To piggyback, what would happen to the astronauts during the US-Soviet joint space missions (starting with the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project) in case of war between the two countries?

From what I gather most of the contingency plans are centered around getting the astronauts safely back to Earth, and so would follow a document like this.

There are a lot of unknown factors around nuclear attack that would complicate any of these contingency plans, most importantly where would be a safe place to land, but factors like that are taken into consideration. Here's a helpful excerpt that illustrates their philosophy.

Because initiation of either of the other two abort modes that can occur in this flight regime (mode I1 or 111) could result in a wide range of undesirable landing locations, a primary advantage of the mode IV procedure is that landing-site selection opportunities are provided. That is, after an orbital state is attained, the spacecraft may travel through part of a revolution until a desired landing area is approached and the crew may then perform the usual entry maneuver.

The way your question is worded I'm guessing you really want to know "did NASA ever plan for a scenario where astronauts would not return to Earth?" Given the tight weight and fuel requirements, as well as limited rations, that's pretty unlikely. We have contingency plans to keep the manned ISS running for a matter of months (http://phys.org/news/2011-07-backup-international-space-station.html) but that's as long as it goes. Our astronauts have always been 100% dependent on getting back to Earth.

One more follow up- to what extent was an astronaut (say Apollo-era) trained to re-enter the atmosphere 'blind'? That is to say, were they totally reliant in Mission Control being able to feed them weather details and coordinates, even instructions on when to preform various tasks in the re-entry procedure? Many were former fighter pilots (I believe), before the space shuttle era, would this have actually helped them splash down in a capsule?

I asked something very similar a year or so ago and got some great answers.

Please, no more half-assed answers. Remember the rules. As was explained in the excellent recent meta post on "What it means to post a good answer in /r/AskHistorians":

If you're choosing to answer a question in /r/AskHistorians, there are three questions you should ask yourself first in turn:

   1. Do I, personally, actually know a lot about the subject at hand?

   2. Am I essentially certain that what I know about it is true?

   3. Am I prepared to go into real detail about this?