Yes and no. Yelsten had the launch codes brought to him in the 1990s over a single rocket that was tracking on a route that looked like a possible EMP pre-first strike.
Donbass Apocalypse: A 2014 Nuclear War
- Thread starter JenkinsJinkies
- Start date
- Status
Yes and no. Yelsten had the launch codes brought to him in the 1990s over a single rocket that was tracking on a route that looked like a possible EMP pre-first strike.
That is interesting...
When I studied this issue back in the 1980's I seem to recall reading an account of an interview with a senior U.S. Official that more or less said there was a system in place to prevent a nuclear launch if the President unexpectedly announced he or she had "had it with the Russians and wanted to Nuke them" for no apparent reason.
I have no idea what that system was.
I view Blair who is referenced in the links you provided as a credible source and will dig into this some more at some point.
There may be a bit of a semantical issue about what very senior people might or might not do when presented with a completley un expected launch order vs what the law says but that is just speculation on my part.
Also un like today, back in the 1980's the U.S. had an air borne command post in the air on a 7x24 basis so the consequences of not promotly passing on an un expected launch order may be viewed differently today. (Ie an unexpected launch order may be more likely to be passed on if there isn't an air borne command post that could be expected to take charge in the event of a bolt out of the blue attack.)
Last edited:
Eh, it seems the OP is confusing "warheads" with "missiles". 3,224 missiles across all the nuclear powers may not be realistic, but 3,224 warheads would be eminently so. In fact, I'd actually say it would be an underestimate.
EDIT: I found FAS's 2014 report on Russian nuclear forces with this handy chart for reference:
Fascinating document, does this mean that Russia no longer has nuclear warheads with yields in the magaton range?
Some of the gravity bombs listed might have megaton yields, but otherwise it seems not. Given the greatly increased theoretical precision in missiles over time, the trend has generally been towards mid-yield multi-hundred kiloton weapons pretty much all over the world.
History Learner
Banned
That'd be a counter-value strike instead of counter-force scenario then, meaning vast elements of the U.S. Armed Forces are still kicking around while cities such as Omaha, Nebraska and Lexington, Kentucky are completely undamaged. Even in the 500 warhead scenario, that leaves little in the way of strategic weapons to hit Europe and China with too.
The only reason multi megaton weapons were made was because missile guidance systems during the 60s, 70s and 80s were very error prone. Meaning that it could miss its target by up to tens of miles, so they made the yields high to account for the potential for error.
Fixed
Last edited:
But prior to the development of earth penetrating warheads, multi megaton war heads still had a niche role for targeting deeply buried structures. The U.S. apparently brought some B53 bombs back into service towards the end of the Cold War for that reason.
I am surprised the Russians don't have a few high yield ICBM delivered weapons to target Cheyene Mountain and other similar locations. I have never heard of a Russian program for ground penetrating warheads either (that doesn't mean it doesn't exist
) The Cold War Soviet solution apparently involved large ICBM's with multi megaton war heads. I am surprised the Russians gave that ability up.I am surprised the Russians don't have a few high yield ICBM delivered weapons to target Cheyene Mountain and other similar locations. I have never heard of a Russian program for ground penetrating warheads either (that doesn't mean it doesn't exist
Well, another trend since the Cold War has also been away from those sort of ultra-hardened central installations towards networked infrastructure that can rely on a mixture of mobility and redundancy for protection. This has resulted in the retirement of many of those old bunkers. Most of Cheyenne's operations, for example, were shuttered in 2006. So while it probably isn't completely irrelevant, it's importance as a target has definitely declined.
Also, I have heard of Russian programs about warhead ground penetration projects, although only ever second hand.
Fair enough. Perhaps the Russians still have a few multi megaton gravity bombs "just in case." I suppose delivering a handful of them could be a mission for the Tu160 fleet.
I'll have to reasearch this a bit more. I have never found any detailed accounts that discuss the Soviet / Russian bomber capabilities in anything like the level of detail that the U.S. capabilities have been discussed. To actually be useful in that role the multi megaton bombs would need certain fusing and delivery options.
I don't have much to add other than I accidentally read the title as "Dumbass Apocalypse".
I guess any scenario where we nuke each other probably would forever be considered a "Dumbass Apocalypse".
Part 2: Initial Aftermath
Initial Aftermath And Nuclear Winter
August 2 - August 22 2014: Fallout
The war lasted less than a day, around 5 hours to be precise. In that time a little over 100 million people died from initial blasts alone, though many more will come in the following weeks. North-Western Europe is the hardest hit area with the concentration of populated areas juxtaposed with military installments. This is because most European NATO bases targeted were in the UK, France, and Germany, as well as the main headquarters being in Belgium.
(Map mistakenly lists Ireland as a NATO member, it is actually a neutral country)
Other majorly impacted areas include: Japan, Korea, North Eastern United States, Western Russia, and North China.
A few hours after the war, fallout blown from impacted areas begins to settle in the downwind suburbs (or unlucky faming communities close enough to rural military bases) and radiation levels already hit lethal levels. Over the coming days the fallout will spread even further but will get weaker and weaker the further it has to travel, but the radiation can still cause long term health effects even if it's not initially fatal.
(10 mSv= 1 Rad)
Many civilians try to hide in fallout shelters but not a lot of people know how to build such a structure properly, and certainly not at short notice. Many others simply don't know what to do and get exposed to radiation that way. In the few weeks it takes for the fallout radiation to dissipate the death toll climbs even further, estimating another 100 million casualties from radiation and supplies shortage.
