Plan A - A Nuclear war simulation

[mapuc]

I have seen this video a few times by now and still I can't put my fingers on where it's incorrect.

Maybe it ain't maybe it is correct all the way (4.18 min.)

Based on the current US and Russia war plans, 91.5 million people would be either dead (34.1 million) or injured (57.4 million) within just a few hours of the start of the conflict.

https://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/tens-of-millions-would-die-in-the-first-few-hours-of-a-nuclear-war-according-to-princeton-researchers/?fbclid=IwAR3B8pVsalsr1gM4zxdL3PZqdDYWdlJSH2DNEH9-Cgfs1rStfd_EaU6Ux4c

Markus

[Rockstar]

Hmmm, might be a good idea to start looking for property in Peru.

[Onkel Neal]

Yeah, poor Canada be thinking 'WTH!?"

[Julhelm]

No more more than 95 million killed, tops. Depending on the breaks.

[mapuc]

If the unthinkable would happen it doesn't matter where you move to.

In case you want to survive the nuclear holocaust

The fallout from all these nukes will sooner or later have spread all around the world.

Markus

[Julhelm]

Unlikely. Modern warheads in the .3 to 1mt range simply do not loft the debris that high, so it will rain out over a few days.

[Skybird]

^ :/\\!!



---------


I personally think that if the cold war would have ever turned hot, there would have been no nuclear escalation ladder form conventional to nuclear exchange over several hours, but the war would have been opened with nuclear decapitation strikes against NATO CCCI systems and air bases - and then of course answered by nuclear retaliation by the US. WWIII would have been a nuclear war already from the opening, day 1, hour 1, on.


Today that might be different. Some days ago I read in some German media that the Bundeswehr today has not sufficient ammunition for even just some days, but just for some hours of a full blown war. Well, today no news about the Bundeswehr can surprise me anymore. In other words, the war would be cancelled by the Germans, even if the Russians would be pissed by that unfair move.

[Julhelm]

Well, that was what the Soviets always planned. Advance all the way to the Atlantic coast behind a blanket of nuclear bombs.

[mapuc]

On the fun side of this discussion

is that none of us can come back after a nuclear war and say

You were right/wrong.

so it's theory all the way

Yes Russia, USA, Great Britain has their military doctrine on how to act in case of war and nuclear war.

As someone said, can't remember who

"You can have thousands of war plans or Doctrines who may end up being useless when the war start/begin"

Markus

[ET2SN]

No more more than 95 million killed, tops. Depending on the breaks.



For those of us old enough to get the context:


https://hobbydb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/processed_uploads/subject_photo/subject_photo/image/33718/1511587643-17538-0900/Buck_20Turgidson.jpg


:yeah:

[Catfish]

It seems to be hip nowadays to look at the possibility of a limited regional winnable nuclear war with less fallout, with smaller nuclear warheads and other 'smart' weapons, so deterrence will not hold some back.
Whatever will become of those who have to live there. Some russian hawks say that radiation is not as bad, and people will adapt quickly :yeah:
Looking from outside this seems like the perfect way to finally have more wars again, oh joy.

[Julhelm]

Some russian hawks say that radiation is not as bad, and people will adapt quickly :yeah:
Well in their defense they probably know what they're talking about. They seem to have nuclear fallout accidents over there all the time.

[Skybird]

I cannot imagine that between the big bad boys it will remain at a limited exchnage with tactical "small" nukes. The side that got hit by a tactical small nuke will hardly just swallow it and see it as a "limited" strike with thousands and tens of thosuands dead and many more injured, radiated, and abotu tio deerly suffer in the comign years and die.



It will always grow into a bigger exchange. And this exchnage will damage infrastructure hard to imagine. Now there is a lot fo tlak recently about the possibility of Blckouts (in Germany in special and Europe in general). The scenarios for a 24h blackout include the narration of the aftermaths lasting for days and weeks to come, and huge scores of deaths in hospitals and other depending institutions, and no drink water being processed and pumped anymore as well. No just-in-timje delivery of food and medication. If yo have prepped, you were called a nuthead or a Nazi. Now imagine power not beign restored after 24 hours, but beign gone for the forseeable future, with powergrids destroyed and powerplants gone!



The killing will not be over when the war "ends". The real misery starts when the shooting ends. And we do not even touch upon the issue of radiation. Chernobyl was a picnic against what a nuclear war would mean -and the consequences of Chernobal still can be measue dover here in the ground, in plants and vegetables. Low doses - but then, Chernobyl was no nuclear war aimed at doing maximum damage.


Personally, I do not want to survive a nculear war. If it comes, i hope I get vaporized in the first blast. The world after it is not worth it to me.

[Jimbuna]

Personally, I do not want to survive a nculear war. If it comes, i hope I get vaporized in the first blast. The world after it is not worth it to me.

Pretty much sums it up for me as well :yep:

[STEED]

Fat chance of nuclear war.

[Rockstar]

in case of war and nuclear war.



