How bad would a modern nuclear exchange be in comparison to the Cold War?

With Russias 1800 and Chinas 100 long range nukes on somewhat less delivery systems what targets in the USA are going to be left alone so Australia can eat a nuke or 10?
I have no idea what targets would be left un touched in the U.S.A. But with 1800 strategic warheads I would expect the Russians would have some allocated to cover targets located in U.S. allies. (edit to add.. That were out of range of non strategic systems.) Leaving non US NATO and ANZUS military targets un touched seems rather silly to me. If nothing else taking out inteligence and C3I related sites and perhaps military airfields located in US allies would seem a prudent course of action for the Russians. (If only to make it harder for the U.S. to re constitute their strategic bomber force.)

The Chinese may not have enough warheads to do this.

2nd edit to add...

I doubt the Russians would have more than a few dozen targets in formal US Allies (mostly in Canada and Australia IMHO) that they would want to target with strategic weapons in a general exchange with the U.S. that they couldn't cover with tactical weapons.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea what targets would be left un touched in the U.S.A. But with 1800 strategic warheads I would expect the Russians would have some allocated to cover targets located in U.S. allies. (edit to add.. That were out of range of non strategic systems.) Leaving non US NATO and ANZUS military targets un touched seems rather silly to me. If nothing else taking out inteligence and C3I related sites and perhaps military airfields located in US allies would seem a prudent course of action for the Russians. (If only to make it harder for the U.S. to re constitute their strategic bomber force.)

The Chinese may not have enough warheads to do this.

2nd edit to add...

I doubt the Russians would have more than a few dozen targets (mostly in Canada and Australia IMHO) that they would want to target with strategic weapons in a general exchange with the U.S. that they couldn't cover with tactical weapons.

I would suggest you have a look at Cockroachs post about the number of targets those 1800 wargeafs would hit: I don't think 3-800 is unreasonable. I would add to that that targets in Australia would require the same long range weapons that are allocated to the US and the combination of the nature of nuclear weapons and the separation of possible targets in Australia means that there are few efficient means of hitting multiple targets with a MIRV. An ICBM/SLBM aimed at Australia will mean one less US military or industrial target off the list, which might be the one with a B2 unit or SSBN on site.
 
Have we factored in America's anti-ballistic capabilities? That, coupled with missile failures and targets spread across continents, should further limit Russian nuclear capabilities.
 
I would suggest you have a look at Cockroachs post about the number of targets those 1800 wargeafs would hit: I don't think 3-800 is unreasonable. I would add to that that targets in Australia would require the same long range weapons that are allocated to the US and the combination of the nature of nuclear weapons and the separation of possible targets in Australia means that there are few efficient means of hitting multiple targets with a MIRV. An ICBM/SLBM aimed at Australia will mean one less US military or industrial target off the list, which might be the one with a B2 unit or SSBN on site.
Or surviving Australian and Canadian airbases, (likely with help from other U.S. Allies) intelligence gathering assets and command and control facilities are used by the U.S. to carry out a subsequent "mop up" attack that allows the last few surviving leadership bunkers in Russia to be hit by the last handful of US B2 bombers supported by the last few KC10 tankers etc..

Having an intact ally to plan and stage these attacks from would IMHO make the job of the U.S. much easier and I can't see a prudent Russian planner being happy about that possibility.

I think at this point I will agree to disagree with you and move on.
 
Any nuclear attack would be back but no where near as destructive as it would have been in the eighties. The United States had about 450 missile silos and to even attempt to get an 80% kill ratio on the silos would take 900 warheads. The Russian Federation has some 1950 strategic warheads so almost half of their strategic warheads would have to be used to just go after our silos. while we would be going after everything but their silos. No they would not waste time going after the silos. Major cities and military bases and assorted military command centers and civilian administrative centers. Also their short range nuclear weapons pounding on China and Europe. Thus allowing more of their strategic arsenal warheads to hit other targets. Take out say Canberra, Sidney and Melbourne in Australia and other countries would inflict the kind of damage necessary to take care of potential long term threats since the odds are that in one form or another the Russian Federation would survive.
 
Have we factored in America's anti-ballistic capabilities? That, coupled with missile failures and targets spread across continents, should further limit Russian nuclear capabilities.
The Russians maybe devote a few dozen warheads to account for any U.S. ABM efforts ?
 
Have we factored in America's anti-ballistic capabilities? That, coupled with missile failures and targets spread across continents, should further limit Russian nuclear capabilities.
How about Russia's? I think they still have that ABM system around Moscow.
 
Bearing in mind ANZUS has been defunct for more than thirty years now.

True, but I think that's more or less irrelevant when it comes to nuclear targeting. NZ is a lot closer to being a member of the US sphere of influence than the Russians'; remember we're part of the Five Eyes group and a whole bunch of other agreements. The only things that might save us from a strike are a) the extremely limited value derived from hitting us, and b) shortage of long-range delivery systems. If you've read that "New Zealand After a Nuclear War" book put out in the 1980s, I think we're closer to the targeting scenario from that NOW than we were at the time: covered by an EMP centred above Australia, but unlikely to receive any warheads ourselves. Of course, we're also much more vulnerable to an EMP than we were back then, and much less able to look after ourselves in the aftermath of a global nuclear exchange even if we avoid being hit. Wishful thinking has never been a very effective strategy, but it's about all we have :confused:
 
True, but I think that's more or less irrelevant when it comes to nuclear targeting. NZ is a lot closer to being a member of the US sphere of influence than the Russians'; remember we're part of the Five Eyes group and a whole bunch of other agreements. The only things that might save us from a strike are a) the extremely limited value derived from hitting us, and b) shortage of long-range delivery systems. If you've read that "New Zealand After a Nuclear War" book put out in the 1980s, I think we're closer to the targeting scenario from that NOW than we were at the time: covered by an EMP centred above Australia, but unlikely to receive any warheads ourselves. Of course, we're also much more vulnerable to an EMP than we were back then, and much less able to look after ourselves in the aftermath of a global nuclear exchange even if we avoid being hit. Wishful thinking has never been a very effective strategy, but it's about all we have :confused:

Interesting...

