In this video I explore what could've happened had Stanislav Petrov not saved the world in 1983, but taken the nuclear false alarm incident seriously, triggering a third world war between the Soviet Union and United States.
little thing i will say is the person mentioned at the beginning, that isn’t him, that’s Vasili Arkhipov, he’s famous for being the person who voted no on firing on american vessels during the cuban missile crisis
One thing to point out is, to my knowledge, the nuclear bomb attacks on Japan were air bursts. A ground burst would irradiate and kick up a lot more material, leading to more fallout. So if an attacker wanted to cause as much fallout as possible, for whatever fucked-up reason, they could go for ground bursts.
@@seamusfinnegan1164yeah, it’s still a common misconception that it’s gonna lead to nuclear winter, which was based on horrible models and data from the 60s. It’s still propagated and treated as fact since it’s never happened and because the west is scared of nuclear power even though it’s not that dangerous.
The ground bursts would likely be used in attacks against enemy nuclear facilities, underground bunkers, missile silos etc. Meaning fallout would probably spread for a lot around Montana in the US. Airbursts have a higher blast yield (if i am saying it correctly) so destroys more and leaves less fallout. Those would be used on cities, where the only target is to create as much blast destruction as possible.
@@codysparks1454 Youre free to do it. I myself have written a book on how I would live in plague wipped out 99,99% of the population, quite depressing even tho I gave myself a dream girl realism demands we are atleast in denial about having lost everyone weve ever known.
I like how the map shows that all the land in the Netherlands that is below sea level is actually underwater since the Delta works would most likely have been hit and a lot of other dams would have been collateral damage or otherwise just not taken care of for a decade by that point. It shows that you have put real care and research into this video!
Most of the issues that limited Brazil don't having access to technologies such as semiconductors or their own microchips in the 1980s was because of the patent protection, as some nationalized corporations indeed had the know how of making microchips , like Engesa and Embraer, had the both the theoretical and practical knowledge of creating microchips. Engesa actually made 70% of their microchips on house between 1982-1984 thanks to partnerships with foreigners companies, and because of their oversea partners decided to not renovate the production license, the engineers had to stop the local production. If the global nuclear war would happen in 1983, I am sure the Brazilian Government would be not considerate the international pattern laws in such situations. Considering how much scarce food would become, food producing nations would be able to profit a lot from the situation, but nations that really mainly on mineral and oil extraction will face severe economical drawbacks. Also, considering the growing democratic movement across Brazil during the 1980s would bring the nation to a liberal democracy in 1985 and creation of a stable currency in the 1990s.
I think Yugoslavia would be even more united in this scenario. Throughout history the times when Yugoslavia was most unified were characterized by its government using the "us vs them" mentality (ww2 and immediately post ww2 when Yugoslavia was kicking out and massacring its Italians and Germans). With so many refugees the Yugoslavs would see them all as outsiders and would probably even start to hate any non Yugoslavs (non shtokavian and kaykavian speakers) within their borders like the Gheghs and Hungarians. It would probably be a ruthless country that's extremely xenophobic, but there would be peace between the major subdivisions of the Yugoslav ethnicity. Not to mention there would be no significant US involvement in Yugoslav internal affairs in this timeline which would strengthen the stability of the nation. The alternative would be that they split up in an even bloodier war than in the 90s in our timeline since the borders in this video don't reflect the ethnic map of pre 90s Yugoslavia at all.
On the other hand religion is often what the masses use as copium in times much less severe than these and the real seperator between croathians and serbijans is chatolism versus orthadoxy.
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 But in this timeline socialism suppresses the religion(s). Besides I doubt that many people would trust God after they had radioactive particles blasted in their direction...
@@baltulielkungsgunarsmiezis9714 Well yea, but in 1983 Tito still held a firm grasp on inter-ethnic yugoslav politics so he'd swiftly turn the narrative as a way to demonize migrants and make religious people seem like crazy people for believing in God at a time like this.
That would happen even if the Cold War didn’t end in nuclear holocaust. There’s a chance that Cuba would be the disgruntled Americans new home when the embargo ends. And right now there’s Americans leaving the USA for Mexico.
@@Bibben I think the Australian wouldn't let that slide for Suharto (if the scenario set in the 80s), Australia and Indonesia historicaly has always on bad relationship and only the recent decades that The Australia and Indonesia government are trying to improve their diplomatic relationship.
