Originally posted by Backwoods
Originally posted by D.E.M.
Uh. Well. Hell.
Oh and for the record a nuke that small would not reach out much beyond a mile or two. The bombs used in Japan were just under a megaton. Or 10 times the size this weapons system can deliver.
[edit on 11-8-2008 by Backwoods]
[edit on 11-8-2008 by Backwoods]
[edit on 13-8-2008 by Atlantican]
Originally posted by wolfmanjack
So lets do a little math.. If a 20KT weapon has a range of 1 mile (Airburst at 1500 feet) The a 100 KT weapon Airburst would have a range of 5 miles.
Now.. Think about this for just a second.. A majority of nuclear weapons are Much larger then 100kt. They are in the MegaTon range..
This is highly dependent on factors such as proximity to the blast and the direction of the wind carrying fallout. Death is highly likely, and radiation poisoning is almost certain if one is close enough within the radius of the blast, for example 3 to 4 miles for a 1 megaton atmospheric blast
Etc......... There is Plenty of information online about effects of nuclear weapons on citys etc.. A little known fact is that Both Russia and the US have so many weapons they practise a multiple weapon per target policy.
Some citys have upwards of 5+ weapons targeted at them.. Just incase any of the others miss or malfunction.
Nukes are nothing to scoff at and anyone who wants a nuclear war is suicidal.
Management Agency (FEMA), the Soviets have built at least 20,000
blast-resistant shelters to protect approximately 15 million people, or
roughly 10 percent of the people in cities of 25,000 or more. The FY 1981
Department of Defense Annual Report to the Congress noted that
"the Soviets will probably continue to emphasize the construction of
urban blast sheltering. If the current pace of construction is continued,
the number of people that can be sheltered will be roughly doubled in
1988." The Soviets apparently plan to evacuate and disperse the general
population to pre-assigned resettlement areas where they will be fed
and either provided with a fallout shelter or put to work building one.
According to Soviet civil defense SOVIET FATALITIES (SAY SOVIETS): "BETWEEN THREE
AND-FOUR PERCENT" manuals, this plan for the evacuation and dispersal of people is designed
to limit casualties in the event of a nuclear exchange to between three and four percent of the
population. Modest, feasible measures to protect machinery from nuclear effects greatly increase
both the probability of industrial survival and U .S. retaliatory force requirements . . .
[FEMA and the CIA] estimate that the Soviet Union, given time to implement
fully these civil defense measures, could limit casualties to around fifty million, about half of
which would be fatalities. This compares to the approximately 20 million Soviet fatalities suffered in
World War II . There is no significant U .S. civil defense effort, and the Soviets
recognize this. The potential impact of Soviet civil defense on our deterrent
could be devastating. Calculations based on reasonable assumptions indicate that Soviet civil defense
Soviet Union. The role civil defense plays in Soviet strategy is significant. Based on the view that nuclear war is a clear possibility and that civilization is protectable, the Soviets have implemented a massive and thoroughly integrated civil defense effort.22 Soviet leaders have shown interest in civil defense for many years, but they enhanced their efforts following the 23rd Party Congress in 1966. Despite SALT I agreements in 1972, the U.S.S.R. further intensified its civil defense program. CD currently ranks as a separate force organizationally equal to other Ministry of Defense Forces. The CD chief, General of the Army Altunin (four-star rank), is also Deputy Minister of Defense with three CD deputies of colonel-general (three star) rank serving under him. A Stanford Research Institute (SRI) study23 in 1974 stated that there were at least 35 to 40 active list Soviet army general officers holding posts in the Soviet CD system, which is intricately organized in the 15 constituent republics of the U.S.S.R. The SRI report mentioned a three-year CD military officer candidate school that might indicate the Soviet interest in a continuing civil defense program.
The Soviets spend the equivalent of more than $1 billion annually (the CIA in Soviet Civil Defense estimates approximately $2 billion) on their CD program and have conducted some tests of their city evacuation plans. Although the extent of these tests is not fully known, they concentrate efforts on protecting political and military leaders, industrial managers, and skilled workers. Professor Richard Pipes of Harvard sees the CD organization under Altunin as "...a kind of shadow government charged with responsibility for administering the country under the extreme stresses of nuclear war and its immediate aftermath."24
The potential lifesaving effectiveness of the Soviet CD program is not a matter of unanimous agreement. However, several studies estimate casualty rates as low as two to three percent of the Soviet population in the event of nuclear war.25
The vast Soviet network of shelters and command facilities, under construction for four decades, was recently described in detail by Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci.The shelters are designed to house the entire Politburo, the Central Committee, and the key leadership of the Ministryof Defense and the KGB. Some are located hundreds of yards beneath the surface, and are connected by secret subway lines,tunnels, and sophisticated communications systems. "These facilities contradict in steel and concrete Soviet protestations that they share President Reagan's view that nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought,"Carlucci said (Ariwna Republic, April 3, 1988). These facilities reveal that they are preparing themselves for just the opposite." The shelters are also protected against chemical warfare agents, and stocked with sufficient supplies to allow the leadership to survive and wage war for months.In contrast, the limited US shelter system begun in the 1950s has mostly been abandoned."To have something comparable, we'd have to have facilities where we could put every governor, mayor, every Cabinet official, and our whole command structure underground with subways running here and there," Carlucci said. "There's just no comparison between the two."
Originally posted by netwarrior
I'm sure the Russians are 100% innocent and came bearing flowers and cuddly puppies.
There is no one country totally at fault here, least of all the Russians, but that point has been beaten to death on the main thread.
Again, I reiterate that it is stated Russian doctrine to use tactical nuclear weapons if precision guided conventional weapons are used against them.
Don't get me wrong, Russia has some GREAT stuff. The mere mention of the word "Alfa" is enough to send shivers down the spine of the most hardened sub captain. The darn things are near fast enough to outrun our ADCAP torpedoes...and they can if the other captain fires too soon.
Backfire bombers aren't anything to sneeze at either. Heck, my personal home defense weapon of choice is an AK from the Tula Arsenal that I rebuilt from a demil parts kit.
The fact remains is their conventional weaponry is not as good as ours.
They know this. Personally, I don't think it's such a bad thing.
I know it was a long time ago, but the Battle of Stalingrad is the proof in the pudding. IMO the US military is too dependent on technology anyway.
Oh yeah. They also can field *alot* more trigger fingers than the US can.