The Strategy of Thermonuclear War

[Thucydides]

Before you say that there is no strategy, think...
There is no way I could phrase this eloquently so I will phrase it normally. Assume this happens in the early Cold War.

This discussion will hopefully find out
What cities/bases would be targeted
Casualties
Survivability

Discuss

 

[August Akuma]

In thermonuclear war, the first thing to be aimed for will be airfields and nuclear silos, which will receive anywhere from 2-5 nukes each. (If possible).

The next thing that would be hit is capitals. If Washington DC was struck, it would be mostly symbolic (compared to hitting heavily industrial cities like Berlin or London). They would probably be hit only once or twice.

If the war is grumsome, then the next to be hit is the important cities. The US East Coast and West Coast would receive the most abuse, because the cities are population heavy.

Would it be survivable? Yes. We would be knocked back to the stone age at worst, but still kicking. Assuming that humans survive a few years after Judgement Day, we should be safe.

 

[MerryPrankster]

There's a novel called Defcon One by Joe Weber where they discuss the strategies of nuclear war and how to "win" one.

(The Soviet leaders plot one against the U.S. by provoking incidents in hopes of a "cry wolf" effect when they decide to finally attack and when the U.S. discovers the plan, they pre-emptively attack the massing Soviet units, who do not know their plan has been exposed.)

During the 1980s, there were people who worried the deployment of cruise missiles and shorter-ranged ballistic missiles in Western Europe was part of a Western first-strike strategy (or would be interpreted by the Soviets as such)--they could fly so quickly they could destroy Moscow and leadership targets before the leaders could get the launch orders out.

With the leadership gone, the US could then try to destroy as many Soviet missiles on the ground as possible before the chain of command is reconstituted. Some Soviet forces would survive and fire, but they would not be able to inflict lethal damage.

The super-stealthy Soviet sub in The Hunt for the Red October could also be used in a first-strike--get close enough to the coast that there's very little time between launch and impact and goodbye DC without the launch orders getting out.

Another strategy could revolve around the combination of nuclear strikes and nuclear terrorism.

One novel I read involved a plot by rogue elements of the Soviet military to destroy the US by detonating a smuggled nuke in Washington while at the same time, some "terrorists" (who are really KGB/Spestnaz types) fire a hijacked American missile at the USSR, provoking an attack by the Soviets, who think the US is attacking them.

This would have the same "monkey with the chain of command to delay the firing of missiles long enough to first strike them."

 

[MerryPrankster]

Oops. Early Cold War.

How early do you mean?

 

[Thucydides]

In thermonuclear war, the first thing to be aimed for will be airfields and nuclear silos, which will receive anywhere from 2-5 nukes each. (If possible).

The next thing that would be hit is capitals. If Washington DC was struck, it would be mostly symbolic (compared to hitting heavily industrial cities like Berlin or London). They would probably be hit only once or twice.

If the war is grumsome, then the next to be hit is the important cities. The US East Coast and West Coast would receive the most abuse, because the cities are population heavy.

Would it be survivable? Yes. We would be knocked back to the stone age at worst, but still kicking. Assuming that humans survive a few years after Judgement Day, we should be safe.

That is what I thought. But what about Russian cities. I could probably look up silo/airfield targets but what would cities be in priority.

I'd assume Moscow then St. Petersburg then maybe Kiev or Minsk.

And what about submarine and bomber crews. After they deliver their payloads I can assume that their bases would be destroyed. What would they do?

BTW: Early Cold War means basically before 1965.

 

[Aelita]

Early in the Cold War, the general plan was to have nuclear armed B52s and B47s infiltrate Soviet Airspace and repeatedly pound industrial and population centers after an initial wave of ICBMs took out key command stations.

Targets like Moscow were scheduled to be sortied up to 15 times by separate aircraft in the first wave alone. There was a real fear that after the first few bombs, the later bombers wouldn't be able to tell where the target was to sufficiently ensure destruction of hardened underground installations.

