What about the rest of the world?
-
Diss — 9 years ago(September 09, 2016 04:11 PM)
I'd add a lot more cities to that list. Keep in mind USSR even at the time probably had the technology for multiple warheads (Mirv's)
My city (Las Vegas) would probably be hit because of Nellis Air Force Base, most likely they'd target the NorthEast where the base is. Now a days Creech air force base outside of town would be targetted as well for their drone capabilities. Henderson (just outside of Las Vegas) may have also been targetted during the 1980's because of their industrial production, Hoover Dam just outside of Las Vegas would be targeted as well. -
AudioQuest — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 10:29 AM)
Trenton, Ontario, Canada is a major military air base. As is Petewawa, not to mention all the other base towns. London, Ontario is headquarters for General Dynamics Canada where light-armoured tanks are made. Seems kind of rotten for the Russians to be targeting purely civilian centers in Canada considering it is a non-nuclear country.
What's a knockout like you doing in a computer-generated gin joint like this? -
martindunne — 12 years ago(August 08, 2013 05:12 AM)
This is based on the fictional scenario presented in Threads, plus what was on the public record at the time. There may be better information out there, (probably is), but I have deliberately not sought it out as it's not relevant to the question. Perhaps someone else can search for declassified/primary/secondary sources and compare this scenario.
There are four phases; three are demonstrated in Threads and one is both implied and makes sense. The total nuclear arsenals guessed at in 1983 (the year I kept press cuttings on this) were about 12,000 to 20,000 megatons, meaning the 3,000 Mt global exchange scenario in Threads could be called optimistic. Total US arsenal guessed at was 26,000 missiles, USSR up to double this but less reliable.
The order of attack would be determined by rapidity of first strike, then vulnerability of launch site and finally legacy planning, so submarine/silos, bombers then mobile launchers.- First strikes.
In Threads the first sign of the war was the electromagnetic pulse in Sheffield, caused by a detonation over the North Sea. This probably disrupted communications over Western Europe, and may have been part of an extended attack on NATO countries. If so, expect similar attacks on Warsaw Pact countries, plus first strike attacks against the US and USSR which would be stratospheric for maximum coverage/minimum physical damage. It is not described how this is delivered, but as both powers are trying to disable each other as quickly as possible, likely missile delivered, silo or submarine origin. - Military targets.
Next the Royal Air Force base at Finningley is hit. We see a jet attempting to take off and the image whites out. In Sheffield this causes panic. With military bases thus early targets, both powers will have tried to launch all silo missiles and bombers irrespective of target or possible recall. - Civilian targets.
Finally, Sheffield itself is bombed. We are not told what the yield is, how it is delivered or any other specifics. As we are told; 3,000 Mt worldwide exchange and 210 Mt over the UK, Operation Square Leg (the defence report the Threads attack was based upon) postulated over 100 UK sites with 205 Mt, a 2 or 2.5 Mt strike for "the fourth largest city in England" seems appropriate. With all military air/land/naval bases, plus communications facilities given a good pounding, there are two options for the massive overstock of bombs. The first one is redundancy, both doubling up attacks on targets/over time or targeting lower priorities. Square Leg underrepresented London, but with targets to spare expect industrial, communications and transport to be priorities, followed by plain old population. - Legacy.
With slower delivery methods such as bombers or concealed ones like mobile launchers (such as Jimmy and a nice lady he meets at the pub see going past the city at night) then the war can continue. Delaying them over time so the strikes could continue hours or days after the real destruction even gives potential for new targets. Satellites/stratospheric jets could in theory reconnoitre long after the countries are effectively destroyed, and even broadcast any promising military/civilian targets which look as if they haven't been utterly destroyed. However with the mass confusion and disruption of communications/authority, it's more likely any further launches would be effectively automated or determined by quite low level officers; ranks as low as lieutenants had the responsibility to launch during the Cuban missile crisis and in Turkey. It may be less a question of who had the authority to order more launches, than who could switch it off.
A note on asymmetry; and this last part is drawn from the 2008 documentary 1983 The Brink of Apocalypse and can be considered a piece of informed analysis, unlike my meanderings. The Americans thought the Soviets mirrored them in all things including nuclear planning, thus the theory of mutually assured destruction was Western in nature. In truth they did not. Where the US system held multiple checks and balances, the USSR would simply expect a list of criteria becoming fulfilled to equate to war. This is believed to have happened during the 1983 NATO war games called Able Archer, and nuclear war may have been averted because individual officers simply disobeyed orders. While the Americans have admitted a litany of false positives, information from the former Soviet Union is limited and often contradictory; there is assuredly more. Similarly, the US planning was that when the fighting escalated to deploying nuclear bombs, it would stay at this level with conventional forces (such as they'd be) held in reserve; the Soviets seemed to think it was possible to deploy troops immediately at the sites of detonations.
So while we can list all the potential military and civilian targets on Earth-Threads; with only a quarter of the potential arsenal detonated I suspect Barry Hines used a scenario which maximised human suffering r
- First strikes.
