"All out thermonuclear war..what is it good for?" Topic

It has not gone unnoticed that in the past year or so the urge to push that button seems to be increasing: Putin is working nukes into some sort de-escalation exercise, Trump can't wait to push the button, every terrorist on the planet is natually very keen on getting their hands on the bomb, even in Britain "first Strike" seems to be back on the table and certain members of the public seem a little too keen to start turning cities in to piles of molten slag on a whim…

…and I am wondering if the whole world has gone mad.

I've been reading around it and trying to find out where this eagerness has suddenly come from because I thought that the outcome of even a relatively small Nuclear War was pretty well known:

Say India v Pakistan or Britain V France – estimates vary but you're looking at anything up to 100million dead in the first ten minuites rising to more like a billion within a few weeks, and you've still got 2 to 10 years of global nuclear winter with no ozone layer to look forward to which result in planet wide famine, plague and the breakdown of civilization, and of course the extinction (or near enough) of the human race.

Now I can see why Terrorists , being big fans of the apocalpyse, are keen on that, but why is everyone else?

I don't recall anyone during the cold war getting excited by it- is it simply that they have forgotten the consequences and reckon WW3 would just be a rerun of WW2?

But I've seen talk on other forums to suggest that nuclear war is somehow suriviable – not just in a sort of Mad Max, post apoclayptic sort of way , but to the point where if say Britain came under sustained attack it would simply be able to shrug it off, and rebuild and 50 years later you'd never know it happened…
And surely if you're in a position to actually launch your deterrant then its failed to do its job, either because everyone is already dead, or everyone is about to be dead.

So where did the fear of the Nuke go? And what does it mean for the chances of Humanity seeing the next century?

I was under the belief that a whole host of nasty things would happen to the actual planet?

Regards
Russ Dunaway

If there are Aliens looking out for us, now is the time to strike.
If they're just observing, well…..
I have always disliked the Prime Directive.

Thats kinda my point…but my question was why aren't the people with their fingers on the button scared of that anymore, given that that fear was all thats stood between us and extinction…

I'm trying to think of the name of the think tank theorist who wrote that nuclear war was winnable back in the 60s or 70s. I can't remember.
You need to redefine victory conditions methinks.

It requires that you don't think that an itty bitty little exchange is going to destroy the world and that only a few million casualties are not that big a deal. I remain skeptical.

I haven't looked at the numbers recently, but it seems to me that you only get a real nuclear winter and global radioactive contamination if at least two out of three major nuclear powers (USA, PRC, Russia) launch all or most of their ready missiles.

Nuclear exchanges between countries with fewer missiles, like those posited Mike Target, would be rather bad,* of course, but most plant life on the planet would be OK, so we'd still be able to grow crops and the ecosystem would not collapse.

The destructive effects of radioactive fallout are likewise limited by the size of the exchange.

*I just spent three weeks in the UK, and now I find that I'm apologizing a lot, not carrying weapons, and understating everything.

It's not that the world has gone mad or "Doctor Strangelove" all of a sudden. Leaders are still rational. Nobody thinks a nuclear war, even a limited one, is a good idea any more than they did for the last 25 years.

What we are seeing is an increasing willingness to rollback the nuclear arms control agreements that resulted from the collapse of the USSR in the early 1990's. This is due to the end of the unipolar New World Order which saw the spread of western values and culture around the world through Globalism.

Now that Russia is resurgent, it is pushing back against globalism with its own vision of "Eurasianism," the aim of which is to create a sphere-of-influence in its own "near abroad." This pits Russia and the west at odds over former republics like Georgia and Ukraine.

Because of the deterioration of East-West relations to near Cold War levels, nukes are back in vogue as a tool of deterrence and muscle-flexing, if for no other reason than to tell the other side to "back off." In spite of the fact that the current POTUS and Russian president would like to improve US-Russia relations, which is impossible under the current political climate, both agree that nukes provide "stability."

