What if World War 3 happened in the 90s?

If the Soviet Union decided to stop the Fall Of The Wall in 1989, it would have started WW3.

Would there be Internet if that happened? Would nuclear war break out? Would Russia or the United States win? Would there be a humanity in 2009?

reply to post by Donnie Darko


Dear Donnie Darko

For the answer to this see Nevil Shute on the beach.

It would have meant the end of us all.

Any out right war between the super powers will result in Atomic War, end of story.

I was think that too.
if it did, then i would of grown up in a war zone. thats achully insane

Originally posted by superdebz
I was think that too.
if it did, then i would of grown up in a war zone. thats achully insane

i know! it would probably be worse than the first two world wars put together as well. =(

reply to post by Donnie Darko


Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I don't think, from comments about 'war-zone' or 'probably be worse than the two first world wars combined' that the full implications of WW3 with a full thermonuclear war /MAD deployment by 1 or more superpowers, especially at 1990s armament levels, has yet been correctly reflected in this thread.

Perhaps look at the TV series 'Threads' to get more of an idea of the chain of events that were anticipated - it's on You Tube- it ran in the UK in the eighties. Cut to the final few episodes if you wish, within a few generations, even those that survive seem likely to face dreadful issues re: degeneration of reproductive abilities, and the rest...That level of nuclear conflict would likely wipe the world ecosystem, cockroaches, flies and the like may get through?

I wasn't allowed to watch it (as a child) then, but am still chilled by memories of my families responses to it, that time, occasional nightmares and panic during times of crisis or peaks in political tensions, and witnessing the massive US/UK war machine active around the country back in those days that ensured we were all aware of the many nuclear targets we lived amongst.

Remember also Bio/Chem weapons were lurking in the mix...

I think we only need reflect on what we have since learned about Chernobyl, the size of the active arsenal at the time, and the extent of military deployment and activity around the globe, to realise there may have been no continent, and very few if any areas in which to escape in the long term?


[edit on 26-11-2009 by curioustype]

[edit on 26-11-2009 by curioustype]

[edit on 26-11-2009 by curioustype]

[edit on 26-11-2009 by curioustype]

there would another world war, a few details about the war might change but generally there would still be some type war, it just seems like our world goes in a constant cycle.

The 90s were a cake walk. Reagan was president and despite his tough talk, was a reasonable man. But even more important, Gorbachev was Premier of the Soviet Union. These were progressive times, and the Berlin Wall came down all by itself (with a little help from the German people) Gorbachev and the Russians just watched. It was THE change.

No. The time of greatest threat was 1962. The Cuban Missile Crisis in that year brought us so close to thermonuclear war that few people who were not living then can understand how close. The Russians put nuclear missiles in Cuba; what, about 90 miles from our shores? And we had an enormous arsenal of missiles in Western Europe.

Kennedy was president and was prepared to use force to get the missels removed. The Russians sent a fleet of warships on the way to Cuba to prop up its defenses. Kennedy sent ships as a blockade.

Kennedy would have used force to stop those Russian vessels. The world WAS on the brink of war at that time. I was 14 and in 8th grade. I remember it very clearly: I was terrified. And we were close. Kennedy WOULD have attacked those ships. No retreat would have been possible.

Khruschev, bless his memory, backed down. I remember news footage of the ships turning around. He voted for the future of the human race by taking his finger off the trigger and helping us to do the same. I know it was difficult and risky for him, but he was a wise man. If those missiles had been placed in Cuba, I don't think we would be here now; and I don't think stopping them without Russian cooperation would have happened either. How many of you reading this were born after 1962?

That was the most dangerous time the world ever went through. But don't stop holding your breath. We are not through with nuclear peril yet. It will be a long time before we have the answers we need to insure peace and security for all the people of earth...

reply to post by Dromadus


Yes, I wasn't around then (60s), but I have heard/seen a lot about the Cuban missile crisis, it seems to be widely regarded as the closest we came to the buttons being pushed. Of course the public involvement, with siren practices and 'duck-and-cover' drills in schools and so-on must have made it much more terrifyingly real than anyone has experienced since (they did stop doing that in the US right?)

