WI Cold War Went Nuclear?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

well, nuclear war in the early 80 would mean no survival for me seeing as my parents were stationed in Germany at the time. (radar and AA)
Oh well, shit happens

[DisturbedPervert]

I probably wouldn't have been incinerated in a nuclear war in the 80s, my town wasn't important and far enough away from the blast zones.  I most likely would have been eaten by the mutant cannibal hordes as they shuffled out of the radioactive wastelands in search of flesh.

[Neil]

Why must it always be the 1980's?  It seems like when ever anyone wants to have a cold war hot scenario it's in the 1980's.  I mean the cold war covered 4 decades.

It was popular to assume that the election of Reagan meant that there would be a nuclear war.  It just kind of stuck with us, I suppose.

[Josquius]

The funny thing about post-nuclear scenarios, is that everybody assumes they are going to be survivors.

And?
1: Its more interesting
2: Planning for what will happen if you do die is a bit redundant. You should assume you'll survive- if you're wrong then meh, no loss.

[Caliga]

If the Cold War went nuclear, I would be blasted 1,000 years into the future by a direct bomb strike and would be captured by black slavers from Africa (who by then dominated the planet due to the near-total destruction of the northern hemisphere) and eventually escape to found my own libertarian utopia. 

[Darth Wagtaros]

If the Cold War went nuclear, I would be blasted 1,000 years into the future by a direct bomb strike and would be captured by black slavers from Africa (who by then dominated the planet due to the near-total destruction of the northern hemisphere) and eventually escape to found my own libertarian utopia. 

Bastard.  That book blew.

[Caliga]

Bastard.  That book blew.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Bastard.  That book blew.

Lolz.  The truth: hurts.

[Caliga]

I really enjoyed it, and I'm the first to admit that Heinlein's body of work was uneven AT BEST. 

[DontSayBanana]

I really enjoyed it, and I'm the first to admit that Heinlein's body of work was uneven AT BEST. 

Robert Heinlein had Isaac Asimov Syndrome- for every well-known good book, there were at least two to three mediocre/awful ones that thankfully faded into obscurity.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I really enjoyed it, and I'm the first to admit that Heinlein's body of work was uneven AT BEST. 

Robert Heinlein had Isaac Asimov Syndrome- for every well-known good book, there were at least two to three mediocre/awful ones that thankfully faded into obscurity.

Asimov was fine on average.  A lot of his books were bland time killers, which doesn't make them bad.  Heinlein just got a little too preachy.  I think he is required reading by alot of the Baen Publishing stable.

[Caliga]

I think in terms of his writing, Asimov was far more reliable.  Where Heinlein was great, he was brilliant.  Where he failed, he failed far more spectacularly.  I can't think of any Asimov works that I felt were complete trainwrecks, but in Heinlein's case I can immediately think of The Cat Who Walks Through Walls.

[jimmy olsen]

Why must it always be the 1980's?  It seems like when ever anyone wants to have a cold war hot scenario it's in the 1980's.  I mean the cold war covered 4 decades.

Because a war in 1961 would destroy the Soviet Union but leave behind a United States that was "relatively" in tact. People want a full on apocalypse and the 80s is best for that.

[ulmont]

in Heinlein's case I can immediately think of The Cat Who Walks Through Walls.

Not To Sail Beyond The Sunset?

[crazy canuck]

Do you think it's a coincidence I'm living in the subarctic, in the least likely area I can imagine to be nuked and still work as a federal prosecutor?

I figured there had to be some explanation.