Non-Soviet nuclear explosion to begin WWIII

[Puzzle]

fter taking apart the warhead to study it, the American-made fissile material is repackaged into a new tactical warhead that is then smuggled back to the US for Spetsnaz use.

Why wouldn’t they just smuggle their own in? If the USSR wins they win, stories about the USA starting it with a false flag is pointless. If the US wins they’ll get proof it was the USSR. Using American fissile material seems pointless when they’ve got more than enough of their own.

 

[marathag]

Why wouldn’t hey just smuggle their own in? If the USSR wins they win, stories about the USA starting it with a false flag is pointless. If the US wins they’ll get proof it was the USSR. Using American fissile material seems pointless when they’ve got more than enough of their own.

And is academic, anyway, Neither the USA or USSR would be functioning after the Apocalypse the 1980s WWIII would be, even with the drop in the number of citybusters,

as they were being replaced by the more accurate and numerous MIRVed ICBMs

 

[Nick P]

Wouldn't this be more useful as a way of destabilizing the USA in peacetime?
Set this bomb off at a time when the Presidency is weak and floundering, Congress is bitterly divided, the economy is struggling, the military are not doing well, and plant a lot of rumours to get the fears of anti-nuke activists and gun-owners at a high.

Result: Political chaos and internal strife in the US. This gives the Soviets a freer hand to do what they like abroad. Might even lead to a new round of nuclear disarmament.

 

[NHBL]

Wouldn't this be more useful as a way of destabilizing the USA in peacetime?
Set this bomb off at a time when the Presidency is weak and floundering, Congress is bitterly divided, the economy is struggling, the military are not doing well, and plant a lot of rumours to get the fears of anti-nuke activists and gun-owners at a high.

Result: Political chaos and internal strife in the US. This gives the Soviets a freer hand to do what they like abroad. Might even lead to a new round of nuclear disarmament.

Even in time of "peace," the odds of a full nuclear exchange are rather high, IMVHO. The president (if alive) can order a strike launched.

I suppose that, if they really wanted to make a MESS, they could wait for the President to be addressing a joint session of Congress to set it off.

I feel confident that the KGB could co-opt one or more terrorist organizations, and have them make a statement 20 minutes before the blast, along the lines of "Allah' Vengeance is here. Hellfire is here to claim Satan's minions," perhaps with an appropriate quote from the Koran.

Higher risk, but higher gain, would be for the KGB to try to place the blame on an American organization--KKK or some such.

Eventually, someone will be blamed, and then that someone will just plain GO AWAY.

 

[Snufkin]

One nuclear explosion should not lead into kneejerk reaction of full nuclear retaliation by the US. There's time to retaliate if that's needed, but that leads to mutual destruction. This could be a terrorist attack which purpose is to start WW3 and this should be avoided. If Soviets are found to be the attacker the retaliation will come.

 

[lionhead]

There's also the issue that, in the Sum of all Fears scenario with a Mark-12 nuclear bomb (12-14KT) you can knock out the White House, Capitol Hill, or the Pentagon, but it's really hard to even get two of the three with a ground burst. I've attached a nuke map run for a bomb that tries to go for both the Pentagon and White House. The Capitol is safely outside of the blast or radiation. In terms of the White House, it's no longer the about-to-fall-over structure from before the Truman renovation, so 5 PSI may not do it, and the Pentagon as a structure is almost certainly surviving. You can get 1/3 buildings completely, and maybe get 2/3, but it's likely the inhabitants inside these buildings survive if they don't get killed from glass. So, this won't be a full decapitation of DC, and most of the line of succession will be in place. What's more, even though losing the Pentagon is a huge blow, up at full war time, you already have your decisionmakers dispersed. You're losing some five stars, but your field organization is still deployed and ready to go. So, whether you choose the President without the Pentagon, or the Pentagon with the Speaker of the House as the new President, this doesn't really knock out the line of succession.