-
NewYorkGrove — 12 years ago(December 05, 2013 05:48 PM)
Your post is VERY informative. there is a hugh wall map on a wall of the underground bunker and and written across it (stop at the scene) if you watch it again and it mentions that a that there was a 1 megaton air burst there's a queastion mark but it does to IMPLY over Tinsley Viaduct as ground zero
-
ryan-anthony-carroll — 11 years ago(May 03, 2014 08:14 AM)
Ireland would have been one big untouched oasis right in the middle of the nuclear wasteland that would have been Europe (or will be, people should not assume it can't happen cos the USSR no longer exists).
Not a member of NATO, with no military targets (Ireland has no air force, and only one Naval base, at a stretch you could say Shannon Airport might be a target cos it could be strategic way of sending sub hunting aircraft like Orions out into the Atlantic etc but both the naval base and Shannon could easily be taken down with conventional weaponry like a Bear or Backfire bomber run).
Today Belfast would not be hit, even in the 80s it was dying as a manufacturing and ship building base, the only RAF bases were for helicopters the only army bases for counter-terrorism and black ops aimed within NI.
So the island of Ireland would be untouched, maybe the only country in Europe that is. We'd have to ration a lot of goods as imports slowed to a trickle but were self sufficient in terms of food and have much of our own natural gas etc
We might have a bit of a refugee problem from people trying to escape the UK but they'd have to have the capability to get across the Irish sea and that won't be easy with all the UK ports pulverized with nukes.
The UK central govt, if it still existed, would probably give up on NI which costs it a fortune to subsidize even in peacetime. That might lead to a defacto united Ireland possibly a federal one with the Dublin govt letting the NI govt take care of local business on it's own terms with Dublin just controlling security and foreign affairs.
There would be a lot of pressure on us post-war to help out the rest of Europe, we'd have a dozen untouched airports and ports that would be crucial bringing aid into Europe. -
CorpseCandle — 11 years ago(March 01, 2015 10:30 AM)
How could Ireland be an oasis of anything when the British mainland is swamped by radiation?
If Ireland wasn't physicaly hit that would mean nothing. The radiation in the U.K wouldn't just stay there and not drift to Ireland. When the wind blows in the right/wrong direction prepare for many thousands of deaths.
Sadly the Irish population would also starve because the earth would be contaminated, the EMP effects of the bombs over the UK would also hurt Ireland.
Ireland is far, far too close the U.K not to meet a horrible fate. -
ArtfulLodger — 10 years ago(January 29, 2016 12:32 PM)
Indeed, the effects of Chernobyl on the lamb farmers of North Wales was measured in decades, and that was a civilian small-scale accident, not a malicious deliberate attempt. Frankly, EIRE, you're screwed no matter what.
-
chrismarquis76 — 12 years ago(December 01, 2013 05:31 PM)
just watched the film THREADS TONIGHT. GREAT SCARY FILM, EVEN MORE SO BECAUSE IT IS BASED IN SHEFFIELD, A CITY 30 MILES AWAY FROM ME. JUST SAW YOUR POST, AND YOUR MENTION YOU DID NOT SEE IT ALL ON tv. here is the youtube link to the whole movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MCbTvoNrAg
ps, excuse the caps, -
IMDb_wanderer — 11 years ago(December 27, 2014 04:37 AM)
Don't be so sure.
Pine Gap in central Australia would be a huge target, as well as Nurrungar in South Australia (which was actually so strategic that the Soviets had it as a top ten target), Amberley RAAF base (so Brisbane is gone), Darwin (because of the bases there), Canberra (centre of government), probably Townsville, Perth and Adelaide (same reason as Darwin, and Adelaide can house submarines), possibly Tidbinbilla too (won't want to leave a Space Communication complex lying about after a nuclear war if you're an enemy power).
And that's only military/government targets. The ore mines in the Pilbara region of Western Australia would be enough of a target, along with Mount Isa, possibly Weipa, and Kidston in FNQ (biggest gold mine in Australia during the early 1980s, when Threads is set) would be the economic targets. And of course, if you want civilian targets on top of all that, there's Sydney and Melbourne.
So Australia wouldn't be left alone.
They call me the wanderer. -
fast_cash — 9 years ago(November 17, 2016 06:10 PM)
There was an interesting write up recently on the Dailymail which showed the likely targets of the USA:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3588721/Is-home-risk-Terrifying-map-reveals-devastation-nuclear-fallout-cause-Europe-s-popular-cities.html
The targets of the USSR was generally USA, UK, Canada (irregardless of commitment), most of Western Europe, Japan (Those pesky disputed islands).
Non USSRs targets were all of Africa, South Asia, India and the subcontinent, Australia (even with its US radar bases). So half the world isn't being directly affected.
Both USSR and USA agreed to set their nuclear targets from major cities to naval/sea targets in the 80s, though this was never a guarantee.