After a first strike I would not expect any responce. If the leadership knew it was coming they could take cover but otherwise they would be gone. This shadow government which issupposed to take over in this eventuallity would be fear stricken. The theory of the abm to respond to the feeble retaliation after a first strike makes perfect sense

Precisely my point. ABM shields are liable to give people the delusion that a ''successful'' nuclear first strike is possible.

If you look at the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict, it appears that there may be an analogy. Mr. Saakashvili went on television on the night of 6th August, foaming at the mouth, and announced that South Ossetians could sleep easy, as he had declared a cease fire.

A few hours later, the Georgian shells and rockets began to hit Tskinvali without warning. However, before the tunnel to N Ossetia could be taken out, the Russian army shot through and ran the Georgians off.

They must have been queuing up in the tanks inside the tunnel ready to go.

The Russians have nuclear submarines and the chances of taking them all out in a first strike, before response, would be negligible.

One day in 1983 Russian radar repeatedly read rays of the setting sun as a US missile attack. It happened while the US was in the middle of a first strike exercise (Ábel Archer')and all the appearance of first strike preparations was very apparent to the Russians.

The individual Russian soldier responsible for retaliation knew that, if it was a nuclear attack, there were only a few minutes before the US missiles struck. He was ordered several times by his superiors to launch a nuclear response attack. He refused to do it, and after the due time had passed and they were all still alive, it became apparent that it was a false alarm. The soldier was courtmarshalled and sacked and in still unemployed, living in a block of flats in a Moscow suburb.

While the Abel Archer exercise was on in 1983, Russia went visibly into a state of readiness to respond with nuclear arms to a US nuclear attack. This was apparent to the US, and this deterrent, along with Reagan's sudden awareness (thanks to a tv drama) that life in a post nuclear world would not be livable for the US population, brought the US First Strike plans to an end.

Since 2001 it is clear that the Pentagon's dreams of a 'successful'first strike have been revived, even though the Red Peril is over.

youngdan wrote:

Lestat. 2 weeks ago you would have posted that the Russian military was rusting in scrapyards. Amazing what a lick of paint can do....A typhoon sub carries 200 nukes each about 20 times the blast of fat boy. Just one is more than enough. They say they have about 20 subs and I say who knows. These 20 carry icbms and I am not talking about regular submarines that they seem to be selling off.

They did. But the RSM 52 SLBMs carried by the Typhoons are no longer in service. And the last Typhoon in service in the Russian Navy is just a testing platform for the next generation of missiles, the Bulava or SS NX 30. The SS NX 30 is still in the test stage. They are designed to be carried in a new submarine, the Borei class, the first of which was hurriedly launched this year to coincide with the presidential elections. It's called the Yury Dolgurky. the Dolgurky won't be finished for a while yet.

youngdan wrote:

Anyway 1 EMP explosion over the US would fry every circuit and kill about 250 million through starvation.

This is an interesting take https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiWKoruqyfg&feature=user

EMP is one of the effects of a nuclear explosion and it depends on several factors, the size of the explosion, height of detonation and so on. Unprotected circuits within range will be affected. Presumably, all military circuits are EMP protected. One single 100kt explosion wouldn't cause that much damage anyway.

If you want to believe the Russians have no subs armed with nuclear missiles you are welcome to live in fantasy land.

As regards the the EMP what good is protecting the military circuits when dinner time comes around and there is no grub or no gas stations pumping. The range of a burst is the entire 48 states with only the other 2 escaping

The thought that you can win a nuclear war brought this to mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDMVfFgykP8

youngdan wrote:

If you want to believe the Russians have no subs armed with nuclear missiles you are welcome to live in fantasy land.

I'm sure they have. There's still a dozen Delta IIIs and IVs knocking about. I wouldn't bet the house on them getting a missile off before they're destroyed by the US Navy though. Russia does not have a credible submarine threat, as in one that would worry the US overmuch. It won't have a credible submarine threat for another decade at least. If they can manage the finances of the project that is. The Yury Dolgurky ate up 40% of their weapons budget for 2007. And that's before you factor in arming and running it. Multiply that by 15 to 20 boats. That's a lot of roubles.

Also Submarine launched nukes are tactical rather than war winning weapons. They're meant to knock out command and control to allow a strike by ICBMs without the danger of a counter strike. The thing is if you get it wrong your country is toast.

youngdan wrote:

As regards the the EMP what good is protecting the military circuits when dinner time comes around and there is no grub or no gas stations pumping.

The demand for 4 course dinners and petrol will have fallen sharply by H+1. Besides which the EMP will ahve fried the electrics in all cars anyway so we won't need petrol. Military circuits will have been protected to maintain command and control so the missiles in the silos (the 20 megaton buggers) can be launched.

youngdan wrote:

The range of a burst is the entire 48 states with only the other 2 escaping

The range of a 20 megaton burst at 130 miles altitude would cover the entire US. A 100 kt burst might black out New York.