September - December 2014: The Long Winter
Nuclear Winter had been theorized since the 1950s and scientifically simulated since the 1970s as a potential consequence of nuclear blast induced firestorms, and when the war happened those firestorms showed themselves. Near the nuclear targets fires burned for days in whatever structures remained after the blasts, and in some areas nearby forests became a breeding ground for wildfires. California had been dealing with a drought since 2011 that was only starting to get really bad around the time of the war, and due to the firestorms started around the nuked areas in the state it gave way to one of the most intense blazes in local history.
All the soot made its way into the atmosphere, plunging temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere, and killing a vast majority of crops before harvest. Temperatures drop by as much as 4 degrees Celsius in some areas, and many more experience record early first freezes before the Autumnal Equinox. With Winter a few months away the global cooling should only get worse, and scientific studies made in the years leading up to the war shows that the cooling could last several years and get worse. It is also projected to cause rainfall totals to decrease, meaning that droughts will be much more common. By the end of 2014 the climate shifts and food insecurity raises the death toll past 1 Billion and it's on the fast track to 2 Billion.
BTW if Israel gets nuked, it'll cause a domino effect. Even if it's just one city - most likely Tel Aviv, the political heart of the country - that'll basically break it. And in retaliation, we'd be looking at a Samson option.
With the nukes coming in from Russia, the obvious response will be to send a few right back. Israel lacks ICBMs and relies more on submarine-launched cruise missiles, but they can get a few Russian cities closer to them. Then they start tossing some at Arab countries.
Syria is going to be a big target, even in the throes of the 2011-ongoing civil war. Damascus and several government holdout cities will be targeted, making the refugee crisis worse. Iraq will probably get hit with a couple, mostly in the ISIS-controlled region. Iran will get quite a few of them. South Lebanon will be hit with a few nukes as a final 'fuck you' to Hezbollah. And maybe even a few aimed at Egypt, Israel's frenemy since 1948.
In retaliation, Iran is going to unleash its chemical weapons and conventional arsenal at every Gulf State, targeting the primary infrastructure, water purification facilities, and oil production and refinery systems, effectively not only destroying the economies of the Gulf States (especially Saudi Arabia, its biggest adversary) but shutting down global oil production as the Hormuz Strait is a biohazard zone and the major oil flow from the Gulf destroyed for the foreseeable future. I'd say Turkey gets hit by a few, but then realized Russia's nukes would have ended them already. So Iraq's water table from the Euphrates and Tigris is now irradiated.
Jordan will avoid getting hit, since it largely keeps a neutral stance, but the resulting fallout, chemical spills, and massive refugee movements will shatter the country.
With the nukes coming in from Russia, the obvious response will be to send a few right back. Israel lacks ICBMs and relies more on submarine-launched cruise missiles, but they can get a few Russian cities closer to them. Then they start tossing some at Arab countries.
Syria is going to be a big target, even in the throes of the 2011-ongoing civil war. Damascus and several government holdout cities will be targeted, making the refugee crisis worse. Iraq will probably get hit with a couple, mostly in the ISIS-controlled region. Iran will get quite a few of them. South Lebanon will be hit with a few nukes as a final 'fuck you' to Hezbollah. And maybe even a few aimed at Egypt, Israel's frenemy since 1948.
In retaliation, Iran is going to unleash its chemical weapons and conventional arsenal at every Gulf State, targeting the primary infrastructure, water purification facilities, and oil production and refinery systems, effectively not only destroying the economies of the Gulf States (especially Saudi Arabia, its biggest adversary) but shutting down global oil production as the Hormuz Strait is a biohazard zone and the major oil flow from the Gulf destroyed for the foreseeable future. I'd say Turkey gets hit by a few, but then realized Russia's nukes would have ended them already. So Iraq's water table from the Euphrates and Tigris is now irradiated.
Jordan will avoid getting hit, since it largely keeps a neutral stance, but the resulting fallout, chemical spills, and massive refugee movements will shatter the country.
I take it back I be dead at 16 in this alternate 2014, since I was still in high school and since I live in South Jersey close to Philadelphia I surely will be dead when the first nukes are dropped, and if I managed to have survived that I be still dead from radiation in the coming days.
Welp looks like I died young in the TL before I became a member on AH.
Also question, was Sweden nuked by Russia? If not I can still see it suffering from the intense fallout from the surrounding nations that were nuked.
Welp looks like I died young in the TL before I became a member on AH.
Also question, was Sweden nuked by Russia? If not I can still see it suffering from the intense fallout from the surrounding nations that were nuked.
This. The Middle East would be in more intense shit after nuclear war, and since this happened in 2014 it was around the same time ISIS was a new threat to the public eye, so with nuclear war fucking everything up would give ISIS a chance to expand much larger due to the chaos and anarchy in the Middle East.
I assume places like Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Australia, and New Zealand will be seeing waves of refugees from North America and Europe.
Ouch, yeah, a weakened Iraq and Syria would basically be carte blanche for ISIS to expand.
...oh fuck me... with a weakened Saudi Arabia (no more oil money), we could see ISIS in Saudi Arabia. Imagine the shitstorm of the Caliphate reaching the Holy Lands with the Sauds unable to do anything about it because their banks went bye-bye and their oil got chem-bombed...
- Status