Email has replaced the old Fax machines in this system. Voice connection is still there. Both are encrypted so the conversation wont appear in the next mornings NY Times.
My past myths about nuclear war I used to believe in (pls. add yours as well)
- Thread starter Nightingale
- Start date
Email has replaced the old Fax machines in this system. Voice connection is still there. Both are encrypted so the conversation wont appear in the next mornings NY Times.
The movie Sums Of All Fears, for all its technical failures about military stuff, has a really great scene involving the "Red Phone" and a three-way text-based communication for some emergency diplomacy.
This dates back to the 1940s/50s DROPSHOT era of US strategy vs the USSR. There was a assumption from 1948 that the US could not deploy a force in Europe strong enough to halt the early war Red Army attack. The DROPSHOT plans proposed a initial peripheral strategy while the US rebuilt a massive military. Some alternatives consisted of making the main fight behind the Rhine barrier, in eastern France & Belgium. The French understandably did not like this and preferred the war be fought in Germany to the last German soldier or civilian. Eventually in the 1960s & 70s NATO strategy transitioned to a solid forward defense east of the Rhine. The early era of REFORGER & all that.
The strategy and the feasability of a US involvement in WW3 had changed. What was questioned (and still is, TBH) was the will. Would the US have stood for its allies if the Soviets threatened nuclear strikes on CONUS? I'll be blunt and say I don't believe it would, not that I blame them. If REFORGER failed to hold the Soviets decisively, a lot of people here would have expected the US to back down across the "more defensive" Channel and leave the rest of us to buy Russian dictionaries rather than make the move to escalate to nuclear and risk losing every CONUS city over 20,000 people for the sake of Rome, Paris, Copenhagen, Brussels, Amsterdam, etc.
Once again, it would be the logical reaction to expect from the US (the POTUS is perfectly right to prioritize New York over Paris, and would be in dereliction of their duties if they didn't), but we kinda were in a mood Israelis will understand. Never again. So... yeah, with a fully independent nuclear deterrent aimed at inflicting absolutely unacceptable damage to the Soviets, we kinda sorta made sure that, at the very least, noone could make a "winning" strategy that involved us being occupied or glassed. The part about fighting to the last German soldier or civilian, however, stood strong, with the Pluton and Hadès SRBM.
But if it succeeds and US troops are still on the way to be defeated conventionally in Germany, "will" becomes fundamental.
If you use small fission nukes used on Japanese cities, yes
But it's about bigger fission nukes and H-bombs, you get dam dirty fallout and some nukes are design to be Dirty for M.A.D.
The golden rule is worst radioactive fallout in first 1000 days after nuclear exchange, what follow are patch of Radioactive Fallout of Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 that radiate for next 90 years
SIOP-62 was a nuke overkill scenario were thousands of soviets target get three times US "delivery", Moscow had to be bomb with 100 MT exchange on MRBM, ICBM, Bomber and SLBM.
Also were allot of those targets inside or close to Population centers who are wipe out from face of the earth by H-bombs or MIRV in 1983 scenario
And with high population density lying in West USSR a 1961/1962 Nuclear War scenario would left fraction of survivors in former USSR
Same goes for Soviet counter value attack on NATO installation and HQ that for some reason are installed in Capitals first Paris and later Brussels
for 1961/1962 Nuclear War scenario the soviets had leveled Paris killing millions, same goes for Belgium in 1983 Nuclear War with around 10 million dead, oh snap that's entire population of Belgium !
Or the Fulda Gap north of Frankfurt am Main were both side would have fight for because it's easy access from East to West Germany
So NATO and US forces installed EVERY Nuclear option to use there, MRBM, SRBM, Bombers, nuclear artillery, Davy Crocket nuclear rocket-propelled grenade, nuclear land mines.
and allot of those devices were "Dirty" in order to kill enemy in large numbers, own troops and Civilians were "unimportance"
in 1962 scenario the state of Hesse would be radioactive dead zone for next 90 years...
1982 Q.E.D about Nuclear strike on London. you can use also for Brussels, Paris, Moscow, Frankfurt am Main etc...
warning some shocking picture
If US NATO is defeated in Germany it means REFORGER has failed.
However I am of the school of total war from day one. I'm very skeptical of any conventional warfare, or gradual escalation after 1955. A full on nuclear attack right out the gate.
Up until the late 60s or so, using nukes from day one puts the USSR on the wrong side of the equation. After that MAD begins to really be operative. Going nuke from the start IMHO means the Soviets have a very high confidence in their ability to pull off a Pearl Harbor level surprise with a combination of extensive decapitation and counterforce primarily on the USA. That does beg the question of can they also do this to France and the UK, and there is the (still) unsolved problem for the USSR/Russia is what about the NATO boomers - they can still put down an incredibly nasty countervalue strike. The US, UK, and France all have these...
Well then, keep my seat warm in Hell, because there'll be crowding.
I used to think that a nuclear war was the end of humanity but today i'm very convinced that plenty of people among the Papuan tribes and the tribal areas in the Southern part of Africa will survive, though with some trouble due to the change in weather during the next few years as there's a lot of ash from cities high up in the stratosphere. There's nothing anywhere close to them which is worth bombing and they already live self sufficient lifes full of hardship and have learned from many generations of past hardship, they should endure the few years until the weather is normal again.
Now in Europe there too will be plenty of survivors at first but the collapse of logistics and industrial farming as well as a really harsh winter that will follow should give most of them the rest. There's little wild life left to hunt and few know how to grow food beyond a small graden at their home so there's no real possibility of large populations going primitive to survive, a lot of preparation would be needed for that.
Now in Europe there too will be plenty of survivors at first but the collapse of logistics and industrial farming as well as a really harsh winter that will follow should give most of them the rest. There's little wild life left to hunt and few know how to grow food beyond a small graden at their home so there's no real possibility of large populations going primitive to survive, a lot of preparation would be needed for that.
How do you get a scenario like Able Archer '83 TL in which only four cities in the US (includes only part of NYC) and only around the same number in the USSR (includes half of Moscow) get destroyed by nukes?
@Nightingale : Have you met our friend Skippy the ASB, a frequent visitor to this board?
Only 8 cities getting destroyed in a nuclear war between the US and USSR is a fantasy scenario like every tank in the Battle of Kursk vanishing, 2019 China getting replaced by 1965 China or Jimmy Carter switching bodies with George Bush on 9/11.
Fantasy scenarios belong in the ASB section of the forum.