So notwithstanding the bellicose rhetoric coming out of N. Korea and the proliferation of nukes back on the table, I'm not worried that the world will end in nuclear apocalypse.

I think it's still all about Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) If you know I've got them, you won't use them because you'll get the same in return. Falls down a bit with rogue states and terrorists though, some of them don't care. Bring back the good old days of the Cold War!

OP: "…reckon WW3 would just be a rerun of WW2."

That is stated like WW2 was not that big of a deal. WW2 was a human catastrophe of epic proportions; let us hope we never have a war as terrible like that again.

OP: "…Trump can't wait to push the button."

Partisan politics has reached a new level of insane when completely ignorant statements like that are made.

"Nuclear exchanges between countries with fewer missiles, like those posited Mike Target, would be rather bad,* of course, but most plant life on the planet would be OK, so we'd still be able to grow crops and the ecosystem would not collapse. "

I think that was the prevailing opinion for quite a while but the issue is better understood and I believe newer models show that even just pakistan by itself throwng nukes around would bring about nuclear winter for at least a couple of years…and a couple of years of failed harvets will be not very good at all old bean.

"That is stated like WW2 was not that big of a deal. WW2 was a human catastrophe of epic proportions; let us hope we never have a war as terrible like that again. "

never said it wasn't but at least some people lived to tell the tale…

People forget. Perhaps, a small exchange of 10 nukes or less (like by the Norks aiming for the West coast and hitting Japan or Pakistan and India going at it) would lead to a real rethinking.

Full exchange – Game Over.

The possibility of a full exchange is extremely low and it would take a large number of things to happen in sequence for it to even get that far. A limited exchange between India and Pakistan, several nations hitting North Korean military targets, Iran launching whatever they have in the future at Israel, etc., are real possibilities, but very low probability. Those areas affected would be similar to what Chernobyl is now, but have little effect on the global ecosystem.

I can see a limited nuclear strike being worth it. Lets say destroy 8 major cities of a country and threaten to destroy more. Would any country not surrender.
BTW deliver the nukes by truck, so no warning of the attack.

Great plan VVV, however…I do wonder how you would then be percieved by the other nations around the world, and whether that would be to your advantage or if you'd just end up replacing NK as the giant loony bin with everyone else's weapons pointing right back at you in case you do it again?

Also, if the victim of your attack is also a nuclear power, will they surrender, knowing that you'll only drop a couple of bombs and only kill a few million people …or will they take it to be an escalation and throw 100+ nukes back at you?

Winston--I believe you're thinking of Herman Kahn:

link

A model,as the Wiki article says,for Doctor Strangelove, but also for Walter Matthau's character in Failsafe.

Yes. Herman Kahn. That's who I was thinking of.
Thanks

I have noticed the same attitude change and I think it is caused by people flailing around, trying to find ANY answer to continually being victims of terrorism.

The sensible countries aren't going to nuke one another, they have too much to lose. The non-sensible countries might try to kick one off, in which case they'ld rapidly find themselves on the wrong end of being a congealing sea of radioactive glass. This would be salutary, but is not desirable. Either way, the planet would be Fine.

Also, if the victim of your attack is also a nuclear power, will they surrender, knowing that you'll only drop a couple of bombs and only kill a few million people …or will they take it to be an escalation and throw 100+ nukes back at you?

at 48 min mark
YouTube link

…no side will accept defeat, before it uses all the weapons it has.

"Also, if the victim of your attack is also a nuclear power, will they surrender, knowing that you'll only drop a couple of bombs and only kill a few million people …or will they take it to be an escalation and throw 100+ nukes back at you?"
You have already taken out 8 major cities. Would they be prepared to lose how many more or will they surrender?
If they chose to fight, then both nations perish.
But if you are a Saddam Hussein type, do you care?

"You have already taken out 8 major cities. Would they be prepared to lose how many more or will they surrender?
If they chose to fight, then both nations perish.
But if you are a Saddam Hussein type, do you care?"

