civilization

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        I don't think you understand how much of a fine thread civilisation hangs on in general, people already lose their minds and fight over worthless trinkets during black friday in times of over-abunence and plenty; you can't begin to imagine the horrors you'd witness post war when the fabric of society truly rips.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Yes you are right for westerners, but the soviet union would survive

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >the soviet union would survive
            The SU stopped surving in 1990 tho?

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              I mean a nuclear war

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    US and Nato were much more reliant on electronics so the EMPs would harm them much more.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Define "nuclear war." Are we talking the mines in the Fulda Gap getting blown or a full-on strategic countervalue exchange? Also, what period of the Cold War is this supposed to happen?

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Who would win in the end?
    No aligned countries that didn't get nuked.
    Otherwise, eastern bloc cuz bunkers

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    You know the movie Threads?

    Yeah, not like that.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >So did a little research and a full nuclear exchange wouldn't actually make anything unhibatible.
    Where did you get this idea? Even if the major cities are wiped off the map, this would destroy communications (via EMP and destroying population centers), disrupt supply chains (cities are usually major transportation depots and destinations), and destroy governments/research centers/business/financials... how the fuck would any civilization survive? The resulting famine was supply chains getting wrecked alone would destroy any country.

    Radiation and fallout would cause radiation poisoning/sickness and infect the crops. Survivors will have higher chance of cancer and newborns higher chance of being born with mutations and dysfunctional organs.

    Sure, maybe in some optimistic scenario only 50% of the world population dies, and 50% are badass Vault-dwellers who can survive the post-apocalyptic wastes - but you've basically destroyed and reshaped civilization. Governments and power brokers aren't going to commit sudoku like that.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Radiation and fallout would cause radiation poisoning/sickness and infect the crops. Survivors will have higher chance of cancer and newborns higher chance of being born with mutations and dysfunctional organs.
      Modern nuclear weapons cause barely any lasting radioactive contamination.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Where did you get this idea?
      Pure fission bombs weren't used anymore and replaced by thermonuclear ones where only a small fission bomb is used to start nuclear fusion, and warheads were all airburst.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Radiation and fallout would cause radiation poisoning/sickness and infect the crops. Survivors will have higher chance of cancer and newborns higher chance of being born with mutations and dysfunctional organs.
      Even in Hiroshima and Nagasaki they recovered well within a few years. There are steel mills that caused more lasting damage to the surrounding population.

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The entire thread is of course liberalism, this post will be ignored but nukes are fake.
    Soviets were vastly stronger than anything the west had after the 70s, they are still stronger today but don't try. No physical evidence for battle of Stalingrad.
    Any "who would win" scenario is obviously Soviets would win, that is easy, no question. In reality nothing would happen but in a purely military sense they would win.
    There was never enough plutonium for nukes to work. Only about 100 tons of plutonium were ever made. Of the few million tons of uranium ever consumed reactors breed plutonium for the first years. There was only ever enough plutonium for a few nukes and all of them were used in nuclear tests or are old by now.
    An atomic weapon has approximately the power of a battleship or tank company, it's not a big factor, it wouldn't affect a war.
    Tank brigades are physically impossible. The amount of fuel needed to operate tanks is such there has never been 100 operating at one time. Ww3 would go nowhere, but to the extent anything happened, the Soviets win. Only a few dozen b 52s were ever made yet his will cite Wikipedia.
    The a 10 is a slower and smaller plane than the frog foot. America has more fighters but Alamo has better range, and the flogger has a better gun than phantom.
    Torpedoes are useless and Belgrano was a 1920s torpedo. The navies on both sides would be useless but otherwise Soviets had Kirovs and their naval guns were superior. After ww2 america had no real surface fleet before the Spruance while Kotlin destroyers were strong.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      meds

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Afghanistan was the air war of ww3, Soviets won, Pakistan was never effectively able to use their planes. Airframe life is the sole factor in air combat and Israel would die without the Nesher. The American planes israel used did poorly.
    Tanks are the one area america was better, besides naval sams, but america lost the gulf war and ran out of fuel in 4 days. Soviets had a more realistic chance of using tanks, nato would only win on infantry and urban warfare. In any technological sense Soviets would win.

Your email address will not be published.