In the event of Nuclear War, how would non-aligned states have

>NATO and WARSAW pact exchanging 5000 megatons

That would be Glorious. Best day of my life. Northern Irelanders would probably be beggin to join, and protestants would be sucking IRA cock for provisions. don't blame us for being /non-aligned/. hope owning subsaharan shitholes and unpopulated indian ocean islands was worth getting nuked by commies, bongs.

>>33640623
>what would happen,
They'd make fucking bank selling fertilizer, Steel, fuel, grain, and medicine to 2 billion people, that's what. new shitskin superpowers emerge in the global south, meanwhile Americans get superpowers and shit skin from radiation. I say it's a fair trade, desu.

>>33640623
>In the event of Nuclear War, how would non-aligned states have been treated?
With complete and utter lack of regard, for better or worse. If they're in a strategically-contested region, they could get steamrolled like Belgium in either World War, or if they're in some irrelevant or costly position like Switzerland or Argentina they may be ignored entirely (and quite possibly benefit extensively from the aftermath, as per >>33640699)

>>33640792
Do you think the Soviets would chuck a handful of nukes at like Mexico or we at China just to fuck them up so the superpowers have a harder time? How would the USSR feel, sending their entire arsennal at the USA, and then suddenly being a weaker nation than Pakistan. They should send a nuke to every capital just to make sure they don't get outpaced.

>>33640699
dat wordplay

>>33640826
That would be the absolute douchiest thing to no matter what the strategic benefit would be. I really hope that the Soviet dead-man switch is just a meme and nothing else

Sweden would take its rightful position as the dominant power in Europe.

Gustavus Adolphus would be proud.

>>33641846
With the coming collapse of Germany, Italy, Russia, Poland and maybe even France Sweden wouldn't have any real opposition to regional power status in the coming decades.

>>33640623
>>33640792
>>33641846
This is assuming Sweden, Switzerland, Yugoslavia, etc aren't destroyed by fallout that gets pushed around by weather and shit. I mean it may be survivable but Southern Hemisphere is the way to go.

>>33640623
In most US attack options there were selections to target economic targets in the 3rd world to prevent their use by the Soviets.
It is likely that the Soviets had similar plans, but it is not known for certainty.
Current US nuclear doctrine would seem to preclude this as a possibility, and there are likely no existing options that would target non-aligned nations, but it would not take long to produce them in the run up to a crisis.

>>33640826
>>33641482

Why do you think the US planned to hit neutral nations in any conflict with Russia? Targets included China, India and Japan to prevent them becoming major powers that could threaten a (hugely) weakened US post nuclear exchange.

>>33642211
>Targets included China, India and Japan to prevent them becoming major powers that could threaten a (hugely) weakened US post nuclear exchange.
Not really. The plan was to hit those targets that the US believed would be used by the Soviets. It had nothing really to do with attempting to hold them back.

>>33642245
'Them' being the neutral nations.

>>33642245

By used by the Soviets do you mean nuking farmland in say India to irradiate crops so the Soviets can't use them for food?

>>33642245
Was everyone who planned for MAD basically a gigantic cunt?

>>33642280
No. Oil and port facilities. Industrial facilities. Things like that. Targeting farmland is very inefficient.

>>33642285
No. They were trying to prevent a nuclear war.

>>33642405
Psssst, hey oppen......

I love you no homo...

Just kidding about the no home part.

>>33642405

What do you think would be the reaction if a neutral country got nuked? Did the US ever plan to nuke allies to stop certain things falling into Russian hands?

>>33643422
>What do you think would be the reaction if a neutral country got nuked?
Outrage and anger.

>Did the US ever plan to nuke allies to stop certain things falling into Russian hands?
Yes.

>>33643579
Especially Germany would have been sterilized - but only by both sides

>>33642280
You can scrape the top layer of irradiated soil off, bag it, and go back to work, kind of like we saw a bit with Fukashima. An irradiated fueling dock would be a damn nightmare, so much metal to absorb that delicious radiation.

>>33643579
Did the US ever plan to nukes the UK?

>>33643868
You know he can't answer anything that specific.

>>33641889
Sweden will collapse before any of these

>>33643868
No, the UK is a huge contributor to NATO and is nuclear armed itself. the soviets would've already dropped 300 megatons on everything remotely important. from there they are just trying to scavenge whatever they can.

>>33640623
>the massive transfer of power to the 3rd world that would take place.
You're not familiar with average national IQ or economics, are you?


>Obviously a large part of the world would still be affected by fallout
Literally a non-issue. Fallout is a meme that literally solves itself.
Worst case scenario the retards die in a day or three, and the somewhat less retarded retards have a statistically shorter life expectancy.

Even if fallout didn't solve itself, water is something like 99.9% effective at removing fallout. So all you need to do is mobilize the firefighting aircraft over cities. Just don't be a sewer person, or you'll get a terminal dosage in minutes.

>refugees
You mean corpses? If you're stupid enough to move, you'll die.

>shortages
Try surplus. Less people, same resources. We would only face petrochem shortages, because most of central/east texas is a strategic target.
(people don't realize that chemicals and fuel are refined/'produced' domestically)

>environmental disaster
Environmental science is about as legitimate as psychology. (read: it's pseudoscience)
Worst case scenario, the yellowstone caldera goes off and average global temperature drops by 1-3 degrees for a year and half.

>economic recession
inb4 6 months.
Supply dropped in accordance with demand (less people, less demand), people would be miserable for about 4 months, but after a year and a half they wouldn't know the difference. It's a non-issue.