AHC: Limited Nuclear Exchange Post-1980

[Philadelphus]

Seems to me that if the Soviets in a "limited" scenario bother to bomb something like Broken Arrow, OK, I don't want to know what a total scenario means. The above list adds up to 87,220,305 people with a direct hit.

A lot of those places are suburbs of other cities (like Broken Arrow is of Tulsa), so I'd think they'd count as part of the larger city. (Is Arlington, Va., really a separate target from Washington, for example?). On the other hand, that 87 million figure is city limits only, so it'd fall short. (The effects of a bomb on central Philadelphia wouldn't be limited to the 1.5 million people in Philadelphia...and some people living outside the city limits are actually closer to ground zero than the farthest reaches of the city....) I don't know where the "304 largest cities" bit came from, but I wonder if it doesn't really mean 304 largest urbanized areas - which is what the U.S. census calls a city and the built-up area surrounding it - which presumably covers even more places.

That said, where did you find that list, Atreides? Are those 2010 census figures? I haven't seen a nationwide list and ranking anywhere else yet.

 

[atreides]

A lot of those places are suburbs of other cities (like Broken Arrow is of Tulsa), so I'd think they'd count as part of the larger city. (Is Arlington, Va., really a separate target from Washington, for example?). On the other hand, that 87 million figure is city limits only, so it'd fall short. (The effects of a bomb on central Philadelphia wouldn't be limited to the 1.5 million people in Philadelphia...and some people living outside the city limits are actually closer to ground zero than the farthest reaches of the city....) I don't know where the "304 largest cities" bit came from, but I wonder if it doesn't really mean 304 largest urbanized areas - which is what the U.S. census calls a city and the built-up area surrounding it - which presumably covers even more places.

That said, where did you find that list, Atreides? Are those 2010 census figures? I haven't seen a nationwide list and ranking anywhere else yet.

Hi Phil,

The list comes from the 2008 Census. The 304 cities comes from Eric L. Harry's Ark Light, a WWIII novel that Simon Darkshade was commenting on.

 

[SergeantHeretic]

My best idea for a limited nuclear exchange in the context of a larger converntional war is this.

Conventional war breaks out in late 87 as hardliners purge Gorbachev and push the Red Army and Air force west to grab what they can. they have to move fast as Gorbachev's supporters are not idle. Fighting in Europe is fierce and Naval clashes in the baltic and north Atlantic happen ad the third and fifth red banner fleets try to break out and get to the continental U.S> The Red Army is stopped in West Germany, and the Western ALlies start pushing back. The British enact Operation Gridlock and use Specialised SAS troops to infiltrate Red Army Units and make them head back the way they came.

Knowing they will soon lose the war if they cannot retake the initiative, the Hardliner make a limited launch against western Europe and the continetal U.S. Europe loses Belgium as SHAPE is obliterated and Paris as France is hit. NATO COmmand devilves to London in minutes and the Allied push east continues after a short pause.

The AMerican citites of Omaha, Chicago, Richmond and Denver die in Nuclear fire as Soviet missles strike trying to kill the AMerican bomber and missle bases. AMerican counterattacks wipe out Kiev, Pterograd, Stalingrad, Minsk, VLadivostok and the sub pens in the polyarny inlet.

The progressives in Moskow manage a succesful counterrevolution against the hardliners and Dimitri Medvedev sues for peace with the west.

SO what do you think?

 

[ivfl]

A limited nuclear exchange is very unrealistic,even if both sides wanted to avoid escalation the temptation to up the ante once nukes are introduced is too great to do anything about it.Even striking only military bases would be hugely devastating in the US around 1985-90 cities like San Francisco,San Diego,Omaha, Forth Worth,Charleston,Norfolk,Seattle would be either destroyed or too close to major targets to escape serious fallout.In the middle of a exchange like this its most unlikely the US president would be able to piece together what exactly is the soviet strategy he would only know that nukes have destroyed a certain area.The movie By dawn's early light tries to go around this by having the soviet premier say its a limited strike and the US president taking him for his word.In real life I doubt any president even a dovish one would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt.There are some other problems like the SAC strategy to disperse bombers which would force the soviets to target civilian airports just in case and by extension devastating many cities in the US.

 

[zoomar]

CalBear said "Warday" overestimated the effects of EMP to cripple command and control and given his knowledge base, I'm inclined to take him seriously.

