Launching nukes during High School lesson

[Hawk66]

Found this by complete accident:

http://www.historysimulation.com/CWLessonIncludes.php

Are such 'simulations' common in US High School teaching? I'm impressed...incl. launching of nukes:

-> http://www.historysimulation.com/upl...ons_Manual.pdf

The best statement in the manual
"This is a limited, surgical nuclear strike on a particular region or target"

I hope the teacher tell their boys and girls that there is no nuclear 'surgical' attack in the real world.

Anyways, I'm currently thinking how funny it would be if someone tries to even introduce a lightweight version in German schools. A protest **** storm would be guaranteed and it would be the next topic for all major political discussion in TV for the foreseeable future for sure .

[Onkel Neal]

If I'm not mistaken, tactical nukes were part of the NATO strategy to counter the Soviets in case of invasion. The class may simply be teaching along those lines.

[Hawk66]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

If I'm not mistaken, tactical nukes were part of the NATO strategy to counter the Soviets in case of invasion. The class may simply be teaching along those lines.

Yes, you're right, they were part of the strategy and even one of the core strategies during the beginning of the Alliance due to the mass conventional armies of the Warsaw Pact. I've just some doubts about the word 'surgical' in this context...

[Red October1984]

Ha. We don't do anything like this in history class.

We just learn about how the US government did 9/11. Conspiracies and such....

[Oberon]

That's a pretty good overview.

Tactical nuclear weapons were definitely available and were expected by both sides to be used either in the first assault or within three or four days of the first strike. Chemical and biological weapons would be used immediately.
Certainly if the battlefield nuclear weapons were not used in a first strike to blast open a hole in the NATO defences or vaporise the advancing Soviet forces, then they would be used later as the war began to drag out.
IIRC the Soviet plan up until the early 1980s did call for a massive use of nuclear weapons on the first strike, but also assumed that NATO would do the same on Soviet deployments and bases.

Obviously, once that starts, then it's a case of progressing to ammunition dumps and airfields, which are usually near towns and cities. The UK would receive some golden sunshine on its airfields, and would likely retaliate in kind with ICBMs and Vulcans, which would then trigger the Soviets to retaliate in a mass strike on cities (since they wouldn't know where the missiles were going) and then the US would launch back, which would prompt the Soviets to launch the rest and....well...



I do like that the lesson plan simulates the disjointed nature of NATO, probably one of its biggest weaknesses, that a consensus needs to be reached on plans before they can be enacted whereas in the PACT they are dictated to the other members by the Soviets.

[Red October1984]

Maybe i can convince my teacher to do this when we get to the later Cold War years here in a chapter or two.

She'd probably enjoy it since it involves Communist governments.

[Oberon]

I'm guessing you don't like your history teacher?

I don't know where I get this idea from, just some sort of vague hints that you've made in your posts.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Hawk66

The best statement in the manual
"This is a limited, surgical nuclear strike on a particular region or target"

I hope the teacher tell their boys and girls that there is no nuclear 'surgical' attack in the real world.

The smallest yield nuclear warhead that was ever mass deployed (to my knowledge) was the W54 with a yield of 10 tons to 1 kT (it was a dial a yield weapon). At its lowest setting it is equivalent to the conventional GBU-43B (Actually the MOAB is more powerful). It pales in comparision to some of the stuff that has been done with conventional explosives like the mining at the Battle of Messines, or the Russian Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power (ATBIP) which has a yield of 44 t. The size of the target destroyed by a W54 at its lowest yield would be roughly equivalent to ground zero at the WTC, maybe that is not "surgical" in today's meaning but that is basically one major point target.


Gentlemen we finally have a nuke small enough to shove up Khrushchev's butt...

[Oberon]

I imagine that sort of nuclear device would be useful for hitting communications areas, rail yards, crossroads and the like.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I imagine that sort of nuclear device would be useful for hitting communications areas, rail yards, crossroads and the like.

Exactly, anything you would normally send multiple heavy bombers after would be a appropriate target.

[Hawk66]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

The smallest yield nuclear warhead that was ever mass deployed (to my knowledge) was the W54 with a yield of 10 tons to 1 kT (it was a dial a yield weapon). At its lowest setting it is equivalent to the conventional GBU-43B (Actually the MOAB is more powerful). It pales in comparision to some of the stuff that has been done with conventional explosives like the mining at the Battle of Messines, or the Russian Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power (ATBIP) which has a yield of 44 t. The size of the target destroyed by a W54 at its lowest yield would be roughly equivalent to ground zero at the WTC, maybe that is not "surgical" in today's meaning but that is basically one major point target.

Ok, I see, it is debatable what surgical is...personally I'd judge that depending if there is (considerable) contamination or not.

@Oberon: I agree in general that decision making was easier and more straightforward in Warsaw Pact. After the German reunification it became evident, that using of nuclear tactical warheads was not a remote but a core element of the warplan of the GDR. The question is if the political leaders would have tried to oppose the using of those weapons - at least in the beginning of the war....

