Comment by bitL
4 years ago
I would be surprised if NZ didn't have any nukes pointed at it due to being the favorite spot of the western elite for survival arrangements. For Australia only a few coastal cities need to be taken out as well. I think some parts of Argentina, Chile, Brazil and maybe Uruguay stand a chance of being untouched, maybe South Africa as well.
It's my opinion that in a nuclear Armageddon, it wouldn't just be a free-for-all for every nuke to be let fly at every country currently at odds with each other. For example, if Russia and US trade nukes, I wouldn't expect all other WMD wielding country to just start attacking every country they're in poor standing with.
For Australia in particular, we don't have nukes so we shouldn't be on anyone's Mutually Assured Destruction ledger, and if not that then it would be an opportunistic nuke, the purpose of which I can't fathom. It would be better to take Australia by conventional means and keep the infrastructure in tact, since without our allies we have very little defense.
It was revealed that during Cold War there was a plan to nuke all cities over 100k inhabitants anywhere in the world so that no civilization can restart anywhere. For example, some nukes on Ukraine were pointed to China, a somewhat ally of the USSR at that time. I don't think Australia can rely on being non-nuclear to escape if SHTF.