It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could the U.S.A. survive a nuclear attack?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Snowen this is another thing to take into account on the survival of the United States, and that is that there are several theories on how a nuclear holocaust will occur. There have been two basic types of thought that are covered by Strategic Doctrine and The American Defense Policy, first let me say that in avid study of modern warfare many people to day skip the Sun Tzu and look to Clausewitz, which I find to be a big mistake, as Clauswitz can be quite esoteric in nature and any intelligence estimate or military planner should recognise and identify that not only can the wrong doctrine lead to disaster, but the breakdown which can occur under stressful situations can cause complicated in place tasking to fail. A third thing to take into consideration while looking at modern warfare scenarios are that Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Waskow, Gilpatric, Hoag and even Napoleons Maxims of War are not modern, but a flank by any other means is a flank.

So lets take a look at what the military says might happen, once again I will reiterate there have been two basic military concepts and philosophy around a nuclear war/nuclear strike that are envisioned I will stick to the traditional doctrine of thoughts produced from the cold war era.

1. The Counter Force Theory; and
2. The Combined Deterrent Theory

First the Counter Force Theory: I will quote Arthur Waskow in his work "The Theory and Practice of Deterrence". "A number of officers and administrators, mainly in the Air Force are convinced that thermonuclear war is possible, conceivable, acceptable and that it will be won or lost in the classical sense"..."In either case this group expects the action of the United States to be Counter Force action. They would expect American attack to be directed not against populations or industry but against the atomic capability of the enemy" Ok so the basic thought here is that any initial attack would be countered by attacking the originating source of the nuclear attack, and that if in return the counter force was sent against opposing populations, that the enemy would still have the capability to and would retaliate. In other words you would attempt to eliminate your opponents Center of Gravity rather then leave yourself open to another attack, especially one that is being reciprocated from a nuclear response to a nuclear attack on a states population. Such an attack on a population would most likely cause similiar attacks on the opponents population, perhaps even after the destruction of enemy atomic capability. The advantage, if there is an advantage to nuclear war, is that destruction of both opposing forces atomic capability could bring such nations into talks, based on an initial battle damage assessment or would cause a war to continue under a limited war involving conventional forces.

2. The Combined Deterrent Theory: this thought generally accepted by the US Army and US Navy was that nuclear war was unacceptable and inconceivable and that preparing for such a war was not the awnser but prevention through deterrence was. Again I will qoute Arthur Waskow, "It is the Navy's theory that if both the United States and its chief enemies have great masses of the population open to atomic attack (in a sense being held as hostages) and that if, on both sides, the forces to mount such an attack are theselves invulnerable the attack will never be mounted"..."the invulnerable deterrent with vulnerable population sould stabalize the international situation"..."In addition the argument runs that the situation would cause a plateau in the arms race. It is suggested that when both sides reach the level of invulnerable deterrent that they can tacitly agree to arrest the arms bulid up while understanding the difficulties, they attempt to negotiate"

I know it all sounds very esoteric, but if you look at it close you can see a combined guideline that was followed during the cold war, and as Henry Eccles (retired) Rear Admiral USN stated "No military theory can stand alone; it must be related to both political and economic theory" (Which is different then Clausewitz stating that "War is a continuation of politics by other means." which is wrong, war is a failure of politics by other means" The question is why is all this important? We must know the thought of the people that will push those buttons, and why is it important to go back to the cold war era to decipher what is now? I will tell you why, because the question could America survive a nuclear attack has its very roots in the post World War II era and Cold War. The current Navy situation is the exact same, the changing face of warfare is causing the Navy to change from a bluewater to a brown water tactical structure, causing a loss of knowledge in its Commanders that it will soon need.

So to move on with my answer without mentioning Contradiction and Paradox or semantic aspects and excluding the idea of a terrorist attack with multiple nuclear detonations in CONUS. A full scale nuclear attack on the United States, Prima Facie, would not only dessimate the population of the United States but would most likely kill at least two thirds of the population, if not more. Even a limited nuclear attack, lets say fifteen would economically shatter us. This Country in not even close to being able to handle that type of disaster. I do not care who says otherwise. Just look at the number of Nuclear devices I offered you; fifteen. Example, lets say for instance you only had one nuclear explosion and say it was in Washington DC, then imagine seven 9/11 type incidents and seven Hurricane Katrinas all at the same time. I mean talk about the population control committe at the United Nations jumping for joy.

I will offer that after initial nuclear det plotting and fall out even with a limited nuclear event their might be pockets of human life but after the full addition of radiation sickness just a handfull here and there. Now I am no graduate of a prestigious citadel or an illustrious academy, but I have had Colonels and Captains on both sides of the spectrum tell me my knowledge far surpasses most officers they know. I am not saying it would be a for sure death but you will wish you were if you are unlucky enough to survive it.




posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Our black budget is so Huge... and this administration is so... confident and reactive that...

I can only assume for these reasons (and many others) that we believe we can almost 100% deter a nuclear attack even in terms of hundreds or thousands of missiles...

My guess is silently, alongside what we show in missile defense and lazers and rockest we have developed something along the lines of Haarp or Teslaish technology, or maybe even anti gravity or some kind of electro magnetic deterent...

that will allow us to knock the missiles down or at the least, fry the circutry onboard so they only short detonate, scatter the material when explosives go off...

Nuclear missiles and a nuclear reaction is not the simplest thing in the world, it is easy to see many angkles by which a deterent to them could have been built particularly in regards to their actual detonation.

