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...

[GoldenRivet]

Loved my history teachers, in High school i had a history teacher / coach who was a Teddy Roosevelt lookalike. he was also highly intelligent and kind, and had one of those gravel raspy voices that kind of drew you in during lectures.

My History teacher in College year 1 seemed to know everything in the world about pre-civil war America. important dates, names, battles, discoveries and inventions etc. the fact that she was a voluptuous beautiful busty brunette made her lectures an absolute pleasure to participate in

I didnt care for my government professor in college.

Course Description as well as the book i paid for indicated that we would be studying the American system of government, instead it was 3 lectures a week on her personal political opinions with a smattering of oh by the way this is how a bill is passed.

Take the above problem and combine it with the fact that i was a 30 year old man writing my own checks for my education sitting in a class full of 18-20 year olds who made it painfully obvious that they would rather be someplace else... I dropped the class.

[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.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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

Not to defend a possibly bad colleague whom I haven't met and whose teaching I haven't observed, but history teachers seem get loved or hated on much more regular basis than, say, the math teachers, and usually the reasons behind it are different too. Comes with the territory.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah....I'm not a big fan. My previous one was one of my favorite people of all time. He would make sure you learned something no matter how far he had to go. We all pitched in and got him the Local News Channel "Best Teacher" award for the region when he retired. He kept class fun and it was always the highlight of my day.

The new lady teaches stuff that didn't happen and doesn't know what she's talking about half the time. I wish my old teacher came back. I could have a good discussion about the lesson with him. With Ms. Commie, I can tell her about something really cool and ask questions about it and she just looks at me and says "Gee. That's really cool." or "That's a really good question" and continues on teaching about Barack Obama's wonderful policy.

She won't let us talk about politics in History Class.
She won't do anything extra for the class
She teaches conspiracies
She idolizes Harry Truman and Barack Obama even though she won't admit it


Ready for the kicker?

We were talking before class about Chris Kyle's murder one day. We were talking about how Whitney Houston's drug OD was a bigger deal than an American hero's death. Houston did that to herself while Kyle was helping Veterans. The flags went half staff for Houston and everything. Obama made a statement about Houston....but not for Kyle. Kyle's death was nowhere near as big of a deal. We thought that this was ridiculous. I have more than a couple military family members. Uncles, Grandparents, Great-Grandparents, Dad was at one point, etc. This struck home.


The "Teacher" decided to jump into the conversation with, "Whitney Houston was actually important. Nobody cared about Chris Kyle. Nobody cares about soldiers like that."

I went ballistic. I told her that Houston was stupid enough to OD on drugs and Kyle was the man who went out and defended your life. He one of many that makes sure you get a safe place to live and sleep.

I could've just gotten up and left right there but I held back. I wanted to get up and smack her. Saying that nobody cares about the military and soldiers that die.

Now, very recently, she was absent and we had a substitute. When she came back, we asked her where she was. She had gone to a funeral for a friend of hers who had served several years in Iraq and had PTSD. He had committed suicide. I was >< that close to asking her if she cared about dead american heroes now. I held back on that too. Even though I have little respect for her and can't stand being in that class, I know that she's a human being and has rights, feelings, etc.

It didn't keep me from cracking a smile at the irony.

[Hottentot]

^^
Case in point.

[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....