'Apocalypse' in late 1991

[GBW]

This is a general idea that's been running through my head, partly due to the 'Iraq keeps going' thread. Iraq invades Kuwait on schedule in August 1990. When the UN Security Council unanimously condemns the invasion, Saddam decides to try economic blackmail and invades Saudi Arabia, running his army straight for the oil fields in the east of the country. The disorganized Saudi forces melt in the face of the invasion and those units that manage to resist are quickly encircled and forced to surrender.

The world raises an even larger outcry, including countries in the Arab world, and Saddam decides to launch a rain of SCUD missiles on Israel to try and sway them back to his side. American forces begin assembling in Qatar and Bahrain while naval forces move into the Persian Gulf, while another defense force is formed to defend the Saudi capital Riyadh. Saddam immediately begins demanding a recognition of Iraq's annexation of Kuwait with his hand on the oil spigot, despite his forces being massively overextended and facing growing forces on two sides. The Iraqis immediately begin readying the Saudi oil fields for demolition and seeded with land mines should they be forced to withdraw, which they soon are. Massive aerial bombardment begins before the end of 1990 and, in January 1991, Coalition forces move in and move for the north of the oil fields to cut the Iraqi army off. The oil fields are immediately destroyed and set ablaze and Saddam's forces try to withdraw back north but are devastated by air strikes. The Iraqi position quickly unravels and oil is dumped into the Persian Gulf and the Kuwaiti oil fields are also set ablaze. In no mood for negotiations at this point, with public outrage high, Coalition forces move on into Iraq itself towards Baghdad. Saddam, his sons, and various government officials immediately go into hiding as the country is swiftly occupied.

The world economy is struck a massive blow from the devastation of the oil fields and the inability to get the fires out. Large military forces are required in Iraq to hunt down Saddam and his people, as well as locating all the loot taken from Kuwait and Saudi. Tensions within the US, which would later lead to OTL's LA Riots, rise as the recession grows unchecked. Due to these butterflies, the hard-liners in the Soviet Union manage to turn what was a relatively easily defeated coup attempt into a full blown civil war. Gorbachev is killed somewhere in the fighting and the fact gets transmitted to the world media. There's fighting across the Soviet Union as outraged Russians take to the streets and nationalists in the component republics begin running riot. NATO forces are put on their highest alert and naval forces are moved near the USSR for possible intervention.

The hard-liners freak and, somewhere, someone launches a missile. This causes a cascade of launches form hard-liner loyalist controlled bases while others remain dormant or continually fought over. All the primary Soviet military targets are hit with nukes, as well as a slew of secondary targets. NATO and Chinese nukes fly in response and the USSR is utterly devastated. Europe, China and Japan are all hit to a lesser degree than the Soviets, but not by much. The US and Canada have lost most, if not all, of their military and government facilities and several major cities have been vaporized. Public order within the US, already tense from the recession and the lack of oil, completely breaks down as people take to the streets and overwhelm state and local authorities. Wars and terrorist attacks break out around the world as everyone begins seeking to settle rivalries. Soviet holdout subs continue attacking NATO naval forces wherever they find them. Many nations cease functioning as coherent entities as society breaks down.

So the apocalypse has happened, and the post-apocalypse begins.

[Chris]

Cool! A story for you, then?

Chris

[boynamedsue]

Big factors in this scenario:

How unscathed are Brazil, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Iran, Pakistan, India and Argentina?

If these nations can hold substantial areas of their own territory without collapsing for a few years, and avoid nuclear attacks on each other, then we are not looking at a post-national situation for the world. If South America's states can survive then it will be the new focus of world political and economic power, whatever happens elsewhere.

I predict a possible war between Iran and Pakistan, or Pakistan and India, but I suspect India will split into rival governments and in certain areas will revert to pre-state forms of government.

Brazil's government will survive, but probably only really control the coast for many years. Mexico was actually in better shape in 1990 than today, but it still looks ropey with radioactivity problems in the north, and insurgencies in the rural areas, it may struggle.

