AHC: A 1980s Limited NATO-WARPAC Nuclear Exchange

[Nightingale]

With a POD no later than Reagan's inauguration on January 20, 1981, create a scenario in which NATO and the Warsaw Pact enter a limited nuclear war with the only ones getting destroyed:

1. Hard underground military targets such as NORAD and ICBM sites in Montana and North Dakota.

2. Surface military targets such as the Pentagon.

3. Only collateral damage on cities wrapped around military bases. So if the Pentagon gets vaporized, only part of Arlington, Virginia would be hit. Or if we hit the naval bases in the State of Washington, only part of Seattle would be destroyed.

4. No nuclear damage at all to major population centers such as New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Houston, Miami, Dallas, Chicago, Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Hong Kong, Manila, London, Paris, Moscow, Leningrad, Berlin, Kiev, and others. They can be razed down by conventional means ONLY.

Now please don't tell me this is ASB: Such a scenario may not be likely, but not outside the realm of possibility IMO.

After all, 5% probability events happen 5% of the time. It's roughly the probability of Democrat Kendra Horn winning in Oklahoma's 5th Congressional District in the 2018 midterms in what was considered a safe GOP district*.



-----------

*To the moderators: I hope you don't put this in Chat. I'm not discussing modern-day politics here. I'm only comparing probability ratings (5% chance of happening, for example) but will no go further than that into modern-day politics.

 

[EbolaMan131]

Possibly a backroom deal in some embassy to prevent total nuclear war?

 

[Jukra]

I can not specify specific targets, but how about a Petrov incident style false alarm in an unexpected time, say 1 Jan 1984 with number of Soviet and US troops on low alert levels? Soviets detect a small strike, resulting in a limited "counterstrike" against the US as the readiness is low, and the US have a strike plan which punishes USSR initially at low levels? As an end result a small number of nukes is detonated on both USSR and US soils, probably at sea too, but the war in Europe has not really started and saner minds manage to prevail.

 

[Nightingale]

Interesting. On the other hand, how can we have a limited nuclear exchange following the OP in the midst of hot-tension moments, like the Petrov false alarm or Able Archer '83?

Preferrably, combine Able Archer, REFORGER, that incident, KAL 007, the Grenada invasion, and the deployment of Pershing II missile to Europe in one month.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

A limited nuclear war that involved tac nukes in Western Europe is wildly implausible, but I suppose possible.

This isn't. The US sees a missile aimed at DC on a decapitation strike (which is a what a Pentagon strike would look like, and even be, to a fair extent), and they don't respond? Seriously?

A single missile aimed at a major city, might allow for a bit for tat response, and a cool down before it goes to total extermination level warfare. A first strike trying to take out the US's retaliation capabilities (Pentagon and silos) will cause the US to launch most of their birds - use them or later see them.

So. Nope. No way. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[sloreck]

The problem is, just to use the example of the Pentagon missile, is that given the CEP issue (remember CEP means 50% of the warheads land within a given circle, the other 50% from just outside to way far away). Even an absolutely direct hit on the Pentagon is going to do a lot of damage to the surrounding DC/Northern Virginia area. A miss could literally land right on top of White House. The problem is too many targets you'd want to hit are necessarily going to involve a lot of civilian damage.

 

[Nightingale]

The problem is, just to use the example of the Pentagon missile, is that given the CEP issue (remember CEP means 50% of the warheads land within a given circle, the other 50% from just outside to way far away). Even an absolutely direct hit on the Pentagon is going to do a lot of damage to the surrounding DC/Northern Virginia area. A miss could literally land right on top of White House. The problem is too many targets you'd want to hit are necessarily going to involve a lot of civilian damage.

Well that's an inevitable loss. But without any significant military base near NYC or SF or LA (even the naval bases in WA are sufficiently far from Seattle). Omaha, NE and Cheyenne, WY, however...

Why did the US government stupidly put many bases within some cities' limits?

 

[SsgtC]

Well that's an inevitable loss. But without any significant military base near NYC or SF or LA (even the naval bases in WA are sufficiently far from Seattle). Omaha, NE and Cheyenne, WY, however...

Why did the US government stupidly put many bases within some cities' limits?

Because that's where the transportation infastructure is. And in many cases, those bases happen to be right on the coast, which also happens to be the most heavily developed part of the country. One thing. You're kidding yourself if you think NYC, SF or LA won't get hit. All three cities have had major naval bases at them in the past, all three cities have some of the finest deep water ports in the world, and in the case of NYC, it's the economic center of the nation. Destroy NYC, and you can seriously cripple the US's (and most of the rest of the world's) economy.

 

[Resurgam]

The problem is, once a missile is in the air on a trajectory towards another nuclear power, EVERYTHING goes up and their allies pile in. Use 'em or lose 'em.

 

[pjmidd]

Limited exchange of tactical nukes outside the homelands is possible , US/USSR deciding not to risk their cities by launching on each other first, a strategic one is ASB however much you want it not to be. A counterforce strike on the ICBM fields/long range bombers or any other part of the nuclear triad infrastructure would trigger a general exchange. Anything that looks like a headhunter strike triggers the same response. No one is going to look at more than a handful of missiles inbound ( and with MIRV's that drops to more than one ) and wait to see where they hit, a massive strike would be launched. Even if it was declared as military targets only, no one would trust that declaration.