I'd say Argentina and Brazil are in position to become some of the greatest powers of the world: abundant resources, tiny but relatively highly educated population (at least in the case of Argentina), landmass are all things that just make them win in the long run. Brazil already had big industries at the time, and a relatively big economy (for a south american country), it just had a lot of inequality, but that is something that can be fixed As for Argentina, it already was a net exporter of food at the time, now combine it with and highly educated population, the knowhow of several important technologies, like semiconductors, rocketry (the Tronador MRBM and plans for long range ballistic missiles) and nuclear energy and weapons technology (they gave the necessary technology to Israel to start their nuclear energy and weapons program). And then, the amount of immigration they would both receive, specially if it includes a lot of high skilled workers, I'd say Brazil at the very least is becoming the next superpower in a few decades in this scenario
Are you talking about the countries that will become a super power after nuclear war? It would be likely that they would still be reliant on the northern hemisphere because that will still exist but the cities in northern hemisphere won't
Global superpowers after the war: 1.Brazil 2. Argentina 3. India 4. Australia 5. South Africa 6. Mexico 7. Venezuela 8. Perú 9. United States 10. New Zealand
6:20 Do you really think the Soviet Union would have wasted nuclear bombs on Norway? Norway had, and have, little if any attack weapons and pose no danger to anyone. They have, and probably had, some weapons stored for the US, but those would be deep inside mountains and probably safe from nuclear attacks anyway. They might have dropped a bomb on Oslo, just to be a-holes, but other than that, I don't think Norway would be worth a bomb.
Agreed. We had a decent military then VS we in nørwey now have a pathetic military in comparison. Special forces the one of few things thats great. Oh and the hypocritical term " peace " nation is worthless. We let the US buy our ammo to be used against targets, so our govrnment can say " we didnt contribute to war, we didnt sell to offending parties 🤪😈
Any remaining infrastructure could be used in counterattack or to deploy more US forces. Remember: they're planning a war ("rush to English Channel"), not an apocalypse, at least during first strike week.
I mean, it would become a new European power though that could challenge them, I could see why since they wanted to destroy everyone before they destroyed them
So from a certain point of view (australia and Brazil), a nuclear war would have been the ultimate moment of victory, near ensuring rise to world dominance over the following century and in turn securing far more power over world trade and a much more favourable national development. Particularly Australia, where even with a bad nuclear winter occurring and absolute end to world trade, they can recover near immediately and are almost forced to make temporary colonies to secure trade for a while. Now I need to see a post apocalyptic world where Ireland is europes golden child, the rest is basically tribes and feudal agricultural based at best, america is divided and immigrating south not north with Brazil, Argentina and maybe eventually Colombia taking dominance. Where australia is quickly becoming a colonial trade and military power with an ever radicalising and more expansionist government due tot he sheer disparity in technology, city and tech preservation and quality farmland (very ironic). While China is in the warlord period again, africa is basically reverted to pre colonial in most areas so who knows that the other parts will do and how the remaining technology there will affect things. Absolutely a wild world for further expansion, honestly novel worthy to see how things digress a half century or more later. Plus Scandinavia is strong as hell which is a win.
I see no reason why Africa “reverts” to pre colonial levels though, atleast moreso than anyone else up north. They would have less of a chance at being prominent compared to their South American or Oceanian counterparts but I can definitely envision them still getting by.
I imagine that the only 2 things that would really change in Africa is international aid would end (which wouldn't change much as most of it gets embezzled anyways,) and the UN would no longer get involved with the affairs of the African nations, which could be either a disaster or a blessing, depending on who you ask.
One thing you failed to mention is the fallout by existing nuclear reactors. Without the institutions or people to keep nuclear reactors going, we could see a lot of people dying not just from the fallout of the nuclear bombs, but also the fallout from the inevitable destruction of the reactors. France with its many nuclear reactors for such a small country would have a lot issues to deal with, along with its neighbors. Basically, many chernobyls happening at the same time around europe and north america.
