"Explained: Why a Nuclear War Would Be Hell" Topic

"Stephen Klein promised their father he'd see them across the wasteland. It's slow going. His carriage is bumpy, the horse is scared and the landscape is full of death and danger.

Klein doesn't know what's wrong with Denise—she bled uncontrollably during church a few days ago. Gauze covers Danny's head. He's Denise's little brother.

The boy was staring at the bomb when it went off. It was the last thing he ever saw. Klein told their father he'd get them to a hospital or die trying.

"What do you see?" Danny asks Steve.

"Oh," Klein says. "Cows, telephone poles. The usual stuff."

The camera pulls back to reveal that there are no cows or telephone poles, just men in masks throwing dead bodies onto the back of a truck. A fine white powder covers everything…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Thank God Reagan watched that movie.

I remember seeing that at the cinema in NZ when I was 13 or 14. Certainly made me happy to live on the bottom of the world.

Robert

The day after was ok but a little sanitised. The 1964 BBC documentary "the wargame" was far better. Grittier, accurate and totally frightening. It was banned by both the british Government and the heads of the BBC for fear of causing panic. It showed not only the effects of an attack but the subsequent break down of govt and society as the nuclear winter set in. It was screened in Europe and won the academy award for best documentary award for that year. It did not screen until 1985 in the UK when it was shown alongside another called "Threads" Also very hard hitting and frightening. Both films were available uptil last year on youtube but appear to have been withdrawn now. A shame because current generations who never experienced the cold war really NEED to watch this stuff.

There is probably more chance not less of a nuclear weapons attack now than at the peak of the cold war.

Major powers retain enormous arsenals – Russia, US, China and minor powers like France and the UK have significant if outmoded weapons.

Then there are countries like India and Pakistan – the latter being frighteningly lax about security. I understand they move their weapons around a lot with only moderate escort to avoid attracting attention.

Then we have rogue states like Israel [a rogue state by any fair definition] and the East Asian bogey man in North Korea who can build bombs but would struggle to get them more than 30km outside their own borders.

Israel cannot act without US agreement or acquiescence at least – so is a minor risk too.

I think we can discount the risk from Iran as if they did succeed in building a bomb it would be purely as a deterrent and not to attack Israel or anywhere else.

The risk is still small but it is still real. I wish Obama would make good on his Nobel prize and DO SOMETHING to reduce the massive US stockpile. A unilateral 50% cut would be a good start and still leave a comfortable deterrent.

You are nuts. Unilaterally reducing our stockpile will encourage China to radically increase theirs. The only reason Nukes have not been used since WWII is that the US has maintained a superiority and the bad actors in the world know it.

The Soviets would have invaded Europe in the 50's had that not been the case (that was revealed after the fall of the USSR)

Could be safely reduced by 50% and still maintain enough to deter any 'bad actors'. I don't advocate a 100% cut by the US – by the UK yes as they are an irrelevance, costly and a hazard too.

The US were miles and miles ahead of the Soviets at every stage since the A-bomb was invented.

I think nuclear weapons being in the hands of the Soviets and US and China in sufficient numbers for mutually assured destruction did prevent escalation of the Korean War, and some serious war in Europe or indeed the middle east. We would not have made it to 2000 or even 1960 without WW3.

As curlerman mentioned, "Threads" is very hard hitting. I think if everyone living saw "Threads" there would be no rational for building or harboring nuclear weapons. Since seeing "Threads" I have never seen any fictional account of nuclear holocaust and the aftermath that even comes close to the horrors depicted in that documentary style film.
Here is the IMDB reference.
link

> I think if everyone living saw "Threads" there would be no rational for building or harboring nuclear weapons.

I can think of one, if you don't have them and someone else does – you are going to do ANYTHING they say.

WW,

That was the point: it was propaganda aimed at promoting unilateral nuclear disarmament of the UK.

What the Useful Idiots failed to realise however, was that the USSR would not have cared if we unilaterally disarmed. Had it all gone to rat- they woud have nuked us anyway.

Add to the Nuc movie watch liswt Doctor Strangelove … again … And between the jokes listen to some of the other lines …

A shame because current generations who never experienced the cold war really NEED to watch this stuff.