Probably true, but it made for a very believable limited war - probably more than the "crazy general starts something" variety. The only other way for a limited nuclear war to happen in the 1980's wold be if it was NOT between the USSR and USA, but had, say China, as one of the combatants. China could not destroy the US or USSR and more than likely a Soviet and US response would be something less than "nuclear war, toe to toe with the Ruskis".

 

[SergeantHeretic]

A limited nuclear exchange is very unrealistic,even if both sides wanted to avoid escalation the temptation to up the ante once nukes are introduced is too great to do anything about it.Even striking only military bases would be hugely devastating in the US around 1985-90 cities like San Francisco,San Diego,Omaha, Forth Worth,Charleston,Norfolk,Seattle would be either destroyed or too close to major targets to escape serious fallout.In the middle of a exchange like this its most unlikely the US president would be able to piece together what exactly is the soviet strategy he would only know that nukes have destroyed a certain area.The movie By dawn's early light tries to go around this by having the soviet premier say its a limited strike and the US president taking him for his word.In real life I doubt any president even a dovish one would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt.There are some other problems like the SAC strategy to disperse bombers which would force the soviets to target civilian airports just in case and by extension devastating many cities in the US.

Yeah, I get that, but see, the idea is in a make believe formate to allow for SOME kind of narrative AFTER the exchange that doesn't look like the Frelling ROAD WARRIOR!

 

[MerryPrankster]

The Gorbachev scenario is a bit severe for a limited war, but at least all the nations involved survive.

(Except for Belgium. Poor Belgium.)

 

[SergeantHeretic]

The Gorbachev scenario is a bit severe for a limited war, but at least all the nations involved survive.

(Except for Belgium. Poor Belgium.)

Sorry, but the Soviets would HAVE to try to take out SHAPE, wouldn't they?

 

[asnys]

Seems to me that if the Soviets in a "limited" scenario bother to bomb something like Broken Arrow, OK, I don't want to know what a total scenario means. The above list adds up to 87,220,305 people with a direct hit.

In Arc Light - which I gather is what the list is referencing - they didn't hit the 304 cities. The Soviets threatened to hit them with their SLBMs, and put their boomers in a bastion with "fail-deadly" orders.

 

[SergeantHeretic]

In Arc Light - which I gather is what the list is referencing - they didn't hit the 304 cities. The Soviets threatened to hit them with their SLBMs, and put their boomers in a bastion with "fail-deadly" orders.

SOmeone is going to have to explain the term "Fail deadly" to me.

 

[asnys]

SOmeone is going to have to explain the term "Fail deadly" to me.

I forget exactly how it was organized in Arc Light, but the essential idea of fail-deadly is that a failure in the system will lead to firing when not ordered to, whereas in a fail-safe system a failure will lead to not firing when ordered to. For example, you might order your submarines to launch their missiles unless they received instructions not to once a week; that would be fail-deadly. Or you might instruct them to only fire on receiving explicit orders, even if they can see the mushroom clouds themselves; that would be fail-safe.

Another example is if your bombers are scrambled due to an alert. Fail-deadly would be to have them launch their attack if they don't receive recall orders. Fail-safe would be to have them proceed to a halfway point, then orbit there unless they receive orders to continue.

The risk of fail-deadly is obvious - accidental war. The risk of fail-safe is that an aggressor might believe they could knock out command & control before launch orders could be issued, and that the fail-safe system would then not fire and they'd get away with it.

Historically, the US has generally used fail-safe systems. The Russians, on the other hand, reportedly deployed a system to launch their missiles automatically on detection of a nuclear detonation, called "Perimeter" (sometimes known in the US as "Dead Hand"). The system is only activated (we think) during emergencies, but it constitutes a "fail-deadly" system since, once activated, a false sensor reading could launch an attack. It's worth noting, however, that the Russians also have considerable incentive to overstate just how hair-trigger Perimeter actually is, since it makes their deterrent more credible, and open sources disagree on how it actually works, if it's actually automatic or if humans are still involved, or even if it was actually deployed.

 

[SergeantHeretic]

I forget exactly how it was organized in Arc Light, but the essential idea of fail-deadly is that a failure in the system will lead to firing when not ordered to, whereas in a fail-safe system a failure will lead to not firing when ordered to. For example, you might order your submarines to launch their missiles unless they received instructions not to once a week; that would be fail-deadly. Or you might instruct them to only fire on receiving explicit orders, even if they can see the mushroom clouds themselves; that would be fail-safe.

