Who could effectively win in a nuclear war. US or Russia.

Technically Russia as they're land would be less irradiated on average then the US's. This is only because Russia is much bigger then the US.

Originally posted by PurityOfPeace
Nobody truelly wins, it is that simple. I always think about the absurdity of Dr. Strangelove when thinking about Nuclear war, because as Stanley Kubrick discovered, the idea is just so idiotic that you cannot take it seriously.
The film "Threads" is another nuclear war film made during the cold war, supposedly it freaked a lot of people out in the 80's when it was made. Worth a look!

There's another aussie film I once saw on hallmark.. A miniseries actually.. freaked the bejezuss outta me..
It was called "beach" or something...

Here it is.. "On the Beach"..
Original 1959 remake 2000

"On the Beach"..
Original 1959 remake 2000

Rented the 2000 remake, kinda good.

If the U.S could launch all 20 B-2s (each armed to the teeth with nukes) without the Russians knowing they were coming. That could potentially give the U.S an edge in a nuke war. A devastating surprise first strike... Too bad the air force didn't buy 30 or 40 B-2s.

The real question is, "why doesn't Zaire have a nuclear weapons program?"

You immediately pick out the two superpowers of two decades ago. Between whom would this supposed "enemy of America"The answer is that this can't happen because nuclear war cannot happen. Nuclear war is a deterrent to nuclear war. It's very existence ensures that, in a sane society, the presence of it's very existence as apparent to the people, but that the chemical reactions inherent in a nuclear weapon cannot come to be set off in a locale where humans dwell.

Nuclear war is impossible because Nuclear Bombs are insane.

"I don't know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones"-Einstein

Originally posted by FredT
No one wins in an all out nuclear exchange. No one. The US arsenal is technicaly surperior in term of survivability and CEP, but from a realistic standpoint both sides still have enough missiles to burn the world down to bedrock.

Even a limited exchange of say less than 100 warheads would devestate the environment not to mention the human toll.

True, however, if we are only talking about 3-4 missiles... Then I'd put my money on USA, Cos´' they are still more advanced then Russia...

Originally posted by NWguy83
If the U.S could launch all 20 B-2s (each armed to the teeth with nukes) without the Russians knowing they were coming. That could potentially give the U.S an edge in a nuke war. A devastating surprise first strike... Too bad the air force didn't buy 30 or 40 B-2s.

The russians can allready detect the B-2 - but the method of detection (long wave) cannot really be used to aim missiles with - the return simply takes to long!

but they can be detected - so , say they cross over the ukraine on there way to targets - then russia simple activates the missiles regiments to fire.

again.. If one sees "The sum of all Fears" the B-2 detection thing will become clear..

well as for 100 nukes causing world wide enviromental change i think you better think again. there have been over 2000 nuclear weapons exploded scince the bomb was invented. with only very local damage.

29. Total number of U.S. nuclear weapons tests, 1945-1992: 1,030 (1,125 nuclear devices detonated; 24 additional joint tests with Great Britain)

www.brook.edu... have been around 2,000 nuclear test explosions:

U.S.: 1,030 tests (involving 1,125 devices)
Soviet Union: 715 tests
France: 210 tests
Britain: 45 tests (21 in Australian territory, including 9 in mainland South Australia at Maralinga and Emu Field, many others in the U.S.)
China: 45 tests (23 atmospheric and 22 underground, all conducted at Lop Nur Nuclear Weapons Test Base, in Malan, Xinjiang)
India: 6 tests.
Pakistan: 6 tests.
Additionally, there may have been at least three alleged/disputed/unacknowledged nuclear
P/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/50.HTM

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by tiddly54
well as for 100 nukes causing world wide enviromental change i think you better think again. there have been over 2000 nuclear weapons exploded scince the bomb was invented. with only very local damage.

Nice try, but the majority were underground and the aboveground ones made changes that can still be detected today. Now drop 100 city busters and you will get alot of change with radiation clouds and the like. Perhaps not a nuclear winter but change you shall have.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
again.. If one sees "The sum of all Fears" the B-2 detection thing will become clear..

Well gee, if it's in a movie it must be true

www.aeronautics.ru...


Soviet-made Bar Lock long-range radar

A recently published article from Aviation Week & Space Technology, based on the interview with a US Navy pilot, who participated in the planning of strikes against Iraqi air defense during the early stages of the operation Desert Storm, indicates that there is "nothing invisible in the radar frequency range below 2GHz" [reverse translation from Russian] and with a well-designed low-frequency radar it is possible to "see even a dragonfly at a great distance" [reverse translation from Russian].

The US military allready know about low frequentcy radar and its ability to detect stealth aircraft - its just not acuarte enough (long return time) to target missiles (as i allready said).

So the movie , got it from reality - these systems are here and now and in use.

IMHO

The southern hemisphere would be the winners, radiation+fallout, impacts both high altitude bursts and ground impacts would cripple most of the Northern hemishere.