They are too "busy" to remember recent history, let alone any history … Now ask them who Kim is currently bedding … they will probably be able to tell you in detail.

A unilateral 50% cut would be a good start and still leave a comfortable deterrent

Probably … but will that leave us enough to combat the alien invasions ?

Someone thinks nuclear war would be all fun and games?

On the bright side, it's going on 75 years since we had a general war, so I'm a big fan of nukes.
-Kle.

I think if everyone living saw "Threads" there would be no rational for building or harboring nuclear weapons.

Fortunately, not everyone is as you are.
-Kle.

Just to pick up on Skarper with:
"Major powers retain enormous arsenals – Russia, US, China and minor powers like France and the UK have significant if outmoded weapons."

The U.S. and Russia are the only major powers in this in terms of numbers. The UK, France and China are about equal in numbers, all the UK's are of similar design and carried in exactly the same Trident D5 missiles that the U.S. relies upon, and France mostly uses comparable and similarly modern submarine launched weapons so how are these minor (nuclear) powers if China is not or outmoded if the Others are not?

*biiiiiiiiiiiig sigh*

Yes, nuclear war is terrifying. It should be.

Because the name of the game is "deterrence" or "threat of retaliation," how many nukes do you need to own to make that threat credible? Enough to burn Moscow to the ground? Enough to make sure we hit all the Dachas of the Russian powers-that-be? Enough to hit every single Russian military base?

Whatever that number of warheads is, that many warheads need to constantly be within range of those targets or your threat is no longer credible.

Now we get into some serious calculus: How vulnerable the nukes are in their 'ready' state.

A fixed silo is a known location. It is vulnerable to air strikes, ground strikes, and theoretically even terrorists. It also gives a bit of an answer to just which targets that site can threaten. I don't recommend trying to rattle the fence around fixed sites, the guards have had their sense of humor surgically removed. If you are very lucky, the guards won't shoot you.

Air-launched nukes have a different set of restrictions, given mid-air refueling. Bombers need to get within a couple hundred miles of their targets, which means that they face the greatest risk of interception. On the flip side, bombers give you the greatest ability to either change targets or to recall the strike. Once ground-based or sub-launched missiles are fired, there is absolutely no taking that back. Bombers can be recalled up to minutes before the bombs go off. By that same stretch, that flexibility makes bombers a way of telling another country just how upset you are with them, to the point of being a potentially immediate threat.

Submarine-launched missiles are the most difficult to prevent from being a successful second strike, because of how difficult it is to know where the sub is located. But that also involves having enough subs to keep your deterrent force at sea. In US service, roughly 2/3rds of the 14 SSBNs are at sea at any given time, and I believe that is also true for the Brits (4 subs) and French (4 subs).

Maintaining a full triad of land-based missiles, bombers, and sea-based missiles is expensive. I could make an argument that you only need the sea-based missiles to maintain a reasonable deterrent, but that's also the most complex and expensive capability to develop and maintain.

The two nations I'm most afraid of having nukes are the North Koreans and the Pakistanis, because I expect either one of those two to actually USE them. Iran is another concern, given their stated goal of destroying Israel, but they seem to be more sane than the Pakistanis or North Koreans.

Lived through the '50's and '60's Deep Cold War.

I believe there is still no nuclear testing, so all these warheads are designed by computer aided engineering.

I read somewhere(sorry..old)that without nuclear testing, these weapons will suffer 1/3rd dud rate and another 1/3rd will be fratricided by the 1/3rd that will hit(of which a large part would be off target).

Remember, those fancy schmancy satellites will probably be off-line during the first wave.

I'm more afraid of the Davy Crockett Commemorative Luggage Set.

I AM a authority. I've practiced 'Duck and Cover' in second grade and watched 'Dr. Strangelove' 25 times in a row when I was 16.:)…really.

THe craziest belief men has ever held is that a nuclear war can be won.

Also it's worth noting that nations with ANY nuclear weapons tend not to get invaded.

And don't forget after the nukes fall Europe will be overrun by 78 year old T-34's.

