Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
DogOnPorch

Is Nuclear War Inevitable?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

But like I say, I don't do utopian policy making.   We are where we are, 15 minutes notice to launch, that is not the time to consult the NDP as to what to do about it.

I also think it would be a political win for the Americans to say that they don't do countervalue anymore, they're not going to target population centers because that would be pointless destruction for its own sake, and instead they are going to deploy a much more formidable, and as a result credible, super counterforce only deterrent. 

 

Actually, it was the whole idea of holding entire cities hostage to a 10 megaton air-burst that made folks stand-up and take real notice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

Actually, it was the whole idea of holding entire cities hostage to a 10 megaton air-burst that made folks stand-up and take real notice. 

I like the idea of popping another Castle Bravo in the South Pacific, that is the only thing that got the public's attention, and when that went underground they went back to sleep again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

But like I say, I don't do utopian policy making.   We are where we are, 15 minutes notice to launch, that is not the time to consult the NDP as to what to do about it.

I also think it would be a political win for the Americans to say that they don't do countervalue anymore, they're not going to target population centers because that would be pointless destruction for its own sake, and instead they are going to deploy a much more formidable, and as a result credible, super counterforce only deterrent. 

 

Except there are some very practical matters to consider when waging intercontinental thermonuclear war:

  • Defence suppression
  • Fratracide 
  • Command/Control/Communications infrastructure
  • Post strike military/economic capability
  • BDA (damage assessment)
  • Allied players (e.g. Britain and/or France)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

I like the idea of popping another Castle Bravo in the South Pacific, that is the only thing that got the public's attention, and when that went underground they went back to sleep again.

 

To most folks, a nuke is a nuke is a nuke is a nuke. Ten megatons means nothing. One hundred kilotons means nothing. The sheer size of those types of devices is beyond their day-to-day experiences with numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

To most folks, a nuke is a nuke is a nuke is a nuke. Ten megatons means nothing. One hundred kilotons means nothing. The sheer size of those types of devices is beyond their day-to-day experiences with numbers.

Most people are philistines. Maybe the RDS-220 was bigger in terms of yield, but the grainy Soviet footage didn't do it justice, whereas through the power of Hollywood caliber film making, Castle Bravo is one of the most terrifying yet beautiful things I've ever seen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

To most folks, a nuke is a nuke is a nuke is a nuke. Ten megatons means nothing. One hundred kilotons means nothing. The sheer size of those types of devices is beyond their day-to-day experiences with numbers.

 

Right...even the Tsar Bomba had no additional military significance.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Except there are some very practical matters to consider when waging intercontinental thermonuclear war:

  • Defence suppression
  • Fratracide 
  • Command/Control/Communications infrastructure
  • Post strike military/economic capability
  • BDA (damage assessment)
  • Allied players (e.g. Britain and/or France)

 

 

The scary bit is that a first strike can indeed work if either slips in the detection department re: MAD. 

Serious stuff. That's why they put you to sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Most people are philistines. Maybe the RDS-220 was bigger in terms of yield, but the grainy Soviet footage didn't do it justice, whereas through the power of Hollywood caliber film making, Castle Bravo is one of the most terrifying yet beautiful things I've ever seen.

 

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Right...even the Tsar Bomba had no additional military significance.

 

 

The Soviet Tsar device literally burnt the Tu-95 Bear that carried it to a crisp from about 100 miles distant. It limped back to base...50 megatons. Too big...lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The scary bit is that a first strike can indeed work if either slips in the detection department re: MAD. 

 

That is why Ivan has to go underwater up the Potomac, as how else is he going to slip past SBIRS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The scary bit is that a first strike can indeed work if either slips in the detection department re: MAD. 

Serious stuff. That's why they put you to sea.