My point of view, obviously influenced by my experiences and childhood introduction to the situation in the eighties, is to wonder whether due to growth and expansion of the arsenals (pre-Regan INF and subsequent arms reduction treaties) and the advances in power and delivery of warheads, it was in some ways becoming a more dangerous situation, in terms of more substantially assured global destruction, than may have been the case in earlier years, it felt like the stakes just kept rising.

Also, I think that my generation encountered it's own psychological issues. Being born ten years after the Cuba crisis, then gradually becoming aware of the MAD situation still present all around us more than twenty years after Cuba, to learn that the same terrifying situation had in fact been allowed to develop and grow, and back then, at times like say 'Able Archer 83' there were still 'moments' when things got hairy, and as now, the man on the street didn't really know what info tPTB were dealing with within at the secret/strategic level at any time, so the perception was still pretty grim if you ask me. Back then, it seemed like MAD might end up being the only end to the stand off too, that the Soviet Union may stay around for a long time.

From what I remember, there also seemed to be some movement in the western perception to do with growing information and understanding within the public domain about what had really been going on in development of nuclear capabilities (for energy and arms), and a more thorough and slightly militant development of understanding, or investigation, into the true implications of nuclear conflict on the public - as I say, 'Threads' represents a part of this, but there were also building stories about nuclear 'accidents' etc...coming out...I'm sure ATS would have been in the thick of it all had it existed.

There are still an awful lot of nuclear weapons out there, it seems for now we're not expecting them all to go off at once. Unfortunately, just one or a fraction could be devastating...then there are all the other nasties, oh grief, time for bed I think...

reply to post by curioustype


The issues are different today, I think. In the 60s, there were only two real "sides" in a possible nuclear confrontation. The Soviet Union was the only potential nuclear opponent for us and we watched them closely and surrounded them with (alleged) deterrent defenses. Yeah, we had public illusions about the ability to survive an attack and I vividly remember practicing Duck and Cover drills in elementary school.

But it no longer takes a 'major power' to build a bomb. If we could do it in 1945, places like North Korea and Iran can do it now. That situation will continue to be the truth, and more of a potential trigger than we had with the Russians. So this question is not going to go away. In the 1930s there was the division between fascists and the democracies; in the 1960s the division between the communists and the capitalists; and today ???

Originally posted by Donnie Darko
Would there be Internet if that happened? Would nuclear war break out?

Yes there would of been an internet - just how much it would have resembled this version would be conjecture, but the internet was developed as a direct response to the threat of nuclear attack...

The network that became the internet was for crucial communications where large parts of the infrastructure were basically gone the idea is that each packet of data will find it's own way through the network and they all reassemble at the other end... So yes, by 1989 they were probably up and running in some way...

"The 90s were a cake walk. Reagan was president and despite his tough talk, was a reasonable man. But even more important, Gorbachev was Premier of the Soviet Union."

Reagan and Gorbachev were leaders in the 80s, not 90s. All confrontations between the USA and Soviet Union (including the Cuban Missile Crisis) were staged for the purpose of increasing military spending for both countries. After all, you do need a threat (real or fake) to justify an increase in military spending.

This massive deception has lead both countries to the brink of financial ruin, which the middle and lower classes end up paying for. Yesterday it was the phony Cold War, today is the phony War on Terror. It is anybody's guess what the next pre-fab conflict will be all about.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


I stand corrected and apologize for the incorrect decade (Yes, Reagan and Gorbachev were in the 80s, and it was Clinton in th 90s).

But I am firmly convinced from having lived through it, the Cuban Missile Crisis was a fact. I understand you hold conspiracy theories that I can understand but do not subscribe too. There isn't sufficient intelligence in govenment to make such a scenario practical, I believe.

darn you beat me to it. I was going to do a thread "what if the movie Terminator really happened" but then i decided not to because i think that asking what if is really pointless and almost cliche as asking what is normal.