I believe scientists agree a nuclear winter would be 1-5 years. Plus, people have another misconception about nuclear winter… it’s a nuclear “WINTER”, not “Eternal Nuclear BLIZZARD”
Global superpowers after the war: 1.Brazil 2. Argentina 3. India 4. Australia 5. South Africa 6. Mexico 7. Venezuela 8. Perú 9. United States 10. New Zealand
Actually, if you will look at some soviet plans of nuclear bombardment, you will see that most of warheads will be launched not on civilians and cities but on one region where most of american warheads and military production located, its mostly because of very big intel of USSR, so they know where are warheads located, and US is not (not entirely sure about intel of us, maybe they know too but wanted to just destroy USSR so they can't build back and be big threat) (Sorry for some bad english, im not native speaker :))
Biggest assumption politically is Deng just siding with the USSR after it had started the war and China prospering due to trade with the West. China would just lean back and become the new super power. It would offer asylum for scientists, engineers etc. and use its intact system for trading. After the war, it would annex Eastern Siberia with its massive resources.
The bombs that dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were designed to detonate in the air. That’s why Hiroshima and Nagasaki don’t look like a nuclear waste land. Nukes can cause damage that can last for centuries if detonated on the ground.
11:36 But Italy? We have Sicily and Sardinia which are autonomous (realistic), a "Neapolitan" (or Partenopean) state, an autonomous Tuscany and what remains of the Italian republic... interesting
This is the third video of yours that i have now watched, and i just realized that all of those three videos i watched were yours, so congrats, you happened to show up on my feed three separate times, and i enjoyed all of them, new subscriber incoming
Hello I know it's been years but I really wish we got a 3rd part to what if Rome survived. Not the one where they conquer all of Europe but just the eastern part. I thought it could really go somewhere
I would advise you to take a look at two RPG setting. the first one being "Twilight: 2000" and its "successor", 2300AD by GDW. the first one had a pretty good and quite gruesome depiction of the world following a Nuclear war. the second, is what happened 300 years later. the good part is that they role played the 300 years span which produced a surprisingly organic time line.... albeit optimistic. you should check it out.
Mutation is the raw material of evolutionary change. Radiation causes mutation. The next generation of baby squirrels, petunias, worms, sharks, dogs, and people (in those few that survive the genetic changes) would be interesting. This could be encouraging, because we can't say that we are perfected now - a perfected species would not have a nuclear war.
This was a fascinating thought exercise. Thank you for the video. It's a somewhat grim reminder of just how terrible an optimistic scenario of total nuclear war would be. Hopefully it's something we won't experience. God be with you out there everybody. ✝️ :)
You guys need to watch the movies “Threads” and “The Day After”. Both are on RU-vid and they’ll give you an idea of what this world looks and feels like. But be warned, it’s a harrowing experience. Do it sober and with close friends and loved ones around
I think the risk of famine is over-blown. Many crops currently planted, like cotton and salad greens, don’t provide many calories, in the case of disaster, the land could be used for high calorie grains and potatoes. Livestock could be culled to divert grains for human use. Diets wouldn’t be great, but there could be enough to at least sustain. The main risk is from poor distribution, fuel for trucks, rail networks damaged etc. The USA produces a stupid amount of grain, so much that they feed it to millions of livestock, or refine it into syrup for soda.
Neutral countries in Europe such as Switzerland would still be affected, as winds could lead to some nuclear fallout spreading to them, with massive refugee flows
at 1:01 the photo of the man who you put is Vasili Arkhipov, he also had saved the world while on board a soviet nuclear submarine near Cuba. An American naval vessel had not detected the submarine and was patrolling and was approaching the submarine. Out of fear, 2 of the three Soviet naval officers had ordered the firing of an ICBM to mainland America, he was the only soviet officer to abstain the launch and instead opted to communicate with the American vessel. Had he not been on board the submarine, we would all be dead.
I wonder how this would affect western countries culturally, as during this time, a lot was changing. If suddenly war happened, I doubt the peace loving hippies would actually be able to fight, and it would once again revert to a militaristic culture like in WW2. I’m sure that coming out of the war, there would be a sense of unity in some places, but not everywhere. I’m sure in some countries local gangs or governments would just take over.
