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.

 

US Nuclear War Strategy

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Wondering if anyone knows the US's policy on a nuclear attack against us in regards to who we strike back? For instance if say Russia launches a first strike against the US do we just strike back at Russia (if we are able to) or do we strike back at every major nuclear power?

The reason I am asking is because the way to win a nuclear war is to strike first and take a huge advantage in destroying your enemies nuclear weapons. The strategy is not to have your own country come out unscathed but to defend some amount of nuclear weapons so you can then threaten non nuclear countries (99% of the remaining countries) and take them over.

Now say if Russia and China got together and came to an agreement to attack the US. Russia launches a first strike and almost certainly will win an all out exchange with the US as their first strike will destroy the majority of the US's nuclear weapons. They may also decide to strike England, Israel, India and Pakistan to destroy their weapons. Now China is the sole nuclear power left on earth with Russia. They can take over the world at their leaisure.

OR does the US have a policy set in place if it gets attacked by nuclear weapons to launch back at every nuclear power no matter who the aggressor appears to be??

It might sound a little far fetched for Russia and China to come to such an agreement but alot of things happen in the world today that would have seemed far fetched just 10 years ago.

I am also interested in this topic as Russia has a checklist to determine if the US is planning to launch a first strike. First strike is very important despite the mutually assured destruction policy as whoever gets the first strike in takes a huge advantage at coming out in the end with enough weapons to take over the rest of the world. Now one of the items on the checklist is to watch for buying of gold, presumably as this would again become the official monetary standard if say the dollar is no longer used. Likewise the US must be on the lookout for this. Now Russia has been dumping their official reserves of dollars and are currently stockpiling gold and euros. This is just one item on the checklist and I don't have access to the information on the other items such as moving important factories underground etc to confirm if any flags should be raised.




posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I think the whole nuclear weapon stuff is quit insane..I mean, what would you do with a radioactive country? plant new fruits ? The nuclear weapons are only to discourage the world for greater war, like WW I or WW II..

You think about it, if there exist any plans for a nuclear war or 1st strike? sure for the last instance of the NWO
..just kidding



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Well the radioactivity from thermonuclear weapons will only last roughly 1 year. You could remove the fallout from the surface of the topsoil and start planting within a few days even. Besides if you are the sole nuclear power left you would be moving to any other country you wish or be using their resources to feed your population and rebuild.

I am just interested in the US's retaliation policy. It seems the only possible defense would be to launch almost everything they have at every existing nuclear power within a few minutes of a first strike alert. I would love to be a fly on the wall at their mock wargames. Talk about being in the pressure cooker!



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrdependable[/
Now say if Russia and China got together and came to an agreement to attack the US. Russia launches a first strike and almost certainly will win an all out exchange with the US as their first strike will destroy the majority of the US's nuclear weapons. They may also decide to strike England, Israel, India and Pakistan to destroy their weapons. Now China is the sole nuclear power left on earth with Russia. They can take over the world at their leaisure.


You are forgetting that US has almost 50% of it's nukes carried by nuclear subs (Ohio). And the US submarine force is the best on the world so even if russian attack destroys ground based ICBMs and airfields, the submarine force will survive intact and will have enough weapons to waporize both Russia and Chna. For your information each Ohio class submarine carries 24 Trident balistic misilles and each of tham has 8 500kiloton MIRV warheads. That means ONLY ONE submarine has the ability to destroy 192 targets. All fourteen Ohio class submarines have the ability to destroy 2688 targets!!! Accuracy is +/- 100 meters. Range info varies, but one source states it is 11000 km (more than 1/4 around globe).

P.S. It is also highly possible that USA will have some kind of antimisille shield

[edit on 6-11-2004 by longbow]



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 11:57 AM
link   
This might help:


“The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force—including through resort to all of our options—to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies,” according to the document.

Such a doctrine, however, requires an enhanced ability to determine the source of an attack quickly and effectively as well as improved means of launching a counterstrike, the strategy adds. “The primary objective of a response is to disrupt an imminent attack or an attack in progress, and eliminate the threat of future attacks,” it says. “As with deterrence and prevention, an effective response requires rapid attribution and robust strike capability.”

White House threatens nuclear retaliation to attacks on U.S.

or:
Massive Retaliation
U.S. Nuclear Arms Stance Modified by Policy Study
U.S. Nuclear Policy in the 21st Century

or:


The greatest risk of chemical or biological attack today comes not from nations but terrorists. A nuclear response to such an act is hardly feasible. Even if one were able to link definitively a terrorist group to a State, would nuclear weapons of any size offer an acceptable response? At the lowest yield currently deployed by the United States-0.3 kilotons, or 300 tons of TNT-they are hundreds of times more powerful than the largest conventional bombs and are therefore too indiscriminate to use as instruments of discrete retribution. The political and environmental fallout following the detonation of such weapons would be too severe.

Miscalculated Ambiguity: U.S. Policy on the Use and Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons

Best I can find thus far.



seekerof



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by longbow

Originally posted by mrdependable[/
Now say if Russia and China got together and came to an agreement to attack the US. Russia launches a first strike and almost certainly will win an all out exchange with the US as their first strike will destroy the majority of the US's nuclear weapons. They may also decide to strike England, Israel, India and Pakistan to destroy their weapons. Now China is the sole nuclear power left on earth with Russia. They can take over the world at their leaisure.