WWII was a nuclear war and the Allies won. Nuclear wars can be won. If Iran has a few nuclear weapons and uses them on Israel, Israel would be destroyed and Iran would still exist. That would be a win for Iran.

North Korea has nuclear weapons. If they launched a couple at South Korea, would the USA really use nuclear weapons against the North Koreans? What if North Korea believes we will not use them?

If ISIS uses a nuclear weapon that they make or buy or steal or are given and they hit New York, or London, or Paris, or Tel Aviv will that be a win for them? They might think so.

Winning any war, nuclear or conventional depends on the goals of the combatants.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

…The only reason Nukes have not been used since WWII is that the US has maintained a superiority and the bad actors in the world know it.

Warlock, I don't agree with that. If having the most nukes is the reason that has kept everyone else from using them, then why haven't we used them? Had we nuked Hanoi in 1968, does anyone really think the Russians would have escalated? No way. Why would they need to? We would have committed an act of genocide so heinous and immoral that we would have been shunned by the world.

No nation wants that stigma, even Iran and North Korea. Besides, our economies are all so intertwined that even the use of one or a couple nukes would make 2008 look like hiccup. None of the major world powers would risk it. And none would let their smaller allies do it either.

Nuclear wars can be won. If Iran has a few nuclear weapons and uses them on Israel, Israel would be destroyed and Iran would still exist. That would be a win for Iran.

That's a very narrow perspective. Were Iran to do that, I am quite certain that every nation in the region, fearing their own preservation, not to mention their major power benefactors would take steps to make certain that Iran would never be able to do that again. Even without using nukes, I am pretty certain Iran would be beaten unrecognizable. In the end, Iran would be no better off than Israel, and might, in fact, be worse off.

Look what 911 led to. Two wars, for starters. Imagine how insane the world would be after the use of even a single nuke against a major city.

WWII was a nuclear war and the Allies won.

I don't think that's the case at all. Victory in Europe was achieved without the aid of a nuclear bomb. In the Pacific, the war was for all practical purposes won, with or without the bombs, Japan was doomed. All the bombs did was shorten the war and perhaps saved thousands of American and Japanese lives in the process.

What wins a war is breaking the enemy's will to fight. WWII was the last war that we fought, in which we were willing to essentially, destroy a country, and to kill as many of their men, women, and children in order to get them to say, "uncle."

"That was the point: it was propaganda aimed at promoting unilateral nuclear disarmament of the UK."

Possibly, although it is quite feasible to watch 'the Wargame' and 'Threads' and be very grateful for the 70 years of (by and large) peace which nuclear weapons have brought us.

Nuclear war is supposed to be horrific, Dresden repeated a thousands of times in the space of a few hours. It is worth being reminded of it, a good reason not to indulge in it and to stop other people doing it to us.

As above, the worry is more lunatics who would quite happily press the button to further their own political and/or religious ends.

'Threads' is still pretty powerful stuff, even after all these decades, but as I recognise most of the places in it and run past 'Ruths parents' house every week, it has a certain poignancy. With a degree of digging you can still get the DVD.

Very true.

Neither "Threads", nor the "The Day After" were aimed at unilateral 1`00% nuclear disarmament. Such is classic exaggeration for effect, to help delegitimize said films for having the temerity to show the real effects of nuclear war. I was in my 20s at the time. The films were released around the time that Reagan "playfully" said: "We begin bombing in 5 minutes". Around the same time, there was a massive (around 1 million) anti-nukes march in NYC. I don't know how Europe felt about Reagan, but many of us here at the time thought he was a trigger happy cowboy.
20-20 hindsight shows he was not, but it did not seem that way in 1983.

Lived through the '50's and '60's Deep Cold War.

As did I, it is a little fuzzy now, but still remember "Duck & Cover" drills … And rewatch Doc Strangelove everytime it is on … Weapons systems like the Davy Crockett seem more and more like something on SyFy. As I stated before on another thread. I was "fortunate" enough as a young 1LT in the 101, to get a TS and selected as an Atomic Demolitions Missions Officer. Those small back packed nucs could be walked in with an Infantry patrol. Set with a time delay, etc. and then we'd be evac'd by chopper or etc. … That is If everything went "right". We talked among ourselves. If such a mission was conducted … we didn't think we'd make it back … 50/50 at best … "Duck and Kiss your good by!"