 

Yes....for MAD to work... nuclear deterrence has to be:

  • Credible
  • Survivable
  • Reliable
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And those Russians still can't quite get the whole launching from underwater thing going...the Bulava is their best to date...but still needs to be loaded with dangerous hypergolic fuel pre-launch...while underwater in combat conditions. Can we say less than safe?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes....for MAD to work... nuclear deterrence has to be:

  • Credible
  • Survivable
  • Reliable

 

Thus the Boomer. That final devastating smack-down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

And those Russians still can't quite get the whole launching from underwater thing going...the Bulava is their best to date...but still needs to be loaded with dangerous hypergolic fuel pre-launch...while underwater in combat conditions. Can we say less than safe?

 

Well, the Russians have never been big on crew safety or comfort !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Well, the Russians have never been big on crew safety or comfort !

 

Klingon vs Federation

;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

That is why Ivan has to go underwater up the Potomac, as how else is he going to slip past SBIRS?

 

An old Cold War tale from 'round BC was Soviet missile boats sitting quietly in Knight Inlet waiting for the call.

But we now know that any Soviet boomer would have had to surface to not only launch...but to fuel-up

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes....for MAD to work... nuclear deterrence has to be:

  • Credible
  • Survivable
  • Reliable

On both sides.    The Balance of Terror says balance for a reason.    And Russia is not going to be able to keep up, which could incite another disorder in Moscow, and you can't keep going to that well over and over and expect Mikhail Gorbachev and kumbaya to be the result over and over.

Unlike the Soviet Union, Putin is a person, and he may not want to go to the gallows without putting up a fight as the USSR did.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

An old Cold War tale from 'round BC was Soviet missile boats sitting quietly in Knight Inlet waiting for the call.

Seems entirely plausible and actually not all that difficult to me, nuclear missiles is hard, torpedoes is easy.  

Maybe the Americans are watching the approaches to King's Bay closely, but are they really all along the Potomac actively searching the bottom for AUV's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

On both sides.    The Balance of Terror says balance for a reason.    And Russia is not going to be able to keep up, which could incite another disorder in Moscow, and you can't keep going to that well over and over and expect Mikhail Gorbachev and kumbaya to be the result over and over.

Unlike the Soviet Union, Putin is a person, and he may not want to go to the gallows without putting up a fight as the USSR did.

 

Putin is nothing like the old Communist leadership. He's more like Tony Soprano with a country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

On both sides.    The Balance of Terror says balance for a reason.    And Russia is not going to be able to keep up, which could incite another disorder in Moscow, and you can't keep going to that well over and over and expect Mikhail Gorbachev and kumbaya to be the result over and over.

Unlike the Soviet Union, Putin is a person, and he may not want to go to the gallows without putting up a fight as the USSR did.

 

That's why The Ukraine is screwed...NATO has pushed too close to Russian gates.  Sacrifices must/will be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's why The Ukraine is screwed...NATO has pushed too close to Russian gates.  Sacrifices must/will be made.

 

Churchill solved the issues of what to do after WW2 by calling for spheres of influence. Stalin agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

Churchill solved the issues of what to do after WW2 by calling for spheres of influence. Stalin agreed.

 

Yes, but only after Roosevelt refused to go further east.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's why The Ukraine is screwed...NATO has pushed too close to Russian gates.  Sacrifices must/will be made.

Like I say, unintended consequences, NATO didn't push anywhere, a flight to quality drew freedom loving anti-Communists towards the Empire of Liberty, and I welcome them with open arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But...let's be frank. Russia does not rely on its submarine fleet for its MAD final blow. Launch from anywhere...needs no support. Might as well be a submarine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes, but only after Roosevelt refused to go further east.

 

So true. So true. BTW...many tumbs-up...but you'll both get them later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

But...let's be frank. Russia does not rely on its submarine fleet for its MAD final blow. Launch from anywhere...needs no support. Might as well be a submarine.

 

 

 

Takes too long to get to the Great Plains, if you're going at the Americans, you have to at least cripple that countervalue force, and to do so, you need to pop up out of the ice and launch on a depressed trajectory at the Miniteman III's,  from Canadian waters.

 

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...