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Hawk66

@Oberon: I agree in general that decision making was easier and more straightforward in Warsaw Pact. After the German reunification it became evident, that using of nuclear tactical warheads was not a remote but a core element of the warplan of the GDR. The question is if the political leaders would have tried to oppose the using of those weapons - at least in the beginning of the war....

I think that in terms of actual release of nuclear weapons, the GDR forces might not have had too much of a say about it, certainly if it was anything like NATO forces then release authority was primarily held by the US since it was 9/10 their nuclear weapons, except for the British and French weaponry, of course.
That, I think, would be one the biggest fears of the FDR, that their country would be an atomic wasteland by the end of the exchange and barely habitable. Some fictional accounts have it leading to an early capitulation of the FDR in order to avoid nuclear annihilation, stories such as Red Army for example, and one of the campaigns of Wargame: European Escalation, IIRC. However, both of these accounts neglect to take into account he likelihood of nuclear weapons being used in a first strike and there being little left to preserve through capitulation. In that respect, it is likely that a 'I want to hurt you as much as you hurt me' thought process would overtake the FDR leadership and the GDR would receive its own fair share of nuclear devastation. Of course, a military thriller book that began with its entire cast being vaporised in a nuclear inferno would be rather short and probably wouldn't sell quite as well as, say, Red Storm Rising.

@Hottentot
I must admit, I didn't hate my history teachers. There was one who was rather ineffectual, but the other we had for A levels was pretty awesome. Then again, there was only six of us in the whole group, so it was pretty informal. When we did the second world war I sometimes wound up teaching bits of info I'd picked up to the class, particularly when we got the Battle of Britain. One of my classmates used to joke that I'd been there.
Teachers for Physical Education and maths on the other hand...but, eh, that's school and youth, full of testosterone and emotion. Teaching these days must be like trying to herd cats, you chaps have my respect.

[Wolferz]

Sure, get out on a battlefield and lob a few Davy Crocketts at the enemy and irradiate your own troops. They couldn't throw the thing far enough down range to prevent it. That's why the weapon was moth balled in favor of ICBM platforms. Mutual destruction was the key fundamental used to prevent such a war.
In a nuclear war, nobody wins. Plain and simple.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Sure, get out on a battlefield and lob a few Davy Crocketts at the enemy and irradiate your own troops. They couldn't throw the thing far enough down range to prevent it. That's why the weapon was moth balled in favor of ICBM platforms. Mutual destruction was the key fundamental used to prevent such a war.
In a nuclear war, nobody wins. Plain and simple.

The development of ICBMs and tactical nuclear weapons are largely unrelated.When the Davy Crockett entered service (1962) the first version of the Minuteman was under development and the Titan missile was active.ICMBs replaced to a large extent nuclear bombers the move was started y the Soviets who where unable to content with the USAF bomber force so they changed the game to missiles the US followed suit after Sputnik.

The concept of tactical nuclear weapons was really more to discourage a conventional conflict something that Warsaw Pact had a chance of winning.By having tactical nukes it forced Warsaw Pact to consider the consequence of a conventional attack very heavily (knowing that NATO would use tactical nukes to stop it this forces their hand more or less to only consider nuclear war which is no win.)It actually furthers the concept of MAD by saying "attack us in any way and it goes full scale." The US just got a little carried away with the Davy Crockett.

Nature and the rest of the universe will be happy to watch us nuke each other out of existence I have no doubt it will happen sooner or later.It might screw up the planet for a while but on the time scale of the universe 10,15 even 50,000 years is nothing.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Sure, get out on a battlefield and lob a few Davy Crocketts at the enemy and irradiate your own troops. They couldn't throw the thing far enough down range to prevent it.

Depends on the target. If it's armor then yea you are going to have to detonate at the ground to destroy them making fallout, but if it's infantry then detonation above ground level to destroy the target with thermal damage and pressure then fallout is minimal since fallout is created by material vaporized by the blast or charged by the energy.

That's why the weapon was moth balled in favor of ICBM platforms. Mutual destruction was the key fundamental used to prevent such a war.

I imagine there were also security issues with such weapons since they would have to be kept close to the front lines, also that in the event of a surprise attack they might be overrun before permission to use them was issued.

In a nuclear war, nobody wins. Plain and simple.

Nuclear weapons are not some magic that immediately destroys everyone. Nuclear weapons are just a payload, they require delivery systems that are vulnerable to destruction. Problem is that no one wants to develop countermeasure systems because it would encourage others to develop them making their nukes less potent, or they do not foresee the use of them and will not expend currency to develop countermeasures that will not be used. If one has the capability of employing guided missiles and can loft payloads in to orbit (and heck who doesn't) then they have the capability to develop ICBM countermeasures; it's a question of funds to build the system, and unless there is another need to engage targets in low orbit or on suborbital trajectories the countermeasures will not be widely developed.

However once one state deploys such a system, then everyone else will begin to deploy such a system, then they will scramble to develop a counter-system and we have a nice little arms race.

Nukes delivered via other systems have their own countermeasures that are far cheaper and more prevalent.