"Can a Nuclear War Be Won?" Topic

Been doing some reading about "Seven Days to the River Rhine", The Soviet/Warpac plan for a counter-attack against a NATO offensive, and was just curious if TMP readers believe or believed that a nuclear war could be won?

My personal view is that any nuclear attack by a nation would escalate to a global catastrophe, if not an extinction event. I don't think there can be a winner in such a conflict. But clearly, from my reading, there were and are those who do.

So, do you believe that a nuclear war can be won?

Yes
No

I see "Maybe" as being a "Yes" even if conditional.

Of course it can. Well, it depends on how you define the victory criteria …

Yes, it could be won – but that doesn't mean that the winner would be in a very good condition. Also, if it's a nuclear war involving, for example, and attack by NK, it would be fair to assume NK would lose – the question might be who would be lobbing the nukes in their direction. I could see a case wherebye NK launched a strike against the US and China then obliterated NK to avoid WW3…

Yes, if the other side doesn't have any.

Winston Smith for the win.

+1 MajorB

Agree with Winston Smith in theory but the geopolitical blow back might be more severe than some think…

Yes, if you are a cockroach. If you are a human being, not so much.

Well MajorB asked the critical question as what do you define as winning. From where I define winning I feel that the only answer in an exchange of nuclear arms is there is no winner. And to adapt Winston Smith's answer the only way to win is to make sure the other side does not have any or you hit him first and completely (note completely) wipe out the opposition's ability to retaliate even minimally. Which is of course not going to be possible. One nuke is one nuke too many in this era of mega kiloton yields that make Nagasaki's and Hiroshima's detonations look like a firecracker.

Yes.

A nuclear war or a conventional war in which nukes are used? In the latter case we already have an answer from history …

If both sides have nukes it is hard to see how there can be a clear winner

If two countries have a nuclear war their more distant enemies might "win"

Define win?

You can define it as you see fit.

In my mind, winning would result in an obviously recognizable victory for a participant, i.e., they survive as a nation with an economy and predominantly functioning infrastructure intact, and render the opposing government(s) non-existant. Surviving with 3 percent of a population in a post-apocalyptic nuclear winter without communication, suport or control by a central government doesn't count as winning, even if the otehr guys are extinct. My expectation is that a relatively small exchange would yield ecological effects that I would not want to see.

My idea of a nuclear war is one in which two or more opposing combatants use nukes against each other, regardless of what other weapons or events take place in the conflict.

Sure. It all depends on your victory conditions.

I think anything beyond a few nukes in each direction means all the humans lose. We won't need post-apocalyptic films any more.

I believe the first atomic war was a resounding success…

Depends on how you define winning. Somebody at SAC once said if there were two American and one Russian survivors of a nuclear exchange, then the US had won a nuclear war. Let's ignore the radiation sickness, breakdown of civilization, and a host of other issues….

The first one was.

Well said evilgong! People forget the nuclear war against Japan!

In a war in Europe, I imagine small nuclear tactical battlefield weapons would grind the ground war to a halt, followed by a long and difficult negotiation to a ceasefire. No-one would be so stupid as to think a full nuclear exchange could result in anything positive.

No-one would be so stupid as to think a full nuclear exchange could result in anything positive.

Sadly I do not think stupidity is in any danger of becoming extinct among even senior decision makers globally.

As that old "Wargames" movie said, "The only way to win is not to play."

An all out strategic and tactical nuclear war. Yes you can win it, but nobody will care. What are the victory conditions?

If it could, we would have seen one by now.

If both sides have them then the only limited exchange we would see would be based on the limit to the numbers each side has. The use it or lose it type of thinking.

Not if your saleds are going to be seen by night.

I could see a case wherebye NK launched a strike against the US and China then obliterated NK to avoid WW3…

I wouldn't be surprised that China (or Russia) would threaten to retaliate in full of the US struck back at NK with nuclear weapons in a kind of "Swallow your pride or start WWIII" spite move.

My father gave Nuclear Biological and Chemical (NBC) warfare training to British Officers back in the late 70s when the threats of global nuclear warfare were somewhat more present than today.

He was / is firmly of the belief that a nuclear war can be won though the cost would be terrible. Not everywhere gets flattened because blast radius isn't actually that great – a hill will deflect most of a blast for example and I can remember playing with a nuclear blast predictor as a child, working out what gets destroyed by so many megatons at various distances given terrain, air burst, ground burst, etc. – but even he would admit the after effects would be long lasting and very disruptive in the short term.

He was always far more worried by the possibility of a chemical attack on ill prepared human beings, and scared witless by the thought of a biological attack under any circumstances.

He would often start his lectures with photos of German cities after WW2, which looked pretty post apocalyptic, then end lectures with photos of them after reconstruction.

My first thoughts were, "Depends on how you define winning."

On second thought, I've pulled duty waiting for the phone to ring, breaking out the code book, and decrypting nuclear control messages. I spent a few of those evenings calculating effects with my red side partner for entertainment and to stave off the boredom. It isn't pretty. With one munition, we could theoretically destroy an entire town in seconds (or light the curtains on fire with the right munition, yield and burst height). The problem lies with escalation. Once the first nuke goes off, panic would have probably ensued with everyone emptying their magazines of nukes 'so they could be sure to use them.' A single (small) nuke (i.e. Hiroshima, Nagasaki) or firebombing an entire city with hundreds of bombers is devastating. To set off thousands of nukes over hundreds of cities in a few hours is a completely different matter. The question would probably become, Who is luckier? – The dead or the survivors?

pjm

Yes, for cockroaches, scorpions, ants and maybe, rats!