A handful of missiles would just lead to escalation without doing anything like enough damage to justify the risk.

 

[sloreck]

If you really want to destroy airbases and naval bases, you have to use groundbursts. The vital parts of the installations are pretty solid, you need to crater runways to make an airbase unusable, and drydocks likewise. Similarly airbursts produce relatively little contamination, so those key bits can be back in service relatively quickly. The result of that is you generate a lot of fallout from groundbursts and that will cause both deaths and longer term contamination. Finally to take out these sorts of bases you need several missiles per target, so the potential area of damage due to CEP is larger.

As to why bases are in many cases close to population centers, that follows Sutton's Rule. (the bank robber Willy Sutton in the 30s was asked why he robbed banks, his response "that's where the money is"). As noted transportation, infrastructure and natural geography play a part.

 

[Nightingale]

Another question: Could ABM systems have been developed that they are >95% accurate and precise and could result in NATO taking off its gloves (since if we're talking tech they're much more advanced than the WarPac) and conducting a straight nuclear exchange against the Communists?

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Well, sure, there’s a chance in theory. But practically speaking, I have great difficulty seeing the national leadership on each side remaining so restrained in the face of death tolls numbering in the tens of millions of their citizens that they are supposed to be overseeing. Despite what Cold War nuclear theorists seem to tell themselves in order to sleep at night, human beings are not purely-rational logic machines devoid of emotion. Maybe the Kremlin could get in such a sociopath (hell, they historically did: these sorts of brutal calculations were Stalin’s specialty), but I have trouble seeing anyone so devoid of empathy for others becoming President in the US. And with emotions running high, miscalculation and misinterpretation is practically guaranteed, even if both sides are communicating well (which strikes me as unlikely, otherwise there probably wouldn’t be a shooting war, much less a nuclear one).

Another question: Could ABM systems have been developed that they are >95% accurate and precise and could result in NATO taking off its gloves (since if we're talking tech they're much more advanced than the WarPac) and conducting a straight nuclear exchange against the Communists?

That we’re having trouble achieving that today should tell you quite a bit.

 

[History Learner]

Limited is possible in the sense that both sides could probably call off SLBM and definitely Bomber-based strikes, although there's not much to limit ICBM strikes.

 

[marathag]

Another question: Could ABM systems have been developed that they are >95% accurate and precise and could result in NATO taking off its gloves (since if we're talking tech they're much more advanced than the WarPac) and conducting a straight nuclear exchange against the Communists?

When the North Dakota Safeguard Site was operational for one whole day before Congress killed it in 1975, there were 30 long range Spartan ABMs and 70 short range Sprint ABMs, against 19,000 Soviet Warheads of all types

 

[Nightingale]

That we’re having trouble achieving that today should tell you quite a bit.

When the North Dakota Safeguard Site was operational for one whole day before Congress killed it in 1975, there were 30 long range Spartan ABMs and 70 short range Sprint ABMs, against 19,000 Soviet Warheads of all types

I've read of threads discussing an early Internet (meaning 2000s Internet by the 1980s), which would mean much more advanced tech in other fields. The POD of such an Internet has been discussed as plausible in numerous AH threads.

With that, I want to ask, if:

1. The Internet we have in the 2000s was already availabled by the 1980s (meaning much more advanced tech like having ARPANET in the mid-50s instead of the late-60s and an earlier invetion of the transistor),

2. With a bonus POD of the Global South becoming very, very developed to increase no. of researchers and projects,

3. With the ABM Treaty getting butterflied away (perhaps no Cuban Missile Crisis), so heavy investments in such technology,

Could you have a functioning ABM system already by the early 1980s? ATL 2019, however, with technology being 30+ years advanced, it could happen esp. with much more researchers and with a headstart of such a long time.

 

[fockewulf]

What makes you think that if the ABM sistems are developing at a faster rate, the ICBMs aren't ? And the internet is so spread today because there are a lot of advanced, but also cheap computers to work with. I don't know if with the 80's tecnology it could do that.

 

[Nightingale]

Yeah that's why I said about transistors being invented earlier. A lot of PODs can precipitate earlier creation of cheap computers.

That's the downside of ABM research - you can't accelerate the development of technologies for it without simultaneously accelerating ICBM research.

 

[marathag]

What makes you think that if the ABM sistems are developing at a faster rate, the ICBMs aren't ? And the internet is so spread today because there are a lot of advanced, but also cheap computers to work with. I don't know if with the 80's tecnology it could do that.

The main driver for Internet was that telecommunications allowed cheaper 28.k modems and local calls to portals, rather than long distance as in much of the country in the '80s

Yes, I'm and old fart who had been 'online' with 300 baud modems in the late 70s-early '80s, and being a number, not a name on Compuserve.

This is the first time where average people could have gotten online without needing to be a rich computer Nerd.
Before that, I had timeshare access to a local community college and it's 110 baud access to a DEC PDP8 via Teletype Terminal. I had email for a very, very long time before I sent out my first email, as I had no-one really to message, other than the local sysadmin. Was posting on other services, but not email.

 

[fockewulf]

Maybe if directed energy weapons or rail guns are developed a lot early and be deployed in space. That will imply the existence of advanced energy sources. So basically we would have to be maybe 50 years more advanced in the 80's then we are today. I don't think that's possible without severely altering the time line.