Was there a Soviet movie like "Threads" or "The Day After"?

VCarter- Relevance?

Open society vs. totalitarian dictatorship. Only one is likly to allows this type of films to be made.

I, for one, am glad I was born on the side that not only allowed them to be made, but celebrated them with awards.

Was there a Soviet movie like "Threads" or "The Day After"?

I have been told that "The Day After" was shown in the Soviet Union – and backfired on the Kremlin. Allegedly, Soviet audiences were astonished by the opulent consumer lifestyles depicted for ordinary Americans. Supposedly, exposure to "The Day After", stoking dissatisfaction with the sparse Soviet consumer economy, was a factor in the fall of communism. And then there was Chernobyl, of course…

A strange game – the only way to win is not to play…

As a student in the mid to late 80s we had a "devout" anger about nuclear weapons in the UK. Yet I can distinctly remember driving past the US airbases in Norfolk/Cambridgeshire after the fall of the Berlin Wall and saying to my friend,
"It's over."
So now/at that time I guess I'm grateful that the USA put so many men on the ground here in the UK and in Europe. It was a very scary time. Perhaps the UK/French/German defence would have been enough to deter the USSR. Probably not. I hope that we never have to face that again. As a kid/young adult a lot of us thought we could be toast tomorrow.

Nuclear wars can be won. If Iran has a few nuclear weapons and uses them on Israel, Israel would be destroyed and Iran would still exist. That would be a win for Iran.

I'm pretty sure that the Israeli Dolphin II class subs would apply every single drop of "instant sunshine" they carry, in addition to India, China, Russia, and Pakistan likely launching.

North Korea has nuclear weapons. If they launched a couple at South Korea, would the USA really use nuclear weapons against the North Koreans?

Possibly. My suspicion would be neutron bombs on every single HQ building and Royal Palace, pruning the Juche tree root and branch in a decapitation strike.

The US is treaty-bound to respond in some manner, and many of the North Korean artillery positions are dug in so deep that there isn't a way to destroy them short of nukes.

What if North Korea believes we will not use them?

That will not end well for the Norks.

If ISIS uses a nuclear weapon that they make or buy or steal or are given and they hit New York, or London, or Paris, or Tel Aviv will that be a win for them? They might think so.

It will certainly expedite Armageddon. And I suspect that there might be a whole new set of glass self-lighting parking lots in the Middle East.

Winning any war, nuclear or conventional depends on the goals of the combatants.

Most of the combatants in a war include their own survival as part of their victory conditions.

There was a film called "The letters of a dead man" made in Soviet Union in 1986.
YouTube link

it is a chamber post-apoc, where there's more mood&text than visuals..and that's why it was so horrifying.
There were also civilian defence documentaries, filmed during trilas of A and H bomb, with buildings swept in a second, tanks, flying like pieces of paper, etc.

We all saw them several times, in school, in army, in university. Basically most of the people understood that nuclear war is the end.

Soviet era films about war are pretty bleak. There were certainly no illusions from the couple that I have seen.

WWII was a nuclear war and the Allies won.

I don't think that's the case at all. Victory in Europe was achieved without the aid of a nuclear bomb. In the Pacific, the war was for all practical purposes won, with or without the bombs, Japan was doomed. All the bombs did was shorten the war and perhaps saved thousands of American and Japanese lives in the process.

What wins a war is breaking the enemy's will to fight. WWII was the last war that we fought, in which we were willing to essentially, destroy a country, and to kill as many of their men, women, and children in order to get them to say, "uncle."

The only difference between Hiroshima/Nagisaki and Hamburg/Dresden is a slightly higher background radiation count and the number of sorties it took to raze a city to the ground and incinerate its population.

Basically most of the people understood that nuclear war is the end.

And now we seem to have lost that understanding.

I really hope it doesn't come down to another nuclear blast before people re-learn just how world-ending a nuclear war would be.