"You can have thousands of war plans or Doctrines who may end up being useless when the war start/begin"

Markus


A similar quote by boxing champion Mike Tyson: "Everyone has a plan 'til they get punched in the mouth" :03:

[ET2SN]

One of the more dangerous questions I've wondered about (and Subsim seems like the perfect place to ask it) is that if you have a fleet of SSBN's in your Navy, how would you really use them?

Launch the missiles as part of your first strike, launch them as a follow-on strike, or don't launch them at all? :hmmm:

Think about it, a nuclear exchange will send both sides back to the stone age (or at least back to the frontier days) for several generations -assuming there are survivors. That means no more bombs or missiles for a hundred years or so.

So, would you really want your boomers to launch or would it be better to keep them at sea until the shooting stops and then bring back home so you still have some kind of a stockpile for the future?


:hmmm:

[Skybird]

Originally SSBMs were meant to close in as much as possible to reduce flighttime of SLBM to such short ammounts that the enemy cannot react and his silos get taken out before they can unload their missiles into the air.



If you think this cna be achieved, you use SSBNs as first strike wepaons of choice, to minimise warning time.


If you think even this warning time is enough for the enemy to react nevertheless, then it depends on whether you think you still will have a command structure and a communicaiton network in 30 minutes that could order your SSBNs later to engage. If you think it will be a "limited" eschnage in the coming 30 minutes, you may want to save your SSBNs, else have them rfeceibign firing order as long as you can contact them.


As with all huge nuclear weapons, they are not really meant to be used for military purposes, their purpose is a political one: to intimidate the enemy so much that he does not start a mess because he knows that he cannot evade your retaliation. So, as a political weapon SSBNs probably are the non plus ultra. You want to save them from giving their payload or position away as long as you can.

[mapuc]

One of the more dangerous questions I've wondered about (and Subsim seems like the perfect place to ask it) is that if you have a fleet of SSBN's in your Navy, how would you really use them?

Launch the missiles as part of your first strike, launch them as a follow-on strike, or don't launch them at all? :hmmm:

Think about it, a nuclear exchange will send both sides back to the stone age (or at least back to the frontier days) for several generations -assuming there are survivors. That means no more bombs or missiles for a hundred years or so.

So, would you really want your boomers to launch or would it be better to keep them at sea until the shooting stops and then bring back home so you still have some kind of a stockpile for the future?


:hmmm:

Your comment made me remember an very old issue on a news program in the beginning of the 80's
It was in those days where Wargames was running in the theater/cinema

Well they had invited a Psychologist and talked about hesitating when an order was given.

That's the only thing I remember.

Markus

[ET2SN]

The US movies always tried to inject some drama about the launch crews debating their launch orders.
The truth is that launch crews were selected based on their will to follow lawful orders and were then trained to follow those orders.

Would they feel bad about it after they launched? Definitely.
Would they hesitate during the launch? I highly doubt it.

[mapuc]

I suddenly recall an another thing

and the reason to why I couldn't put my fingers on where it was wrong in the video of this simulation.

Many, many years back in those days when Reagan was President there was a lot of demonstration against our European politicians decision to install minutes man on European soil.

Danish, Swedish and German tv, showed lots of documentaries about nukes, nuclear war(s)

I remember some high ranked officer saying in front of the camera.

We expect that up to(I can't remember if he said 40 or 50 %) of these nukes we send away will either fail(not the correct word, which I keep on forgetting) or be shot down by the enemy and even our aircraft will suffer.

In the video you see all the nukes fly from A to B and everyone explode.

Markus

[ET2SN]

Originally SSBMs were meant to close in as much as possible to reduce flighttime of SLBM to such short ammounts that the enemy cannot react and his silos get taken out before they can unload their missiles into the air.



If you think this cna be achieved, you use SSBNs as first strike wepaons of choice, to minimise warning time.


If you think even this warning time is enough for the enemy to react nevertheless, then it depends on whether you think you still will have a command structure and a communicaiton network in 30 minutes that could order your SSBNs later to engage. If you think it will be a "limited" eschnage in the coming 30 minutes, you may want to save your SSBNs, else have them rfeceibign firing order as long as you can contact them.


As with all huge nuclear weapons, they are not really meant to be used for military purposes, their purpose is a political one: to intimidate the enemy so much that he does not start a mess because he knows that he cannot evade your retaliation. So, as a political weapon SSBNs probably are the non plus ultra. You want to save them from giving their payload or position away as long as you can.


Actually, the US doctrine with SSBN's started off with realizing that they were not as accurate as land-based missiles due to how they were launched. :03:

The US idea was to use three different types of platforms (ICBMs, Bombers, and SSBNs) which made them impossible to neutralize or destroy in one shot.

Eventually, missiles launched from SSBNs became a lot more accurate but the US doctrine for using them didn't change that much (besides being able to aim them at military vs civilian targets).

You are right about nukes being political weapons vs military weapons.
Nukes have to be used as a form of Deterrence and deterrence has to be scary enough to keep the silo doors closed. Actually launching the damned things means you've already lost.