View attachment 487782

The way i see it(i somehow, in a disturbed way, always enjoy looking for best locations of nuclear blasts), you have to detonate the bomb right in front of the jefferson memorial. You gotta understand that the immediate surrounding area will have to be evacuated including the white house(naturally) and the capitol(is congress even there?). The pentagon will probably be evacuated as well, although i'm sure they got good shelters and extra protection from the building to keep at least something operational there. But a large portion of the city will be on fire, spreading towards the capitol building and more important buildings(like the Ronald Reagan building). You also take out the washington memorial and probably the Lincoln memorial as well, if only damaging it. Unfortunately you will hit the museums too, personally thats the worst besides the people....

 

[Not James Stockdale]

My intention for Ground Zero was as close to the Pentagon as possible. Unless you have a suicide driver who can detonate on the highways around the Pentagon, Pentagon City is probably the best place to park a suspicious looking cargo van for the ten or fifteen minutes the Spetsnaz team would need to get clear. A detonation there would have better effect against the Pentagon than a detonation on the north side of the Potomac, and DC proper would be mostly untouched, though the Lincoln Memorial would be pretty scorched at the very least.

As far as retaliation, there aren't Soviet missiles and bombers downbound so there's no need for immediate launch. Reagan would have plenty of time to talk to Thatcher and Mitterand, who I doubt would be as interested in starting a nuclear war as the Americans. I personally think a Hackett-style nuclear retaliation would be more likely than just immediately launching the SIOP.

 

[lionhead]

My intention for Ground Zero was as close to the Pentagon as possible. Unless you have a suicide driver who can detonate on the highways around the Pentagon, Pentagon City is probably the best place to park a suspicious looking cargo van for the ten or fifteen minutes the Spetsnaz team would need to get clear. A detonation there would have better effect against the Pentagon than a detonation on the north side of the Potomac, and DC proper would be mostly untouched, though the Lincoln Memorial would be pretty scorched at the very least.

As far as retaliation, there aren't Soviet missiles and bombers downbound so there's no need for immediate launch. Reagan would have plenty of time to talk to Thatcher and Mitterand, who I doubt would be as interested in starting a nuclear war as the Americans. I personally think a Hackett-style nuclear retaliation would be more likely than just immediately launching the SIOP.

I don't know if its important but if you detonate it next to the pentagon or in pentagon city then it won't be detonated in DC, but in Virginia.

On the other hand it will damage the airport then too(air force one?).

 

[Not James Stockdale]

don't know if its important but if you detonate it next to the pentagon or in pentagon city then it won't be detonated in DC, but in Virginia.

Sure, but it's still in the National Capital Region.

On the other hand it will damage the airport then too(air force one?).

AF1 is at Andrews AFB on the other side of the city. Washington National hasn't been a military airport since WWII.

 

[creighton]

I don't know if its important but if you detonate it next to the pentagon or in pentagon city then it won't be detonated in DC, but in Virginia.

On the other hand it will damage the airport then too(air force one?).

I think(?) they base at Andrews, but even if both units somehow were out, they could get one of the E-4s/NEACP from SAC over in a few hours.

 

[creighton]

And is academic, anyway, Neither the USA or USSR would be functioning after the Apocalypse the 1980s WWIII would be, even with the drop in the number of citybusters,

as they were being replaced by the more accurate and numerous MIRVed ICBMs

Yeah, they could smoke DC pretty easily by just parking a sub off the seaboard, but the issue is that you can’t really get to the missile fields in the Midwest before they turn the keys.

 

[Puzzle]

Yeah, they could smoke DC pretty easily by just parking a sub off the seaboard, but the issue is that you can’t really get to the missile fields in the Midwest before they turn the keys.

Or to the US subs or the B-52s hanging out on runways. The entire point of the nuclear triad is to ensure that a first strike isn't decisive.