The main problem for all of South America is feeding the mega-cities in the first few weeks. They have the food, but will the governments be able to maintain enough order to set up effective distribution systems? Sao Paolo, DF and Buenos Aires will be the main worries, but the problem will exist everywhere.

[GBW]

Originally Posted by Chris

Cool! A story for you, then?

No, not really. Just a general idea for a post-apocalyptic scenario, with the culture of the early 1990s influencing post-apocalyptic society. This is also before the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, so a lot of military-grade hardware will still be on the streets.

Originally Posted by boynamedsue

Big factors in this scenario:

South Africa, at the very least, is going to get hit due to its recently disassembled nuclear program and long rivalry with Soviet proxies. Brazil and Argentina may also be hit for similar nuclear reasons, as well as Australia for its uranium deposits. I believe Mexico City and Monterrey were also secondary or maybe tertiary targets for the Soviets. New Zealand should be relatively unscathed except for radiation from Australia, unless a nuke lands on Auckland and/or Wellington.

Add it all together in this worst-case scenario, and 1992 wouldn't be a very happy new year in this TL. Who knows what things would be like by 2010.

[gtrof]

I like it, but find a better explanation of the Soviet nuclear release is needed. Even the coup plotters knew they had to keep things cool with the US and kept their ICBMs on the lowest possible alert level during the unrest in Moscow. I would suggest a slowly rising escalation. NATO goes on alert like you said, and the coup leadership first tries mobilizing the Red Army to meet it. However the civil conflict means things can't be controlled. So they try a tactical nuclear strike against a target (maybe in W. Germany or against a naval task force). They then tell NATO that they need to back off or face a larger exchange. NATO retaliates in kind against Soviet targets in the GDR and warn the Soviets that any further use of nukes on their part will be met in kind. More weapons are used and the tit for tat strikes lead to a general nuclear war.

[boynamedsue]

Originally Posted by GBW

South Africa, at the very least, is going to get hit due to its recently disassembled nuclear program and long rivalry with Soviet proxies. Brazil and Argentina may also be hit for similar nuclear reasons, as well as Australia for its uranium deposits. I believe Mexico City and Monterrey were also secondary or maybe tertiary targets for the Soviets. New Zealand should be relatively unscathed except for radiation from Australia, unless a nuke lands on Auckland and/or Wellington.

Add it all together in this worst-case scenario, and 1992 wouldn't be a very happy new year in this TL. Who knows what things would be like by 2010.

Does the USSR have sufficient nukes, and time to do all that?

[GBW]

Originally Posted by boynamedsue

Does the USSR have sufficient nukes, and time to do all that?

Well, this is a worst-case scenario. But we have to take into consideration the sub-launched nukes, as well as the mobile ICBMs that were deployed on railway cars and trucks. Those have a good chance of surviving any NATO-Chinese retaliation, and by that point they may get fired off out of spite. The USSR did indeed have a good amount of nukes at the time, though more were due to be complete up until 1993 due to the arms race Reagan had initiated.

[Corbell Mark IV]

Originally Posted by gtrof

I like it, but find a better explanation of the Soviet nuclear release is needed. Even the coup plotters knew they had to keep things cool with the US and kept their ICBMs on the lowest possible alert level during the unrest in Moscow. I would suggest a slowly rising escalation. NATO goes on alert like you said, and the coup leadership first tries mobilizing the Red Army to meet it. However the civil conflict means things can't be controlled.

Agreed.

So they try a tactical nuclear strike against a target (maybe in W. Germany or against a naval task force). They then tell NATO that they need to back off or face a larger exchange. NATO retaliates in kind against Soviet targets in the GDR and warn the Soviets that any further use of nukes on their part will be met in kind. More weapons are used and the tit for tat strikes lead to a general nuclear war.

Sorry, still to crazy.

