PDA

View Full Version : Nuclear War in the 80s - how would history have remembered Samantha Smith?



Victoria O'Keefe
04-08-2016, 11:51
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Smith

How would history have remembered her if a NATO-Warsaw Pact version of World War III had broken out in the 80s?

zabadak
04-08-2016, 13:51
There was a nuclear war in the 80s? I missed it??? :eek:

marc
06-08-2016, 15:03
Probably not remembered at all. It would not have been a limited nuclear war, it would have escalated.

zabadak
08-08-2016, 13:55
Limited to where? Essex? :confused:

I. R. Fincham
08-08-2016, 15:49
If nucleare war broke out, there wouldn't be many people left to remember her at all.

Twocky61
08-08-2016, 17:32
MAD stopped all nuclear war. Mutually Assured Destruction. We each know if we launch the other side will pick up the launch by satellite detection & thus will launch theirs. It is a no-win situation as shown in the movie War Games

marc
09-08-2016, 01:25
Limited to where? Essex? :confused:

A limited nuclear war is where only one or two missiles are fired by each opposing sides, IE. NATO and Warsaw Pact. No more are fired, regardless of the destruction caused. The next step would be all out nuclear war. Most , if not all warheads used. There was, and still is, a hotline between the White House and the Kremlin. This would have been used in the event of any warhead being used. Since the 1950s, we came very close to war. The Cuban Missile Crises being the most well known. The blockade of west Berlin being another. During this blockade, western planes actually flew over East German territory. Fortunately, none were shot down. There were also smaller incidents, planes mistakenly flying into Eastern/Western territory. During Operation Crusader, a big NATO exercise in the early 1980s, Russia actually thought NATO was going to invade the Warsaw Pact area, they were actually getting ready for war. They only stepped down when the exercise ended. It would only have taken ONE mistake to spark something off.

Twocky61
09-08-2016, 07:51
A limited nuclear war is where only one or two missiles are fired by each opposing sides, IE. NATO and Warsaw Pact. No more are fired, regardless of the destruction caused. The next step would be all out nuclear war. Most , if not all warheads used. There was, and still is, a hotline between the White House and the Kremlin. This would have been used in the event of any warhead being used. Since the 1950s, we came very close to war. The Cuban Missile Crises being the most well known. The blockade of west Berlin being another. During this blockade, western planes actually flew over East German territory. Fortunately, none were shot down. There were also smaller incidents, planes mistakenly flying into Eastern/Western territory. During Operation Crusader, a big NATO exercise in the early 1980s, Russia actually thought NATO was going to invade the Warsaw Pact area, they were actually getting ready for war. They only stepped down when the exercise ended. It would only have taken ONE mistake to spark something off.

I read about that; can't remember where

marc
09-08-2016, 20:42
Sorry, think I made a mistake!!! It may have been called Exercise Crusader. Operation Crusader happened during WW2.

Victoria O'Keefe
17-08-2016, 22:55
Able Archer, wasn't it.

We are also lucky that Lt. Petrov didn't listen to his computers.

Richard1978
18-08-2016, 18:28
Able Archer, wasn't it.

We are also lucky that Lt. Petrov didn't listen to his computers.

Yes I've heard that was like "War Games" in real life for the Soviets.

staffslad
26-08-2016, 14:13
In the book 'The Third World War' by General Sir John Hackett, there is a limited nuclear exchange between Nato and Warsaw Pact. Birmingham and an Eastern Bloc city--can't remember which--are destroyed.

War planners also worked scenarios where nuclear exchanges were limited to a theatre of war, usually Europe, in which significant amounts of nuclear strikes by weapons like cruise missiles, Pershing and SS20 occur but the two, as then, superpowers escape unscathed (in the sense that no detonations occur on US and Russian territory), retaining their strategic arsenals intact to ensure MAD. I don't know if it is true but I read years ago that those war games where limited or theatre nuclear exchanges were envisaged always ended in strategic exchanges.

staffslad
26-08-2016, 14:15
That Eastern Bloc city may have been Kiev, part of the then Soviet Union but not Russian territory.

marc
28-08-2016, 07:54
In the book 'The Third World War' by General Sir John Hackett, there is a limited nuclear exchange between Nato and Warsaw Pact. Birmingham and an Eastern Bloc city--can't remember which--are destroyed.

I read this book, soon after it was published. There is a nuclear exchange destroying two cities. A cease fire is called afterwards. Both cities are never rebuilt. They are known afterwards has The Cities of Peace.

There is an alternative ending to this book where the Soviets win. The British economy is then restructured an then run very similar to the communist way.

staffslad
28-08-2016, 16:05
Hi Mark...was the alternate ending where the WP wins included as an appendix? There was a later book by Hackett called 'The Third World War: the Untold Story'.

marc
28-08-2016, 18:07
Staffslad, Hi, I'm not sure. TBH, I'd forgotten about this book until it was mentioned here. I lost the book many years ago. It was left where my father was then working, he had borrowed it. He was taken sick, but never returned. The building has long been demolished.

staffslad
30-08-2016, 17:13
I also mislaid my copy decades ago. It made headlines on its publication and I remember various interviews that Hackett gave to promote it.

malinom
12-07-2017, 16:57
Can you imagine that I've never heard about Samantha? Thank you so much for sharing this post and making my knowledge bigger.