 

[Mr.J]

One nuclear explosion should not lead into kneejerk reaction of full nuclear retaliation by the US. There's time to retaliate if that's needed, but that leads to mutual destruction. This could be a terrorist attack which purpose is to start WW3 and this should be avoided. If Soviets are found to be the attacker the retaliation will come.

Well, in this scenario a conventional WW3 has already begun. Which makes this an exceedingly dangerous thing for the Soviets to do.

 

[Mr.J]

Any nuclear bomb going off in the US before 9/11 is at least 50% likely to result in instant sunshine in the USSR.
A hit on an obvious military target ups that to probably 75%.
During a shooting war with the USSR takes that to 100% unless the President “wimps” out

And no one is going to wait long enough to figure out that the material has a US fingerprint.

As for not detecting the delivery method. That has to have been considered by the military at some point. Heck Robert Heinlien wrotea short story about this before the USSR even HAD a nuke. So this is not a new idea

I wouldn't go that far, after about 1965 I think the US government was aware that a nuclear bomb could be snuck in by the PRC, a "rogue general" or a terrorist group, and would wait a little bit before just nuking the USSR.

With the USSR already at war with the US though, this is crazy. I guess it's possible the US would launch one or two nuclear strikes at Soviet targets and proclaim that any further use of nuclear weapons will be met with massive retaliation.

 

[Seandineen]

Would the Taiwanese try to hang this issue on the PRC, and restart the civil war?

 

[marathag]

Would the Taiwanese try to hang this issue on the PRC, and restart the civil war?

As far as i'm aware, Red China in the 1980s was not set to get pasted along with the USSR for WWIII.
Twenty Years worth of SIOPs since '61 when that was the goal, glass anyplace on Earth flying a Red Flag, except for Yugoslavia.

 

[DougM]

I understand what your saying but I think in the panic and utter horror of a nuked Washington DC if there is even a hint that the USSR is on alert it is catching a nuke of its own.
If things are utterly peaceful but assuming pre easing of tensions then I still say you are-about 30-35% likely to see the USSR nuked in pure panic. Virtually instantly. It is just the way people react in bad situations. If given time to think I still think in a day or two you may see a nuke dropped on the USSR thus the 50% chance.
But if a war starts during that time you have a 90%+ chance of the USSR nuking the USSR.

I mean what is the USSR going to do? Claim it is pure coincidence that the capital of the country they went to war with just got nuked? Sorry no one is going to believe that.

 

[Alanith]

I understand what your saying but I think in the panic and utter horror of a nuked Washington DC if there is even a hint that the USSR is on alert it is catching a nuke of its own.
If things are utterly peaceful but assuming pre easing of tensions then I still say you are-about 30-35% likely to see the USSR nuked in pure panic. Virtually instantly. It is just the way people react in bad situations. If given time to think I still think in a day or two you may see a nuke dropped on the USSR thus the 50% chance.
But if a war starts during that time you have a 90%+ chance of the USSR nuking the USSR.

I mean what is the USSR going to do? Claim it is pure coincidence that the capital of the country they went to war with just got nuked? Sorry no one is going to believe that.

For real. The only acceptable response would be lobbing a city buster at Moscow in retaliation.

 

[marathag]

I understand what your saying but I think in the panic and utter horror of a nuked Washington DC if there is even a hint that the USSR is on alert it is catching a nuke of its own.

Per the original post, Conventional WWIII is ongoing.

Can't see how things don't go full retaliatory very quickly after a successful decapitation strike, even if the Prez isn't vaporized.

But I am also in the camp with what I know of Soviet 'Invade Western Europe' plans is that tacnukes nukes and chemicals would be used very early.

Hard not to have all that going on, and Moscow not being 'on alert'

 

[marathag]

For real. The only acceptable response would be lobbing a city buster at Moscow in retaliation.

'Tit for tat' doesn't work with global nuclear war.
Use 'em all or bet on losing them all.

Especially after a nuke goes off in the heart of DC