You underestimate how underdeveloped the USSR was. My grandparrents used a horse to plow the fields on their farm all the way to the year 2000. Lack of oil and electronics would not be a problem to people who worked on their farm the way their ancestors had since the year 1500.
you mentioned that the nukes are over exaggerated in fiction, which is partially true, but then you related them to Hiroshima and Nagasaki… in such a scenario taking place in the 80’s, both sides would have nukes that are over a thousand times more powerful than the ones dropped in 1945
ireland is a good assumption but its important to realise that there would be huge conflict in the north and likely some in the Republic too due to Britain's collapse, and the fact that weapons were already in the area in their thousands, but a reunification could happen in this scenario, just not in 10 years
I would like to point out one flaw in this video. The fact of fertilizers. Since alot of unaffected nations are reliant on affected nations for imports of fertilizers either manufactured or extracted. This leads to alot of these nations suddenly losing much of their population as their agricultural yields drop like a rock in the ocean unless some nations can start making the necessary fertilizers themselves. Also due to canadas sheer size and lack of US army bases and other various key targets. outside of toronto and ottawa, nothing would really be targeted, leaving much of the country unscathed with the exception of fallout. Which would not affect most areas due to prevailing winds predominately heading south. The war would however lead to much of the country splitting apart if ottawa was hit as various provinces would opt to abandon ontario and go their own way. Fun fact by this point most of the industry outside of military manufacturing would have spread out across the country. Being concentrated primarily in western provinces.
I can see Austria going down a more irridentist path, pushing to slowly integrate bavaria and maybe even bohemia. Or south tyrol, depending on how bad Italy is doing after it
*(**13:09**).* 'post-Terran-bound era UCN capital/UCN colonies(/even a bit of the breakaway ICSA colonists')/and even a bit of Terran-bound pre-UCN era Humankind: "heh...."'.
In 1983, Brazil was exiting a twenty years military dictatorship and entering another twenty years of economic crisis. Our first civil and directly elected president only came in 1989. In such scenário of nuclear war and destruction of the nothern hemisphere, i think that the only way to the contry survive the humanitary crisis that followed is by a returning of a exception governement that would as brutal than the previous regime. without a global economy, the country could concentrate it's energy in the making of a strong industrialization [it would be interesting if the chinese model was taken, or at least the old national-desenvolvimentist of the previously decades]. in the "lead years" of dictators like Garrastazu Médici and Ernesto Geisel (1969-1979), the governement lead the country to a nationalistic model of economy and diplomacy that made the country more close to the global south.
Even without a nuclear winter; the overwhelming majority of industrial fertilizer, artificial non pollinating seeds and agricultural equipment manufacturing that is responsible for the consequential increase in crop yields of the past century, is located within the potential belligerent countries territories. Studies estimating planetary carrying capacity using preindustrial agricultural practices provide a range of 600-800 million as being sustainable in terms of a global population. Unfortunately released data from declassified belligerent parties war plans cite the destruction of fertile agricultural regions as a priority. Primarily using ground impact detonations. Which create a longer lasting radiation impact. And with the majority of global arable farmland located within the targeted northern hemisphere, planetary carrying capacity would be significantly reduced. With some modeling predicting a meager 200-300 million as being sustainable afterwards. Additionally the majority of pharmaceutical manufacturing for both antivirals and antibiotics, along with medical equipment is produced by the belligerent countries. Loss of these facilities would compound the spread of disease along with subsequent conditions. If it happened today the death toll would be anywhere from 5-7 billion.
Although war came close, at least say twice, both sides were too afraid to do it given the chance of going nuclear. Unlike now, say since 1992 (USSR broke by Christmas 91), when at least one side is more inclined to use mass destruction weapons. Not yet nukes but more so than before for sure (rhythm intended 😊)
The bombs that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki werent that lethal and destructive mainly becauss they didn't actually hit the two cities directly. It was more like they exploded in the sky, which resulted in fewer radiation particles sticking to solid objects, which was the reason why the two cities are habitable today.
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki the nukes were detonated before hitting the ground, less deadly and less aftermath due to the ground not becoming poisoned, thats wgy they couls recover but chernobyl can’t a nuclear strike would be less deadly atleast the aftermath of it.
A nuclear winter isn't an actual winter - that is, no snow - but rather a period when the sun is blocked out, so less solar radiation reaches the surface of the planet, preventing plant growth. Interestingly, some researchers consider that the nuclear winter would actually make the climate hotter due to a greenhouse effect.
Like you said in the video we probably see Brazil reach its full potential and finally becomes a superpower. Brazil probably gets French Guinea from France and expands its territory a bit.
@@GwainSagaFanChannel eh I think Guyana and Surnaime would be fine. But French Guinea isn't an independent nation. So in theory they could get away with it.