If youve already taken 8 major cities a lot of countries would have already ceased to exist in any meaningful way. Theres a risk you've just taken out anyone with the authority to agree to surrender and a much bigger risk that anyone left standing will simply assume you are out to exterminate them and that you aren't interested in surrender and do whatever is left in their power to retaliate in kind, either with a nuclear counterstrike or other types of WMD's in which case you've probably just lost a bunch of major cities too…so do you then have to surrender?

"I have noticed the same attitude change and I think it is caused by people flailing around, trying to find ANY answer to continually being victims of terrorism."

this is probably part of it, but I wouldn't expect any nuclear strike to reduce terrorism- wipe out life as we know it in say the middle east and all that happens is that any terrorist cell around that still had something left to lose, now has nothing left to lose and an awful lot of reasons to be unpleasant to you…

Nothing good would come from the use of Nuc weapons. No matter who the target(s) for obvious reasons.

My concern is some rogue state like North Korea or more likely if some terrorists from any number of organizations would use some sort of Nuc(s). Bad … real bad.

That being said, IMO, I'd think the USA for one. Could do everything that has to be done in a conflict with just conventional weapons. But I don't have all the classified, etc., data to back that up.

"Trump can't wait to push the button"

Can you back this up with anything other than partisan politics?

"every terrorist on the planet is naturally very keen on getting their hands on the bomb"

and have been for decades, since pre-9/11 for sure. It's what makes allowing the Norks and now the Iranians to have nucs so dangerous.

As for the 'new' desire to possess a very powerful weapon. It is very understandable. Ukraine gave up its nukes in exchange for guarentees of peace and border integrity. A change in D.C. led to an administration not very friendly to Eastern Europe and Ukraine lost Crimea and it's eastern areas. If they still had those nukes would the Russians have been willing to pull those invasions/annexation off?

On top of that, nuclear war, does not necessarily men global killing massive launches,(if it is even possible to kill the globe in such a way, Krakatoa and other super volcanoes that have gone off in the past and the world is still here). After all, we've already fought one nuclear war and Japan is still inhabited and prosperous. If newer, larger, nukes would give the same result…who knows. Chernobyl is still off limits after all.

Chernobyl? Off-limits? I went there on holiday a couple of months ago.

chernobylwel.com

Chernobyl NPP contained four functional reactors, and two more were under construction at the time of the explosion.
Despite the enormity of the disaster at reactor no. 4, almost unbelievably, down at the other end of the corridor… the other three reactors kept on operating normally throughout the whole thing and continued to do so until the last one was decommissioned in 2000.

Chernobyl's well worth a visit.

Nonsense Dr Jackson, many eastern European countrirs are very friendly with DC and even joined NATO and the EU.
Putin simply can't accept that other countries do not wish to be subjected to Moscow control, they'd experienced it for 59 years and sought a different oath first chance they could.

The issue with nuclear weapons is the will to use them and I think Russia still would have annexed Crimea even if Kiev had them. The problem then was there was no chain of command following the events in the Maidan and the annexation happened before organised resistance could have ben in place as Russia already had a military presence in country and a plan to annex.

"All out thermonuclear war..what is it good for?" global warming?

It's been awhile since we had a major war, and we humans forget how bad things can get in a full on war, so it's bound to happen that the young who have never experienced one have less fear of it. Since only two nukes were ever used in anger, and of considerably less power than the ones in use today, I fear that we've lost the sense of disgust for violent conflict and terror of nuclear war that society had when I was a kid.

However, I'm more fearful of a rogue nuke than a full on exchange.

I'm also more fearful of a civil war (or insurrection) since civility on both sides of the political spectrum seems to have become a thing of the past. Disagreement has turned to outright hatred, and that doesn't bode well for any of us.

"Trump can't wait to push the button"

Can you back this up with anything other than partisan politics?