I have a strong reason to believe this sudden "threat" of a trrorist bomb lies along the lines of... this is the only way we can now be hit with a bomb...

I excpect that a Nuclear war would consist of, only the bombs the russians and the chinese already have planted and that we don't know about actually going off... and hence all the phone taps and domestic spying and and et al... these last few years.


It seems obvious to me that there are those who liek after ww2 would seek to... take advantage of a temporaray power imbalance if one existed and would seek to do so, there were many who regret that we did not make Russian and China fall when we had the A-bomb and which more than one military person advise the govt to do... prior to the soviets getting the A-bomb...

it is after all I guess... but I think, we believe we can win, that we have the ability to...take out the ICBMs already and that's a big part of all this domestic spying and police state nonsense, clear out and be prepared to clamp down to avoid urban based bombs from going off and a desire to use (at least percieved) weapons edge.

I'd say almost 100% if we are acting this way, we can take down a large flight of ICBM's right now



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by alienstar
reply to post by snowen20
 


There are some people who swear that the missile defense shield works.I myself see it as a failure and waste of money.But hey its just one person opinion.To answer your other questions i didn't get to,yes they still do air raid and emergency broadcast test once a month at least here where i live.

[edit on 28-6-2008 by alienstar]


Not only a waste of US money but also all the other Nations
bush has conned in to it. A terrorist attack or from another
Timothy McVie will be more likely than a Incoming Missile.
And their going to spend trillions of bucks on this shield, and their
is absolutely no way It will prevent a Terror Attack. Then there's
the other problem of Shooting a bullet with a Bullet.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:51 AM
link   
Snowen my above post is based on the traditional thought of Nuclear War and not a nuclear mod strike whcih would be if say N. Korea stuck a few in on us.

Another thing to think of besides smaller ememies who have obtained nuclear devices is their ability to get them here ie. delivery vehicles

another thing is look at Nasa and other space agencies and how picky they are about when they have there launches. I mean these are rockets that have been sitting in tubes for awhile, of course I am speaking of ICBM's, and then there is the functionality of the MIRVs once they get exoatmospheric.

Now these would be the first things most likely to be lauched but there is also the consideration of the other two parties in the nuclear triad and that are the Sub launched ballistic missiles and those lauched by bombers. this bring ona whole new set of criteria. Under Sea Warfare, Anti air Warfare if this was deliberate or urgent and nature. IE were the enemy subs already off our coast, which would cut down our reaction time as well as the projectile flight time and on and on and on. Any air shield we migh have is never going to be a 100% because it is all about engaging the theatre ballistic missile before it is exoatmospheric otherwise you will be dealing with multiple reentry vehicles. and the variables go on and on... SEE what I am saying... I know it is crazy



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
I grew up on Air Force Bases, my dad was a career serviceman dedicating 33 years of his life to it. I remember in Kindergarten we were taught about how to survive a nuclear war, how to 'be a good kid and not bother the adults who may not have any patience for you', how long to stay hidden, where to find food when you leave whatever shelter you may be in, how to treat 'sores' that might come up on your skin, how to use a bag to get water from sunlight, it was all pretty horrific to me as a little girl, but I have never forgotten the images I saw, and the 'training' that I got.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by snowen20
By the way do we even know what a real nuclear holocaust would be like?
as far as i know it is only theory and one where the worst case scenerio is projected.

Barren wastelands, poisonous rivers, nuclear winter., now that is somthing that sounds far fetched to me.
I mean sure it would be bad but I dont know if it would last to long.
and I dont know if it would cause a nuclear winter for that matter.
that is somthing that I heard was a complete hypothesis where the worst possible outcome was projected, discovery channel 1995, thats where i heard somthing to that effect.

But is it possible that while missles were launching that the leaders could call a truce before all missles were launched and minimize the damage?

If you want to know what it will be like and what will happen look at Chernobyl. It's been 20 years since it happened and the radiation levels are just now getting low enough for people to live there. They had a show on the history channel and showed what was left. The crew had geiger counters and some areas still had radiation.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
LOL obvious people think nuclear war cant be that bad.LOL



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by birchtree
 

Your points are not esoteric at all, in fact they are down to earth and understandable. I appreciate the insight into this topic and have a greater understanding on where the US stands now.

It is an interesting thought to me to consider that as long as humans have nuclear weapons the chances for thier use are actually low.

very interesting.

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by mopusvindictus
 





My guess is silently, alongside what we show in missile defense and lazers and rockest we have developed something along the lines of Haarp or Teslaish technology, or maybe even anti gravity or some kind of electro magnetic deterent...


lol, your HAARP is believed to be a copy(ripoff) of soviet Sura station , accoridng to russian conspiracy theorists, based on stolen soviet tec




The Sura facility was commissioned in 1981. Using this facility, Russian researchers achieved extremely interesting results regarding the ionosphere behavior and discovered the effect of generation of low-frequency emission at the modulation of ionosphere current[1]. At the beginning, Soviet Defense Department mostly footed the bill. The American HAARP ionospheric heater is similar to the Sura facility. The HAARP project began in 1993.

en.wikipedia.org...


lol ,sura existed 12 years before HAARP ...

as for your lasers they have been rendered useless by Russian TopolM ICBM

and soviets had created military grade lasers ,long before USA did lol...



[edit on 11-7-2008 by manson_322]



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 



i feel the same way...i sit here and think that at any second i could be whiped ut of existance....but hey look at the bright side..the dinosaurs didnt see it coming




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join