0:53 I8m so confused about this silly little map, what is the landmass on the right supposed to be? You have Europe, two icelands and then like… Atlantis…?
I find it funny that nuclear winter is the scariest thing to most people but its results with more recent studies are basically in line with what climate scientists say our current state is with climate change assuming the event happened during the height of the cold war.
Could the remains of the Soviet Præsidium be forced to nationalise any and all semi-independent enterprises, putting down the dominant petit-bourgeois trend that had been rising since the 1950's?
Yes. Capitalism would not develop in the USSR. The reforms only happened due to the perceived incompetence of the soviet model compared to the west, which didn't even hit an apogee until 1990. In 1983 there is no chance of a capitalist restoration.
Dude argentina and chile would be far better than new zeland and Australia, they are more far south than Oceania, at the gates of Antarctica and its winds that would clean nuclear pollution
How come a nuclear winter only negligibly affects the southern hemisphere and equatorial zone? Keep in mind that developed countries in the southern hemisphere aren’t exactly developed economies
IIRC, due to the wind patterns, there wouldn't be a lot of debris exchanged between the northern and southern hemispheres. Thus, the south is largely spared from both the radiation and the nuclear-winter causing debris.
Just predicting a few events. India and Pakistan 100% go to war, could turn nuclear. Massive civil war in apartheid South Africa at some point. South America probably becomes the new center of gravity for humanity. I could see an economic union forming where they trade food, oil, and other goods to the wealthier nations like Finland, Sweeden, and Australia that didn't get hit. Iran becomes a regional power. Probably ends up dominating the middle east and Central Asia if the Soviets lose control. Trade in pacific as a whole is far less relevant with China now destroyed, so Singapore and the other trading states likely never get a surge a wealth in the 21 century. A lot of civil wars in Africa on the whole. I expect within 20 - 50 years the borders of most states will be vastly different. The table governments like Botswana and Tanzania, will be region powers (could also get involved in the South African civil war). Arab States never become rich with their largest markets (in Europe and China) now gone, trade networks destroyed, and their own massive food security issues. Also, some like Syria or Lebanon could get nuked in a future conflict with Israel. Mexica erects a massive wall on their northern border. Maybe some ethnic Mexican Americans will be allowed back in but the rest won't be. There could also be a war between whatever American government is left in the southwest and them.
In the year without summer 1/3 of the finish population emigrated to other parts of the Russijan Empire precicely because it was in the north that snow stayed till Midsummer. Latvijas protogernment (Rīgas latviešu society) was founded precicely to help the fins, this time wed have bigger problems of our own. Also your coloration of Latvija is quite wrong. Rural highlands would do much better than urban lowlands when they are being targeted by US nukes.
I know you said the borders are entirely speculative, but there's still one thing that seems very odd, that Greater Arabia in the Middle East. With the collapse of the world economy, half of the region would be in free fall due to lack of revenue from selling oil and then the food scarcity would hit, we saw a recession and increase in food prices plus regional droughts causing the Arab spring and winter, I doubt countries like Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia wouldn't collapse into civil war especially as most of them are regimes of small elite, often of a minority, ruling over a country with not that strong of a national identity. A Greater Arabia failed to happen in normal times, I doubt it can happen in the famine and economical collapse after a nuclear war and with a revolutionary Iran and the possibly new Kurdistan, spreading rebellions. And even if such state forms, why would Lebanon, a fragile country already in civil war at the time, not be conquered by this Greater Arabia while Israel, a way more powerful country with nukes would?
and with all of North America and almost all of Europe destroyed, Brazil would probably be the super power in the world since there would be practically no country in the northern emissphere for at least fifty to one hundred years, making everything else start to evolve much faster making the northern hemisphere in the future be today's Africa and Syria and it would take years for any country in the northern hemisphere to reach the economic level of California
Nah. The whites would end up on top much faster. They always do. Europe would innovate and be back in the running in short order. Africa would remain what they were and would be exactly like they are today.
у всех нормальных государств есть разработанные планы войны почти со всеми соседями и теми кто угрожает, у нас и у сша все еще есть планы по уничтожению друг друга, наш термоядерный арсенал ВСЕГДА на страже, плюс если нас всех не станет, все равно есть система запуска "мертвая рука", то что про атомную войну не говорят, не значит что не существует опасности
Something that I noticed in like every alternate history scenario with the USA collapsing is that Black Americans never get their own country. Why are we always tied to White America. It’s like Alternate historians are unimaginative and can’t see Black Americans splitting off the White America.
