"OK.. I am designing a scenario.." Topic

that requires a long running Russia / Nato conflict..

that rules out 90%-98% of nuclear warheads..

especially ballistic missile delivery…

It is set in the near future..

What is the technology that negates ICBM?

(I am looking for a short paragraph to drop into the briefing so that everyone understands that massed nuclear exchanges are off the table..)

Effective and widespread ABMs (since the ABM treaty might as well be void).

Multilayered, so you have some ABM assets in orbit that could strike ICBMs as they rise, other ABMs on the ground (Aegis, Patriot PAC-3s, THAAD, etc).

SLBMs offering a decent second strike option (because fixed-position ICBMs are not going to survive a first strike).

Or just flat MAD, so there's no point in throwing nukes when both sides will lose.

Yes, already thought of a son of star wars with ABM and space shrapnel rounds slicing up some missiles…

MAD is not going to work if one or both sides have lost the battle, surviving forces will use weapons at that point… otherwise MAD isn't much of a deterrent..

MAD still works, even if you lose, in most cases, since the survival instinct kicks in, regardless……

The only way you can negate this is if one side has thousands of nukes and the other has just a handful. Then, a pre-emptive strike should work.

Doesn't apply to the US vs. Russia scenario, unless one side unwisely, unilaterally disarms, like some advocate.

See Ukraine, for a good precedent of how that works out, when giving up your nukes in exchange for a paper treaty.

Whilst I agree that MAD "works", I need a reason that all the missiles do not result in massive global destruction.

I am not stopping the odd cruise missile getting through, or even bombers with chemical or nuclear bombs.. but the first nuclear missile exchange results in lots of nothing.. 90+ % go pfft…

(I am letting the cause of war be a combination of tanking oil price, Ukraine / Russia confrontation, rise of the far right in western Europe, Saudi and other arab states instability caused by terror attacks upon them by a wave of "modern crusaders" from the west, An Indian/China Pact of mutual defence, a couple of suitcase nukes.. )

It is part of my planning games for our class.. based on an old dilemma set topic.

Ah, I see.

I guess I misunderstood your premise.

Read the Jesus Factor

There is a very good novel by Sir John Hackett called the Third World war, the Untold Story.

It is set in 1985 and follows at the Soviet invasion and the Nato response. It would be well worth the read by those managing your campaign. With regards to your situation, it shows the balance between conventional and nuclear aggression.

Here is a Wiki link

LINK – link

You could go the Ogre route and have massive laser defense complexes that can obliterate missile salvos and whole airforces for that matter. That just leaves ground forces…

Satellite based antimissile systems.

Common sense and a strong survival instinct combined with an in-depth understanding of what even a limited thermo-nuclear exchange could do to global ecosystems and the biosphere. Barring that, magic!
Rod Robertson.

Don't give the players weapons you don't want them to use. The higher ups decide big nuke issues. After all the east wants NATO and the NATO members are not going to nuke themselves. And after all everybody knows nukes don't really work cause of sunspots, or aliens or lay lines. (Pick one its your game make the science work) and if anyone wants nukes tell them they are too crazy to command.

I did a map game a few years ago Fulda Gap to the Rhine and only gave the Pact a hand full of nukes and let NATO drop 2 back for each 1 used by the Pact worked it pretty good. Chemical seemed worse everybody wanted to use gas.

Have you read Red Storm Rising?

Maybe an advanced tech generated electro-magnetic plse. That would render them useless. Or a computer worm/virus in the system to negate launching or on board computers.

Actually, there was a time when nobody was entirely sure that ICBMs going over the North Pole would hit their targets. You couldn't rightly test the orbital mechanics without the other side freaking out.

If you set the game during that period — or just assume it never really ended — then the sides could have tried to wipe each other out, but the ICBMs were all off target.

The other thing you could leverage is that the worst-case scenarios of a nuclear exchange were heavily influenced by Soviet propaganda. (The worse the West thought it was, the less we'd want to launch.) While the strike damage would be bad, you could use the best-case environmental impact in your game.

Yea, 20% – 30% failure rates were estimated as well, in terms of not actually detonating, if they did manage to get to their targets.

Common sense and a strong survival instinct combined with an in-depth understanding of what even a limited thermo-nuclear exchange could do to global ecosystems and the biosphere.

Yes, this. MAD in a more drawn out explanation.

In your particular scenario, there is a lot of conflict from a lot of causes. Nukes only make sense in a WWII situation (ie hit Berlin, we win). There's no target if China, Russia, the middle East and everyone else is going nuts.
Add in the fact that America has a real issue with civilian deaths, that pretty much takes them out of the factor. Russia would be either scared of retaliation, or more likely, just wouldn't think they need them.

Also note, if the conflict ramps up slowly, it may never occur to anyone that it's reached the point where nuclear attacks could be used.

To expound upon Tgunner's suggestion, research in laser weapons has been progressing rather well lately, so a proliferation of laser defense systems is believable.