Another example is if your bombers are scrambled due to an alert. Fail-deadly would be to have them launch their attack if they don't receive recall orders. Fail-safe would be to have them proceed to a halfway point, then orbit there unless they receive orders to continue.

The risk of fail-deadly is obvious - accidental war. The risk of fail-safe is that an aggressor might believe they could knock out command & control before launch orders could be issued, and that the fail-safe system would then not fire and they'd get away with it.

Historically, the US has generally used fail-safe systems. The Russians, on the other hand, reportedly deployed a system to launch their missiles automatically on detection of a nuclear detonation, called "Perimeter" (sometimes known in the US as "Dead Hand"). The system is only activated (we think) during emergencies, but it constitutes a "fail-deadly" system since, once activated, a false sensor reading could launch an attack. (It's worth noting, however, that the Russians also have considerable incentive to overstate just how hair-trigger Perimeter actually is, since it makes their deterrent more credible, and open sources disagree on how it actually works, if it's actually automatic or if humans are still involved, or even if it was actually deployed.)

Thank you, you explained that to me, i na clear easy to understand manner. Now I understand the difference between fail safe and fail deadly. I just got that special little thril lthat I get when I really understand something that I didn't understand bn efore. Thank you for giving that to me.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

The threatened counter value strikes in Arc Light were a definitive escalation from the initial limited counterforce strikes, with some cities getting well over 100 warheads; this was based on not all functioning correctly or getting through.

The expected death rate for a bolt from the blue attack was around 60-70 million, reduced to 25 million by general preparation and half that with evacuation that takes place in the latter stages of the novel.

Some of the cities listed were already hit by fallout from the initial attack and striking them would be essentially bouncing the rubble.

The problem with a limited nuclear war is getting both sides to decide and agree where and how to limit it. As others have previously pointed out, a war in Europe is likely to go nuclear very early and escalate from there.

 

[BlondieBC]

Seems to me that if the Soviets in a "limited" scenario bother to bomb something like Broken Arrow, OK, I don't want to know what a total scenario means. The above list adds up to 87,220,305 people with a direct hit.

It is worse than that for number in general area of attack for counter city attack. Broken Arrow will be destroyed by the nuclear weapon on Tulsa, my guess is targeted on the refinery. You also have a real chance that fallout from Cushing Oil Terminal will also drift your way.

 

[SergeantHeretic]

The threatened counter value strikes in Arc Light were a definitive escalation from the initial limited counterforce strikes, with some cities getting well over 100 warheads; this was based on not all functioning correctly or getting through.

The expected death rate for a bolt from the blue attack was around 60-70 million, reduced to 25 million by general preparation and half that with evacuation that takes place in the latter stages of the novel.

Some of the cities listed were already hit by fallout from the initial attack and striking them would be essentially bouncing the rubble.

The problem with a limited nuclear war is getting both sides to decide and agree where and how to limit it. As others have previously pointed out, a war in Europe is likely to go nuclear very early and escalate from there.

That is what I think as well there would be a general attitude of, "Well the Nukes are flying it's all over with now, screw it."

 

[Orville_third]

Arc Light is very well written, with a few errors. The P-7 never made it into production, and Charleston lost the sub base in the 90's (though the Naval Weapons Station still has some warheads...). The Congress met at Greenbrier, not Mount Weather. Denmark never joined TEAMS, though the only target outside the US that was attacked was Thule, in Greenland, no doubt harming Danes.
Basically, the subs in the "Bastion" would fire nukes if they were attacked, a nuclear detonation was detected, or if so ordered. I won't say how the book ends- it's not what you would expect, though it's not as bright as the author intended. Oh, chemical weapons are used by both sides at times.
Oh, and one of the few surface bursts resulting in fallout was Raven Rock Mountain in PA, a command post...which resulted in fallout falling over DC and even reaching Norfolk. (I'm not sure if any other locations were affected...one fallout plume reached Whiteman AFB, but that already got nuked with airbursts. They didn't do much about how urban areas were affected by fallout.)

 

[SergeantHeretic]

My Favorite NkueWank that I wrote as a partial homage to team Yankee is an unashamed and wildy unbelievable one for one trade.

The soviets launch one warhead against SHAPE, and the Americans launch a retaliatory warhead at Petrograd. The war ends three days later as the Kremilin is deposed by subordinateleadship that doesn't want to die.

Now THAT is FANTASY writting right there.