Well, it is because of demographic figures. In most places, white and black Americans carry relative population figures to one another. In the south, where there are the most amount of African Americans, there are still at most 50 50 splits with white americans. There is no clear ethnic or culture edge one has over another.
@@thescientist1202 I understand that, but in the event America collapses I’m sure the country would Balkanize. Also there are regions in America where Black Americans make up the ethnic majority. I just find it strange that Mormons get their own country but Black Americans are tethered to White Americans until the end of time.
@@RHR199X I have as well but it’s not a popular concept. I think White Americans are unable to see Black Americans splitting off from them and having their own country.
Interesting vid! Whos saying nuclear war wont happen, or worse? You would think that all the sports around the world would settle differences as a peaceful kinds of " war ", yet hooligans and cheaters bubble up and disprove such claims. No, we are animals, we CRAVE savage violence and such to cure out such emotions. I say the old Roman " empire " were correct on ONE thing. Gladitorial Arenas. I say we need those back, watch criminals and the worst world leaders forced to fight to all of our amusments also tvose addicted to money would earn shaitons on mayhems in different sizes of arenas! Publicum must be protected though behond plexiglass etc
Yeah, it’s funny how we act like this was so barbaric and horrible yet when fights break out in school or outside, we always film and watch them, enjoying them fighting. It’s something primal into us about it, we are still animals, we’ve just been told to repress our primal instincts due to societal expectations.
The Covid pandemic was basically like a mini scenario of that. At the start, everyone was peaceful, but as time went on people become more radicalized and crazy, never wanting to hear anything about the other side of things or any other opinion but they’re own.
Fallout is only one of the problems. With 70,000 nuclear weapons being launched, there would be enough to destroy 35-70,000 cities. The recent climate science suggests that there would be more than a "year without summer" - the nuclear winter could last up to two decades. In the first year, there would be 40% crop failure, which would particularly hit populations across the planet - we only have about three months' reserves of food. In any case, it's predicted that in the first year hundreds of millions of people would die in Africa of starvation - a continent without nuclear weapons, but wiped out all the same. Ah, nuclear power is a different story you rightly say. In a nuclear war they would either be direct targets or - in the absence of backup electricity and quickly running out of diesel - every nuclear power plant in the world would become a Chernobyl. One of the effects of radiation from these nuclear power plants would be cancers, but also impacts on growth caused by radiation effects on the hormonal systems of plants, animals and humans. And if the 70,000 nuclear weapons - or even the current 5,000 nuclear weapons launched, there is a high likelihood of causing a sudden drop in world temperatures, enough to trigger the next Ice Age. (We are technically in an inter-glacial period). This would wipe out anything that looks like civilisation. There is no optimistic result from nuclear weapons. We need staged nuclear disarmament, as envisaged in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which implements Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Не согласен с азиатскими и европейскими границами России. Сибирь и Дальний Восток Китаю так просто не отдали бы, как и Кольский полуостров финнам, Украину, Беларусь, Крым и Казахстан.
Excellent because the northern hemisphere will be destroyed with no USA, Europe or USSR meaning the countries in the southern hemisphere will be able to develop into the new superpowers of the world. Australian and New Zealand English will be the most spoken form of the language meaning that the word colour would be spelled the Australian and New Zealand way instead of the American way. The same thing would apply to Spanish and Portuguese because European Spanish and Portuguese would die out due to Europe being nuked while the Latin American forms of the two languages will survive and become the most well known forms of the languages. Australian and New Zealand would become self reliant superpowers instead of pawns of the USA and the politicians who get into office after WW3 hopefully would realise that we shouldn't bow down to the Americans or the Chinese because both of them don't have our best interests at heart and the fact that both of their governments are dead due to being nuked into the stone age. Latin America also would realize that there is no help coming from the northern hemisphere and become self reliant and become 1st world countries while the countries in the northern hemisphere will become third world countries and wouldn't be able to recover for a couple of centuries. Africa should also become self reliant because it is unlikely for them to get nuked because they're far away from the major powers and they're siting on a goldmine of resources meaning that they can develop and there will be no Americans or Russians trying to exploit them for their resources meaning they wouldn't be a slave to the superpowers.