Is it possible for the world to "Go insane and use these insane weapons".

You would think the fastest way of America attacking Russia, or China with nukes would come from our subs, with rockets Moving much faster than b-2s. I think it would be harder for them to detect subs than planes.

You simply cannot compare nuke tests to the accual bombs going off in the citys of the world, how long did the WTC burn...now magnify that buy 10 million.

Most places in both countrys would be uninhabital for centurys, however if you were underground lets say in a bunker that made its own electrity/water/food/entertainment well your friends and family should do well...

The level of destruction involved in even a minor nuclear exchange is literally unthinkable. (Hasn't anyone been catching any of the Hiroshima anniversary stuff? Chilling).
It's hard to believe that the countries involved would survive as coherent political entities...I guess the biggest winners (or at any rate those who lost least) would be China and Japan, depending on the exact pattern of fallout etc. But it would probably be bad news for the Northern Hemisphere generally.

It does also lead to the question of what would you do to your leadership if they were mad enough to start one?

Fred, the myth of a dead earth after nuclear warfare is exactly that - a myth. It was perpetuated by the liberals who didn't even want to attempt to try and stand up to Soviet aggression.

Still, while all that Nuclear Winter crap is nothing more than junk science, it would take several weeks to determine a "winner" after any sizeable nuclear exchange. On top of that, consider what will become of the world economy after such a war. That is something I never hear anyone mention, but it is a serious factor to be considered.

Though the Nuclear Winter scenerio is arguably a myth, its undeniable that such an exchange of a nuclear weaponry would have a devestating effect on both the two countries, and possibly, could start a chain reaction. What if England saw on their radar, a bunch of nukes going off from different countries, not knowing where they are heading, they send off theyre arsenal, and another country does the same. Remember, both Russian, America,and probably other countries with a nuclear option, do have scorched earth policies. What if We, the United States, saw Russia launch nukes, and we instantly activate our scorched earth policy. Missles flying at every potential enemy we have, not just russia. And then those countries, and others, do the same. Though it would not be a nuclear winter, it could cause a catostrophic chain of events that would leave millions, if not billions, dead.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
again.. If one sees "The sum of all Fears" the B-2 detection thing will become clear..

Yes, lets all believe what we see in movies... Hey wanna go with me to Jurassic Park?

I haven't heard a single Russian news report claiming that they can detect stealth.

The B-2 (and B-52 for that matter) probably would not be used as a high altitude bomber against a country such as Russia (or China or North Korea). I don't know, and really don't care if somebody has a system that can theoretically detect the B-2 given the way it has been used up until today.

The real qeustion is if Russia has a system that can detect a B-2 flying at under 300ft at very high subsonic speeds - the way it would likely attack a target that is very well defended. I highly doubt it.

Actually, it's not difficult to simply detect the presence of an aircraft with radar, even a stealth one. The original radar, pioneered by the British, did not rely on the reflection of radar waves back to the original site. Instead, aircraft passing between two radar stations which were linked would create inference. If a stealth aircraft deflects the radar waves, it doesn't make any difference because they still fail to reach the next station, thus creating interference. It probably isn't accurate enough to fire missiles with (although perhaps at this point in our technological advancement we could fix that) but it was good enough for scrambling fighters in the days before missiles.
I'd be shocked if this hadn't occurred to somebody and been implemented for detecting incoming strategic bombers, unless of course they already have some other method.

As for the post-nuclear devastation. Let's assume for a moment, just for the sake of argument, that there wont won't be any nuclear winter and that next season the crops can pop right back up as if there never had been a nuclear war.
That's nice, but the oil refineries are gone. The power plants are gone. The John Deere factory is gone. The big rigs are gone. Water treatment facilities in targeted cities are gone. etc etc etc.
The carrying capacity of the nation will be drastically reduced far beyond the number of people actually killed by the attack.

As if that isn't bad enough, it seems reasonable that growing food in soil that has been heavily irradiated probably would result in contaminated crops, so even if there is no nuclear winter and it doesn't hurt crops, anyone who survives is going to be eating food that glows in the dark.

I have no problem believing that libs have heavily overstated the danger of nuclear war, but I also have no problem believing that cold war conservatives were so committed to defense that they understated the danger so that they would be allowed to go ahead with defending our country (afterall, the whole point was that we should never have to use the weapons as long as we had them ready).
So dead earth or no, you'll have a hard time selling me on the idea that even several weeks after the war that we'll crawl out of the ashes and celebrate victory.

Originally posted by rogue1


Well gee, if it's in a movie it must be true

Well.. Actually if its in an AMERICAN movie which is blowing sunshine up RUSSIAN behinds then it mayhave some truth to it..
I rarely (actually never) see american movies over-exxagerate russian/soviet military power..If anything they tend to play it down in comparision to whatever american miltary jazz is present the the corresponding movie..

Actually only one movie falls out of this group..
Firefox