Anyways I suspect New Zealand would be a significantly lower priority target than say Canada and Australia. (I can't think of any other significant US allies that wouldn't be within range of non strategic Russian delivery systems.) A couple of nukes would likely eliminate any likely hood of New Zealand posing a post war threat. The intelligence sharing arrangements might tip the balance if the Russians thought that an intact New Zealand might be be able to help the remnants of the U.S. forces plan a subsequent "mop up" attack. That being said I'd rather be in New Zealand during a nuclear war than Canada or Australia. The Russians might also decide not to bother with targeting New Zealand.
 
Have we factored in America's anti-ballistic capabilities? That, coupled with missile failures and targets spread across continents, should further limit Russian nuclear capabilities.

40 interceptors with a coin toss success rate ain't gonna make a dent in the Russian arsenal.
 
Count me down for saying it would be roughly equally bad. What most are overlooking is that a lot of those bombs would be destroyed before ever being used. This is particularly so in the 1980s when so many of them were tactical warheads that would be destroyed on the ground or when the delivery mechanism is destroyed. If your F-16 is already damaged or destroyed you cant deliver the bomb. And that's assuming the bases that house them havent been destroyed already. The only thing that would give me some small glimmer of hope now is that so many weapons currently in each sides arsenal are so old that the malfunction rate should be higher. But, then both sides are now modernizing so perhaps maybe not.
 
40 interceptors with a coin toss success rate ain't gonna make a dent in the Russian arsenal.

That raises an interesting issue : how many nukes could defences take out?

I assume some nukes would be delivered by bomber and ALCM, would many of these be shot down? I doubt that the US would be holding back THAAD and SM3/6 despite their unsuitabiliy, how many sites would they cover and what sort of strike rate would they get against ICBM/SLBM?
 
40 interceptors with a coin toss success rate ain't gonna make a dent in the Russian arsenal.

Not in the arsenal. But it does complicate targeting and the question of how many warheads need to be assigned to "guarantee" destruction of critical targets - which, with a finite number of long-range delivery systems, means that other targets are no longer targeted.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Not in the arsenal. But it does complicate targeting and the question of how many warheads need to be assigned to "guarantee" destruction of critical targets - which, with a finite number of long-range delivery systems, means that other targets are no longer targeted.
Which means fuck all in reality. The 1980's SIOP defined targets as (per Colin Powell's description) one large bomb hitting City hall, and another hitting a bridge half a mile away. By the end of the Cold War, they were dedicating multiple warheads to individual cement factories. In the 1980's lots of those "tens of thousands of warheads" would have found themselves nuking rubble again and again.

Modern day targeting remembers the "nuke is a nuke" mantra of the 1950's. Even if a factory is not obliterated by multiple strikes; a single nuke that hits its city will be enough. It will suffer damage and become unworkable, plus most of its workers will be dead so you can forget about repairing.

Of course in the meantime, the US has been so kind as to move its Oil industry to the already-heavily-targeted-due-to-Silos North Dakota. The Russians thank you, those SS-18 RV's are now dual purposed.


All in all it was estimated that 300 warheads in the mid to high KT range would be enough to destroy the US or W Europe, completely. 1800 warheads, more likely closer to 3000 when one count tactical systems used for strategic strikes are more than enough.
 
Even if it's the 300 ICBM counterforce strategy, it would be catastrophic and the end of the United States in its current form.

We have huge fields of Minutemen IIIs in Wyoming, Nebraska and Idaho that are going to cause fallout right over the areas where most of our food used to come from. Additionally, pretty much every Midwest city is going to take a massive amount of fallout from the amount of ground bursts that are going to happen at these missile fields. This is on top of the cities that will be wipped out due to proximity to US targets.

Also, our refining capacity is going to be knocked offline, so in the cities that haven't been hit, good luck with that rebuild.
 
Even if it's the 300 ICBM counterforce strategy, it would be catastrophic and the end of the United States in its current form.

We have huge fields of Minutemen IIIs in Wyoming, Nebraska and Idaho that are going to cause fallout right over the areas where most of our food used to come from. Additionally, pretty much every Midwest city is going to take a massive amount of fallout from the amount of ground bursts that are going to happen at these missile fields. This is on top of the cities that will be wipped out due to proximity to US targets.

Depends if it's first strike or not. Targeting soon to be empty silos isn't worth it, while countervalue targets are always there.
in the '80s, there was enough warheads for both counterforce and countervalue targeting.
Now there isn't
 

Puzzle

Donor
I wonder how much of the arsenals are targeted at China. Making sure they can't roll over everyone else while they're down seems like a logical move, and their relatively paltry ability to hit back doesn't really matter once you assume the Russians and Americans have basically already pasted everything the Chinese will be shooting at. My relatively basic understanding of game theory indicates that China probably realizes this too, so they'll hit their neighbors as opposed to the US mainland so that India, Japan, etc can't come in and carve them up.
 
Top