Perhaps a year or two of convential fighting in the SU while the overall situation with the oil shock continues to deteriorate. Admittedly oil production would be rising thoughout this time, but the ripple effects coudl still be going stronger than the postive effects of rising production.

Perhaps when the coup is finally defeated and the last of the hardliners realizes that they are facing certain warcrime trials and executions, then they lauch was nukes are still in their control.

Could be a smaller crash, more people alive for stories and adventures.

[boynamedsue]

Originally Posted by GBW

Well, this is a worst-case scenario. But we have to take into consideration the sub-launched nukes, as well as the mobile ICBMs that were deployed on railway cars and trucks. Those have a good chance of surviving any NATO-Chinese retaliation, and by that point they may get fired off out of spite. The USSR did indeed have a good amount of nukes at the time, though more were due to be complete up until 1993 due to the arms race Reagan had initiated.

Well, I'm not sure if an even salvo of strikes against 3rd world and pretty much non-involved countries is actually a plausible worst-case. Surely rather than strike New Zealand, Argentina and Brazil, the last Soviet generals piloting the last soviet nukes down the railways of Siberia would aim to get last strikes against the US, China and Europe?

[gtrof]

Originally Posted by Corbell Mark IV

Sorry, still to crazy.

Perhaps a year or two of convential fighting in the SU while the overall situation with the oil shock continues to deteriorate. Admittedly oil production would be rising thoughout this time, but the ripple effects coudl still be going stronger than the postive effects of rising production.

Perhaps when the coup is finally defeated and the last of the hardliners realizes that they are facing certain warcrime trials and executions, then they lauch was nukes are still in their control.

Could be a smaller crash, more people alive for stories and adventures.

Another suggestion, the first nuclear use is done by the Russians during the civil war against the opposite side. The US fearing the Soviets have lost control of their weapons decide to go for a counterforce strike to elimnate the USSR nukes before they completelly lose control.

[archangel]

If the southern Hemisphere is hit, large parts of both hemispheres will be either a radiocative wasteland (mostly the case of the Northern hemisphere) or lawless (mostly the case of the southern Hemisphere), due to the colapse of global trade, and the strain put on the governements, especially in more fragile nations.
Most of the reminder will survive in third world conditions, while some "luckier" parts of the world will be in second-world conditions.
It is possible that the next decades will be spent by the "lucky" nations helping the "unlucky" reassert control of their territories, a few more decades slowly recovering economically and trying to prop some semblance of order in the failed states.

[Corbell Mark IV]

Originally Posted by gtrof

Another suggestion, the first nuclear use is done by the Russians during the civil war against the opposite side. The US fearing the Soviets have lost control of their weapons decide to go for a counterforce strike to elimnate the USSR nukes before they completelly lose control.

Especially if they have intellegence (correctly?) indicating that the losers are seriously considering taking the world to hell with them.

But of course things don't go as planned...

[gtrof]

Originally Posted by Corbell Mark IV

Especially if they have intellegence (correctly?) indicating that the losers are seriously considering taking the world to hell with them.

But of course things don't go as planned...

I'd imagine the President might do it even without good or bad intelligence. If a nuke goes off people are going to be running around like chickens with their heads cut off. If the Soviet arsenal is no longer secure there is no guarantee that the west won't be attacked anyway. Although it would be the mission of CINCs NORAD, SAC, and SACLANT plus the Sec Def to keep the president cool they too might argue its more dangerous NOT to launch.

[Corbell Mark IV]

Originally Posted by gtrof

I'd imagine the President might do it even without good or bad intelligence. If a nuke goes off people are going to be running around like chickens with their heads cut off. If the Soviet arsenal is no longer secure there is no guarantee that the west won't be attacked anyway. Although it would be the mission of CINCs NORAD, SAC, and SACLANT plus the Sec Def to keep the president cool they too might argue its more dangerous NOT to launch.

Agreed. THis is a reasonable senerio.