Nuclear winter would be well worth all that trouble and expense.

cactus flower wrote:

Nuclear winter would be well worth all that trouble and expense.

You'd wonder will mankind survive, will another species evolve to dominate Earth or will we be colonised by beings from somewhere else when all the dust settles.

I'm betting on the first option.

You seem to be under the illusion that the Russian subs will hang arround until war is declared. What is being discussed is just one sub destroying the US in a sneak attack thereby making the shied inconsequential

youngdan wrote:

You seem to be under the illusion that the Russian subs will hang arround until war is declared. What is being discussed is just one sub destroying the US in a sneak attack thereby making the shied inconsequential

Can't subs be too easily detected with radar? And taken out long before they get up to any mischief?

And what's all the will ? shouldn't we be using WOULD ?

Lestat wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Nuclear winter would be well worth all that trouble and expense.

You'd wonder will mankind survive, will another species evolve to dominate Earth or will we be colonised by beings from somewhere else when all the dust settles.

I'm betting on the first option.

I'd be prepared to bet a large amount that your knowledge of ecology and biology is not up to the level of your military expertise, Lestat.

cactus flower wrote:

Nuclear winter would be well worth all that trouble and expense.

Less of the negativity just think of all the fun we could have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOtwzG_LJcA

youngdan wrote:

You seem to be under the illusion that the Russian subs will hang arround until war is declared. What is being discussed is just one sub destroying the US in a sneak attack thereby making the shied inconsequential

There will be no declaration of war. This is the 21st century, you find out there's a war on when a cruise missile comes through your front door.

One submarine doesn't have the capacity to destroy the US. It would cause huge damage and kill several million people. About half an hour after it launches its missiles, approximately 7,000 American nuclear devices will detonate over Russia. Before they die, the Russians will launch 8,000 at the US and western Europe. That's the bad news. The good news is that because both sides are guaranteed to be destroyed, it's never going to happen.

Your Demetrian analogy is far more likely, Although it won't be the Russians sailing the nuke into New York, it'll be Al Queda.

cactus flower wrote:

I'd be prepared to bet a large amount that your knowledge of ecology and biology is not up to the level of your military expertise, Lestat.

You'd be right.

However it's a fair bet that mankind will not be eradicated by nuclear war/winter. Some few thousand will survive. They'll be living at pre-historic levels for a long time though.

Lestat wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I'd be prepared to bet a large amount that your knowledge of ecology and biology is not up to the level of your military expertise, Lestat.

You'd be right.

However it's a fair bet that mankind will not be eradicated by nuclear war/winter. Some few thousand will survive. They'll be living at pre-historic levels for a long time though.

Prehistoric people lived very well. Apart from high infant mortality, hunter-gatherers had a good life, with a varied diet and a lot of leisure in a gloriously rich and pristine environment. There is no reason to believe that human life would be sustainable after a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. If it did it would be appalling.

I'm intrigued by the idea that prehistoric people 'lived very well' or had a 'good life'. How on earth could we know? Average life expectancy - as far as we can tell - seems to tell us otherwise.

cactus flower wrote:

Prehistoric people lived very well. Apart from high infant mortality, hunter-gatherers had a good life, with a varied diet and a lot of leisure in a gloriously rich and pristine environment. .

Neolithic Nostalgia, a Lifestyle Choice.

cactus flower wrote:

There is no reason to believe that human life would be sustainable after a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia. If it did it would be appalling.

Yes, it would be appalling, just like Stone Age Man's life was appalling.

65 million years ago an asteroid struck Earth with the equivalent force of 100 million megatons. A "nuclear winter" ensued that did not eradicate all life on earth. Even studies of nuclear winter do not predict total annihilation.

WorldbyStorm wrote:

I'm intrigued by the idea that prehistoric people 'lived very well' or had a 'good life'. How on earth could we know? Average life expectancy - as far as we can tell - seems to tell us otherwise.

http://www.eco-action.org/dt/affluent.html

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8b.shtml

Here are a couple of sources.

cactus flower wrote:

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8b.shtml

Here are a couple of sources.

I'll bet they haven't tried it for any period of time.

If you'd like the authentic prehistoric experience try camping out in January for a week. Equip yourself with an animal pelt as your only clothing and dine al fresco on anything you can find to eat. Mostly earthworms if the ground is soft. Nobody over 30 need apply, stone age man didn't live to that vast age. To add to the fun your environment will contain many predatory animals that like to snack on humans, not to mention humans that will club you to death and steal your woman/food/cave/animal pelt. Even minor illnesses and injuries are fatal. Life doesn't get much better than that.