"(I am looking for a short paragraph to drop into the briefing so that everyone understands that massed nuclear exchanges are off the table."

Well, you said it right there. Massed nuclear exchanges are off the table, just tell the players that. It depends what level of command the players represent, but if they are anything other than the national leadership of the nuclear armed countries, they have very little discretion about the use of nukes.

As above, you could give them a few tac nukes to play with, and chem. Wargamers really, really love chem, their little eyes light up and before you know it the entire table is covered in poisonous green puffs of hamster bedding.

In my 1980s WW3 campaign a few nukes have already been exchanged, but everyone seems somewhat reluctant to push the big button, which seems entirely sensible until the ground conflict reaches something of a resolution.

Yes.

Ok .. Have read the third world war.. indeed part of me wants to have a scenario based on that… but I need the war against Russia to continue for months… with conventional, chemical and limited nuclear exchanges…

Have read Red Storm Rising.. see above.

I need nuclear weapons being delivered by aircraft, in dribs and drabs, being intercepted, in some cases pushing vintage aircraft back into service (second line and retired aircraft pressed back into action for last ditch raids…)

I need the odd leaker.. the bomber that hits Sheffield with a nuke, a cruise missile that kills thousands instantly detonating over eastern London in the later part of the war, the SL ICBM that hits Manchester, the suitcase bomb etc..

I need American reinforcements being shipped by sea taking a steady trickle via English and French ports leading to huge battles in Germany. 2nd and 3rd line reserves and indeed conscripted troops as the war grinds on into a year long morass.

So nuclear weapons – are used, and must be used, and civilian populations are targeted.

I quite like a virus/wargames hacker that detonates missiles engines at launch.. so this can be fixed by purging systems on the few units that didn't fire as part of the initial plan or counterfire..

I also like the ABM system working better than expected, and a couple of sky defence systems secretly deployed in space stopping a wave of missiles

Can I assume that the virus ruins 85% of the first strike capability…

50% of the remaining weapons are scythed out of the sky by SDI son of star wars / ABM.

So each side has 30/40 warheads on fixed ballistic missiles left, and a couple of hundred warheads that can be air launched..

half of the air launched bombers/cruise missiles can be intercepted..

so that's 140 warheads that get through.. enough to hit the UK and France with a handful, over the course of a long 12 months..

I would assume that some Nukes are used to hit troop concentrations.. in central Europe..

Leaving about 90 to be used on military targets/population centres in the USA.. (is this survivable ? is this still too many to reduce NATO to a world war 2 style plan with a D-Day style landing in the Baltic?)

I am assuming that no one is willing to unleash a plague of bioweapons, and war weariness will set in after 12 months with some kind of suing for peace shortly after (may be 1-3 months.. or so)

Could the shattered infrastructure of the east and west produce combat equipment to equip conscripted armies? for this long?

Do both sides have enough mothballed old kit to re equip reservists.

No need very complicated rules. No nukes as it would end with every one losing. As in ww2 no one used gas over cities even troops AFAiK, a great fear at the beginning; not reliable, and assured mutual destruction. Even the Nazis imagine!

Maybe the best way to pitch is that for fear of MAD, the exchanges really have been extremely limited.

Back in the good old days of the Cold War there were endless Sci Fi short stories about this sort of thing. In a few, both sides were constantly probing, chucking a few nukes over to see if they'd get through. All out war, but not. Two which immediately spring to mind both had effective ABM systems (one space based, one ground based beam weapons), not 100%, but good enough.

So, maybe Star Wars really works, most of the time.

Tell the US player "Frank Underwood has the nuclear football and you don't. "

At work, they harp on cyber security. We know the Russians have read a lot of our stuff and the Chinese have certainly tried to. Have they got into our launch and targeting programs? I certainly hope not!
However, about the first time a warhead with a theoretical 30 foot CEP detonated 10,000 kilometers from where the launch folks thought it would, people would stand down their nukes at least long enough to make sure the targeting and launch programs were secure. And even after that, they would be cautious.

Grelber

Well, you said it right there. Massed nuclear exchanges are off the table, just tell the players that. It depends what level of command the players represent, but if they are anything other than the national leadership of the nuclear armed countries, they have NO discretion about the use of nukes.

Fixed that for you.

Even tactical nukes require a release order from the National Command Authority.

Have they got into our launch and targeting programs?

Doubtful:

link

First step is to define long running.

Weeks? Months? A year+?

I could see fighting between NATO and Russian troops lasting several days in an isolated conflict over discrete objectives with no significant treaty obligations involved. This would be especially true in a proxy war over a third party country with only special forces involved.

Anything broader and longer than that increases the probability of A. a nuke exchange if either side faced an existential threat or B. one side backs down to avoid option A.

"poisonous green puffs of hamster bedding" is pretty much the best thing I've read all week.
Thank you Martin :-)