 

[MerryPrankster]

And what about submarine and bomber crews. After they deliver their payloads I can assume that their bases would be destroyed. What would they do?

As far as the bombers were concerned, depending on how successful the other side is, some of their bases might survive.

Plus there were civilian airfields big enough to accomodate bombers, which means many of those would be targets too.

Failing that, there's always landing on the Interstate highways, which were designed with this secondary purpose in mind.

Otherwise, I don't know. Would they try to ditch the bombers at some point and make it back to friendly territory on foot?

That strikes me as a really, REALLY bad idea. If Allied bomber pilots were lynched by German civilians in WWII for using napalm, Western nuclear pilots would probably face a similar fate from any Russians they come across.

 

[MerryPrankster]

When were the full effects of EMP known?

Orbital nuclear detonations designed to destroy enemy electronics--if sufficient numbers have gone from vacuum tubes to transistors but not to later EMP-resistant stuff--could be effective.

BTW, here's a real WWIII strategy. It's called DROPSHOT.

http://www.johnreilly.info/ww3.htm

 

[Weaver]

If the Soviets were the aggressor the first strikes would be EMP bursts over all NATO countries from orbital weapons, exploded in orbit. Killer satellites would attempt to destroy as much of the NATO early warning and command and control satellite network as possible.

Immediately afterwards prepositioned submarines would launch at bomber bases, Trident bases and radars as well as the NCA of NATO, covering capitals and hardened bunkers. This is aimed at causing maximum destruction of leadership cadres. Airbursts would be aimed at probable bomber egress routes from airfields. There would be little or no warning of these strikes, with flight times less than 10 minutes from launch to impact.

Timed for the impact time of the SLBMs a massive ICBM strike would be launched at silos and missile fields. No other strikes on population centres at this time.

A pause would be in order at this time to assess damage inflicted on NATO, identify spared targets requiring further servicing and assess damage to Soviet strategic assets.

Then further cleanup strikes, followed by an ultimatum calling for surrender and threatening strikes on surviving cities if hostilities continue.

Then wait for the NATO Tridents on patrol to decide what they should do in the absence of any surviving NCA in NATO.

 

[LeX]

Submarines can probably stay underwater for a month or so (quite a long time in a nuclear war), and probably find somewhere to dock, though not in their native country. Bombers would probably crash after running out of fuel and probably being abandoned by their crews, with a few pilots flying to non-destroyed states. It is also possible that a bomber could land on a straight highway.

 

[Aelita]

As far as the bombers were concerned, depending on how successful the other side is, some of their bases might survive.

Plus there were civilian airfields big enough to accomodate bombers, which means many of those would be targets too.

Failing that, there's always landing on the Interstate highways, which were designed with this secondary purpose in mind.

Otherwise, I don't know. Would they try to ditch the bombers at some point and make it back to friendly territory on foot?

That strikes me as a really, REALLY bad idea. If Allied bomber pilots were lynched by German civilians in WWII for using napalm, Western nuclear pilots would probably face a similar fate from any Russians they come across.

Any US bombers attacking the Soviet Union would be coming from over the Arctic circle. For the longest time, entire squadrons of B52s were kept permanently in the air on long sorties, refueled by airborne tankers waiting for the signal to attack. The general plan was to just overfly the USSR after the attack and land in Turkey or Iran, which would hopefully be relatively intact after a nuclear exchange. If not, I'd expect they'd ditch their plains over the Black Sea.

 

[Weaver]

Oops I missed the "early cold war" too.

 

[LeX]

Did the American bombers have fighter escorts? How many of them would've been shot down by Soviet interceptors?

 

[Weaver]

The F101 Voodoo was designed as an escort for the B36 and B50, but never deployed as such. The B36 also could carry parasitic fighters but again not deployed operationally.

The B47 could have breezed past the early Soviet Air Defences as could the B52 and B58.

Actually any "Early Cold War" war would left the USSR as a smoking ruin, they were so outclassed. It was not until the later seventies and eighties that true MAD became the case.