Certainly, all one need do is look up Trumps public statements on the use of nuclear weapons. Thats available for anyone to see.
As for using nuclear weapons, yes they are out there and eventually someone will use them. The most likely use is where the fear of retaliation is not important, or indeed just ignorance.

VVVreply, your comment about Trump is absolutely absurd. The anti-Trump crowd hate him so much that they just make up crap like "he can't wait to push the button".

Guys … guys … remember the TMP rules about talking, etc. about politics … Just say'n …

On a "lighter" note :

However, I'm more fearful of a rogue nuke than a full on exchange.

Yes as I alluded to, the last people we would want to have a [deployable] nuclear devise(s) are e.g. North Korea, Iran and a plethora of terrorist groups. I think the latter would be the most likely to use a nuc of any type, or form.

Im not especially anti trump (he's fitted with a massive SEP device as far as I'm concerned) and the quote I was thinking of does in retrospect appear to be from an unverifiable source, so its difficult to say if its accurate but it certainly demonstrated a fascination with nuclear weapons that is unsettling.

If this isn't accurate then it is very difficult to pin down what his actual opinion is from other quotes that are on record- in one breath he says they should be done away with , in the next he says every country should have them, and more of them and better ones.

Not exactly reasurring…

But back to the dicussion- it would appear then that a Nuclear detergent like Trident can only deter those who have no intention of attacking you anyway, and is useless against maniacs who don't care if you hit them back, or have no nation or city to hit back against.

Is this the Trump quote he's talking about?

"TRUMP: Well, I don't want to take cards off the table. I would never do that. The last person to press that button would be me. Hey, I'm the one that didn't want to go into Iraq from the beginning. The last person that wants to play the nuclear card believe me is me."

From an interview with Chris Matthews.

I don't see how one gets "can't wait" out of that. He's probably said things at other times. Some people throw so much stuff out that all you have to do is cherry pick the one you want and you can pigeon hole them anywhere.

But back on target…

No one has ever tested their capabilities. Not really, not under battlefield conditions. Testing the communications system to see if it works isn't enough. Launching a missile or two after technicians have swarmed over them for weeks isn't enough. No one has ever had an SSBN or a land based battery shoot its inventory, on a surprise order.

Things like that don't usually go well, in the real world.

I suspect this is one reason overkill is built into the system. 10% is enough.

Welcome back to the UM Warfare board Legion. About time you came out of your self-imposed exile.

As for our current POTUS who just turned 71, we should all know by now that what he says or tweets off the cuff shouldn't be taken literally or construed to be the official position.

VVVreply, your comment about Trump is absolutely absurd.

I see nothing absurd about finding out what Trump has actually said. In fact I recommend anyone who wants to find out about a subject to do a bit of research. Knowing stuff is so terribly useful.
I don't see that the deterrent of having nuclear weapons works – its a fiction. If other countries that don't have have nuclear weapons (most of the world) don't get attacked with nuclear weapons. And those that do have nukes (like USA, UK and Russia) still get attacked, what difference is there in having them or not having them?

@benfrom brooklyn:

no not that one, the one where he repeatedly asked about why he couldn't use nukes.

VVV reply, I missread your post. I focused in on the absurd statement which said 'Trump can't wait to push the button', and I thought you were saying "certainly" to that. But I see my mistake now and apologize.

Nuclear detergent:

alconox.com/nuclear-cleaning

Welcome back to the UM Warfare board Legion. About time you came out of your self-imposed exile.

What ?!? I posted on this topic on the Modern What-if board !?!

I'm sure Bill will see what has happened. And I'll be returned to "exile". And that was not self imposed. But again, this is Bill's show. And I get that …

I'd venture Bill has not come by yet on this topic as the "Political talk" could end up in "Snipping", Deleting or DH'ing in some cases. So just be careful guys …

And if Bill does make a visit, some "Snipping", Deleting, or "DH'ing" may occur. And I'll again not be able to post on UM …