And another - WbS - you might be amused or intrigued by this woman arrested for being a hunter gatherer

http://www.rewild.info/conversations/index.php?topic=1103.msg11867

Lestat wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-8b.shtml

Here are a couple of sources.

I'll bet they haven't tried it for any period of time.

If you'd like the authentic prehistoric experience try camping out in January for a week. Equip yourself with an animal pelt as your only clothing and dine al fresco on anything you can find to eat. Mostly earthworms if the ground is soft. Nobody over 30 need apply, stone age man didn't live to that vast age. To add to the fun your environment will contain many predatory animals that like to snack on humans, not to mention humans that will club you to death and steal your woman/food/cave/animal pelt. Even minor illnesses and injuries are fatal. Life doesn't get much better than that.

They tried it for hundreds of thousands of years. We've tried agriculture for a couple of thousand and industry for a couple of hundred.

Try this - http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/claessen/agriculture/mistake_jared_diamond.pdf

You can stay in your fantasy if you think 200 nukes could not destroy America. If you think that anything could be done before the other 8000 bombs got here you are really dreaming.

This is reality OK. The war plans for many years called for Launch On Warning. When the Russian missiles were seen coming over Canada then America would fire. Clinton changed this to a policy of absorbing a 1st strike before launching. Everyone knows there will be nothing to launch after the first strike. Bush has kept this policy in place even though it is both suicidal and it increases the likelihood of a 1st strike.

I will leave it to you to figure out why this is so.

Where do you think Al Queda will get nukes. Do you actually believe there is such a thing as Al Queda

Just read the first post on this thread.

It occurs to me that the ABM shield is more likely directed against Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, has missiles, is politically unstable and has within its population an militant group which hates the USA.

It would make sense for the US not to say this as it could inflame Pakistani public opinion. It would also make sense for Russia to be none to pleased as it can be used against them. Apart from that, it appears that the USA and its eastern European friends would be happy to destroy these missiles while they are flying over Russia.

Lastly, the foreign policy record of the USA and the mood of its electrate suggests that it will use its military might to secure its economic ends. Russia and the countries around it appear to be increasingly important to those economic imperatives. Accordingly, it is not surprising for Russia to get angry when they see the USA beefing up its military capabilities in the area.

Zhou_Enlai wrote:

Just read the first post on this thread.

It occurs to me that the ABM shield is more likely directed against Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, has missiles, is politically unstable and has within its population an militant group which hates the USA.

It would make sense for the US not to say this as it could inflame Pakistani public opinion. It would also make sense for Russia to be none to pleased as it can be used against them. Apart from that, it appears that the USA and its eastern European friends would be happy to destroy these missiles while they are flying over Russia.

Lastly, the foreign policy record of the USA and the mood of its electrate suggests that it will use its military might to secure its economic ends. Russia and the countries around it appear to be increasingly important to those economic imperatives. Accordingly, it is not surprising for Russia to get angry when they see the USA beefing up its military capabilities in the area.

The worrying thing about Lestat's view is that it might be shared by some of those in the position to do damage (sorry, Lestat).

Youngdan, I would agree with a lot of what you say, except that you see Russia as the nuclear agressor. This goes against all the evidence of history. Lets not forget that the US has already used nuclear bombs to wipe out civilian populations. Russia had to play catch up. The evidence of the early 80s is that the US prepared a first strike and pulled back with reluctance. The Russian soldier was reluctant to retaliate even when ordered. Russia has always survived before by buffering borders and absorbing the punches into the big land mass.

I agree with what Zhou is saying except I'm not so sure that US people, as opposed to Government, are up for war.

War is chaos, and the best plans usually only last until the first shot is fired. Nuclear war, power down, communications down, water, sewerage, transport, hundreds of millions dead, cities, infra structure all in ruins etc etc.

Utter madness, and it is therefore about time we changed how we conduct our affairs. If we continue to seek peace by waving ever bigger sticks then at some time some imbecile will get into power and think his stick is about right to deliver a deadly blow without cost. History is full of fools who thought they were invincible so in the future some more are bound to surface.

In the short - medium term we have to move to a position were Russia is a friendly nation who we openly trade and do business with. It is self evident that that is in the best interests of most people. We need to move away from the attempts to gain through disruption, agression and theft and move towards wealth by industry and enterprise.

A nuclear war is likely to wipe out humanity. The higher up the tree you are the more vulnerable you are to changes in the ecosystem that supports you.

Bearing in mind the eradication of the dinosaur back then our ancestors were rat like so in the survival stakes I would put my money on rats, or insects. Humanity's chances virtually zero.

But imagine some humans did survive, what chance would there be of rebuilding civilisation? All the minerals near the surface have been mined and how long exactly does radiation last?

Pakistan could be a major problem. Former foreign policy has created a demon among the populous of that country. I would be far more concerned about this country than Iran and I can't see a simple solution. We have to hope and ensure the coalition proves stable.