Yes, depending upon which year you choose to fight it, after WWII.

Come on, really? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

It is not the Russia or China that I worry about for a nuclear war, it is the risk takers (Putin, Kim Jong Un or other (Trump?)) who play at brinkmanship that scare me. During WW2 all major opponents had chemical and biological weapons and chose not to use them as they knew their opponents also had them.

Read a book called "pulling through" (author Dean Ing) on how to survive a nuclear war. A nuclear war would be bad but there are enough humans scattered around the world so the spices would survive but each individual would depend on blind luck and prior preparation.

By the way, I don't expect to make it.

Yes. 1/3rd of everyone's warheads are duds due to test ban treaties and quality control issues, 1/3rd will be intercepted. The last third will miss 75% of the time and/ or fratricide from previous explosions, EW, whatever. So you'll et some pretty dynamic detonations followed by high atmo detonations followed by scattered ground detonations. Millions of initial casualties, billions of post-launch casualties due to infrastructure breakdown. We win by starting over at the 19th C. level of civilisation, little radio traffic, food clothing, shelter, transportation and resource gathering at extremely low levels and socially traumatised to the point of xenophobia.

Sounds like a plan. Launch Now!! Let's see if they work!!

If by winning you mean surviving a couple days longer than the loser, yes. Any other definition of winning is no.

In a war in Europe, I imagine small nuclear tactical battlefield weapons would grind the ground war to a halt, followed by a long and difficult negotiation to a ceasefire. No-one would be so stupid as to think a full nuclear exchange could result in anything positive.

Except that after "they" use a battlefield device against "us", we aren't going to negotiate until we "even the score".

Of course, that may be viewed as escalation, so "they" may feel the need to show they mean business by using another one(s). "We", of course, understand they are serious, but can't afford to appear intimated in advance of the negotiations, so will detonate another, possibly more important target…

Fashion would be a big winner!

We really need to come up with a name for this Godwin's law type phenomenon on TMP where every discussion ends with Zardoz.

We really need to come up with a name… ends with Zardoz.

I believe that qualifies as Rule 34

Yes of course, any war can be won. However against an opponent with a significant second strike capability, it all starts to look a bit doubtful.

As General Turgidson observes in Dr Strangelove, well get our hair mussed.

In the interconnected modern world, I suspect the exchange of more than a few negative would be sufficient to unravel much of what we take for granted.

Depends on how nukes are used. Part of my NBC training in the late 70s concerned the use of air burst nukes to cripple command and control with the EMP then use the confusion to launch a massive strike with conventional and chemical weapons. The fallout/nuclear winter is caused by ground burst and the subsequent sucking up of radioactive dust into the atmosphere. You wouldn't get this with an air burst. Link that with strategic assassinations of key leaders in the military and political field and a win is definitely possible.

Yes if:

- The target believes it's a false alarm.

- The target cannot bring itself to retaliate.

- The aggressor has sabotaged the retaliation.

- It's a suicide attack.

No-one would be so stupid as to think a full nuclear exchange could result in anything positive.

I wouldn't say no one.

There are groups (and possibly countries) whose outlook and perception of world society and their place in it is so bleak that the destruction of said society could be positive or, at least, neutral.

The man without anything has nothing to lose.

Prior to the neutron bomb, I would say no. However the neutron bomb hanged the equation. Some military thinkers back in the late 1980 s and 1990 s indicated that the neutron bomb was one reason for the Soviet collapse. NATO could hit the Russians and the German and Warsaw Pact infrastructure would be barely damaged. A big incentive for minor Warsaw Pact members to be hesitant to fight.

He was always far more worried by the possibility of a chemical attack on ill prepared human beings, and scared witless by the thought of a biological attack under any circumstances

This is my main concern with terrorists and has been since the late 70s. I think the possibility is even greater today given all the Syrian stockpiles. I just have to think that ISIS has to be sitting on some of those stockpiles, waiting until the right time to use them somewhere.

Dirty bombs are also one of my concerns as well, not so much nuclear war.

Perhaps I'm just a bit paranoid coming from a CIA family? I can only hope.

Ah,somebody plays the Zardoz card,and complains about it in the same post! Is this a first?

As long as they don't take pictures of "The Big Board"

Given that western economies are essentially driven by financial transactions that require modern communications networks, I imagine a wave of EMP blasts would be no bueno.

It's worth noting that most everything I've read from the Soviet view doesn't hold to the "escalate one step at a time" theory.

Nukes weren't guaranteed to be fired, but if they were, it'd be all of them. The Soviets knew in a nuclear war, you have one chance, and everything from gas to nukes to pictures of Kruschev would have been launched at the same time, if that moment came.

"Nukes weren't guaranteed to be fired,but if they were, it'd be all of them."

Could someone please do the Dos Equis Guy meme required here? (Beyond my capabilities).

"Stay nuked,my friends!"

Two thoughts, from in my brain-jelly:

First: 'Nuclear War' does not necessarily mean 'NATO vs. WARPAC' Nuclear war.
India/Pakistan has at times, looked a way more likely proposition.
In terms of the OP, this is a 'maybe', but crucially, it avoids the question of inevitable superpower escalation.

Second: Recently talked with a BAOR veteran who said part of the NATO doctrine included the use of tac-nukes as area denial weapons – dropping them ahead of oncoming Soviet divisions, within freindly territory if need be, halting their advance.
The wider strategic implication was that this tactic could be used without the inevitable escalation which would accompany direct nuclear strike against the enemy nation.

Yes

You just need to fire yours off first.