 

[Matt Wiser]

Up until the mid-60s, when the U.S. had a 17:1 strategic superiority over the Russians, it was assumed that the U.S. would take damage, but still survive as a country. The USSR and WARPAC countries would not. Until SIOP-60 in 1960, each service had its own war plans, and there was very little coordination: Navy planes off of carriers would hit a Soviet naval base, and a few hours later, in comes a B-47 or B-52 to service the target again, even though it's already slag. Ditto for missiles: Regulus cruise missiles from subs or surface ships would reach a target, and a bomber or carrier plane comes in sometime later to put more fire (literally) on target.

As far as SAC having fighter escorts, they did have dedicated fighter-escort wings up until the mid '50s, with the F-82 Twin Mustang in the late '40s-early '50s, then the F-84 up until 1956. The F-108 Rapier was designed not only as a high-speed, long range interceptor for Air Defense Command, but at LeMay's request, could also serve in the fighter-escort role, especially for the B-70. Lockheed's F-12 was also intended as a fighter-escort, since there was a planned B-71 version of the SR-71 on the drawing boards at Kelly Johnson's Skunk Works, but the AF elected not to pursue the B-71. The F-108 died in 1959, and the B-70 a year later, but the latter was resurrected as a R&D effort with two aircraft, one of which crashed, and the other is now at the USAF Museum in Ohio. The F-108 and F-12 would have had AAMs with nuclear or conventional warheads, and if the former are being used, would have been burning Soviet interceptors out of the sky, as Ivan had nothing that could've caught either fighter. They wouldn't have been escorts in the traditional sense, but fighter sweep would be more like it, as they would've gone ahead of the bombers to kill Soviet interceptors.

 

[LeX]

The USSR had no planes with which to counter US bombers? Seems strange that we didn't pwn them when we had the chance.

 

[Weaver]

Well, it wouldn't have been a clear win you know, most of Western Europe would have been slagged by the Soviets with their IRBM force, plus you can bet on the States losing maybe 20 million people and several big cities.

Mind you, SAC commanders LeMay and Power both wanted to do exactly what you suggest at the time of the early sixties.

 

[xchen08]

The USSR had no planes with which to counter US bombers? Seems strange that we didn't pwn them when we had the chance.

Well, you are talking about "winning" a war by killing 100+ million people at the cost of a few million of your own. Unless it's real early, in which case it would be by killing a few 10s of millions people at the cost of a couple nukes landing in Germany. Neither is better than we ended up getting in the Cold War.

 

[endlesstuesday]

Before you say that there is no strategy, think...
There is no way I could phrase this eloquently so I will phrase it normally. Assume this happens in the early Cold War.

This discussion will hopefully find out
What cities/bases would be targeted
Casualties
Survivability

Theres not really any need to discuss strategy, since you can read US strategy of the time in the declassified papers on Dropshot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Dropshot
Which as far as i can remember covers both a US response to a Warsaw Pact strike and a US pre-emptive strike.

Obviously by 1963, the year that this would most likely occur dropshot was somewhat redundant, since both sides could get nukes onto each other cities far quicker in which case the war would be far more devestating, especially for the US.

Even the ''winner'' (more likely to eb the US in this case) would emerge as a state dogged by totalitarianism, massive resource shortages and economic collapse. Which would in the long term either leave a very unpleasant military dictatorship or it would get the government overthrown or see the country dissolve into smaller states and localities.
Maybe a southern power that perhaps renounces nuclear weapons will come to pre-eminence, or maybe the war would open pandoras box and just pave the way for a long series of nuclear exchanges in the style of the backstory for 1984.
Don;t think its something thats that possible to predict though.

 

[MacCaulay]

And what about submarine and bomber crews. After they deliver their payloads I can assume that their bases would be destroyed. What would they do?

BTW: Early Cold War means basically before 1965.

When you're driving around the Interstates in the US, you'll notice that there are an awful lot of straightaways. Those were designed deliberately that way during the initial building phase by the Eisenhower administration so that aircraft would have plenty of additional landing strips in case the airbases were taken out. The same is true out in Canada.