You are forgetting that US has almost 50% of it's nukes carried by nuclear subs (Ohio). And the US submarine force is the best on the world so even if russian attack destroys ground based ICBMs and airfields, the submarine force will survive intact and will have enough weapons to waporize both Russia and Chna. For your information each Ohio class submarine carries 24 Trident balistic misilles and each of tham has 8 500kiloton MIRV warheads. That means ONLY ONE submarine has the ability to destroy 192 targets. All fourteen Ohio class submarines have the ability to destroy 2688 targets!!! Accuracy is +/- 100 meters. Range info varies, but one source states it is 11000 km (more than 1/4 around globe).

P.S. It is also highly possible that USA will have some kind of antimisille shield

[edit on 6-11-2004 by longbow]


Ok that is all well and good but does the US use its subs to attack every nuclear power or just the single aggressor? That is the question I am asking. How does the US determine the real plan of attack in such a short time period. Russia and the USA can exchange volleys of missiles for weeks and knock each other out but what becomes of the other nuclear nations?

Russia and the US have roughly equal amounts of nuclear weapons so the agressor will win almost all of the time i.e. their country will be destroyed but they will have remaining weapons while the loser has nothing left. The winner can then inherit the earth if they have the only nuclear weapons left or are allied with other countries who have nuclear weapons.

Yes I understand the US has a missile defense shield against North Korea but if they ever decide to install a defense shield against Russia this would effectively force Russia to launch a strike before the shield is operational and vice versa unless both countries develop the shield together and both benefit from it.



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Thanks for those links. It seems the US is mainly concerned with a nuclear attack from North Korea or Iran with less focus on Russia and China.....a good thing. Still what an incredibly difficult task in determining nuclear policy in the world today and what trust we must have in Russia and China to do the right thing. Maybe it is a good thing we have such an aggressive leader after all in Bush!!!



posted on Nov, 6 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrdependable

Russia and the US have roughly equal amounts of nuclear weapons so the agressor will win almost all of the time i.e. their country will be destroyed but they will have remaining weapons while the loser has nothing left. The winner can then inherit the earth if they have the only nuclear weapons left or are allied with other countries who have nuclear weapons.


This must not be the true, simply because the balistic misilles have multiple warheads (MIRVs). That means each balistic misille is able to destroy 6-8 balistic misilles in their silos. So it's posible that Russians will destroy all american ICBMs and submarines will destroy all remaining russian ICBMs but they will still have some nukes remaining.
Just make som math - let's say russia has 300 ICBMs after the 1s phase of war. The bombers on both sides have been destroyed. Ohio subs are hiding in the ocean and two of them will launch just 48 Tridents with 384 warheads. Result : all American ICBMs destroyed, all russian ICBMs destroyed but US STILL HAS 12 FULLY EQUIPPED Ohios with 288 Tridents.
EVEN IF RUSSIANS had full nuclear force after 1st phase (700 ICBMs i think) those will be not able to survive ( as I said whole Ohio fleet is able to dostroy 2688 targets).



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Field intellingence on postions of nukes are of utmost importance here. I doubt either Russia or the US has the intel to cripple each others second strike capability.

And all that rubbish about "attacking other nuclear states with nukes while responding to russia" is actually crazy IMHO. That would be the greatest mistake ever!! The US will see a response sooo severe that it will lose its sovereignty for sure!!Its like attacking a pack of animals!!The world will witness the greatest unision for forces against a common aggresor...something awesome...

Thats why I sometmies wish that "hostile" extraterrestrial forces would attack our planet so we would unite and fight as one!!

For the human race


Brings a tear to my eye..


Will we ever unite?



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Theres other thread about US planning to add weapons in space, and what it states mainly nukes. So that should answer to possible question for nuke strategy if orbital nukes give much faster launch time compared to silo to take out enemy before it retaliates.
Trigger seems to get more and more sensitive if that happens in near future, cause theres no question Russia, China would follow up. Like its now all 3 of em upgrade nukes while US pay russia to dismantle old ones, kind a ironic.

I have also question for those who know stuff about US nuke strategy, how US launch code system work, is it really so nukes cant be used unless president / briefcase carrier and some generals who have second part?
So is US able to launch nukes if president and briefcase man are eliminated with the case. Doesnt nuke silos have invidual changes to launch nukes?

There used to be reports how Russian nuke silo workers are underpaid (even left out and not paid) and that they have modified silo systems, for example some stolen monitors or something to home and sale for better use and such, but still it stated that those worker units had capality to launch nuclear attack and wonder how never such didnt occur due such harsh conditions.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Observer83
Theres other thread about US planning to add weapons in space, and what it states mainly nukes. So that should answer to possible question for nuke strategy if orbital nukes give much faster launch time compared to silo to take out enemy before it retaliates.
Trigger seems to get more and more sensitive if that happens in near future, cause theres no question Russia, China would follow up. Like its now all 3 of em upgrade nukes while US pay russia to dismantle old ones, kind a ironic.

I have also question for those who know stuff about US nuke strategy, how US launch code system work, is it really so nukes cant be used unless president / briefcase carrier and some generals who have second part?
So is US able to launch nukes if president and briefcase man are eliminated with the case. Doesnt nuke silos have invidual changes to launch nukes?

There used to be reports how Russian nuke silo workers are underpaid (even left out and not paid) and that they have modified silo systems, for example some stolen monitors or something to home and sale for better use and such, but still it stated that those worker units had capality to launch nuclear attack and wonder how never such didnt occur due such harsh conditions.


The briefcase is used only if the US plans offensive strike. If the USA are attacked with nuclear weapons and the communications are destroyed the silos have the ability and right to use the nukes WITHOUT president's order.(at least during Cold war it was so, I don't know if the rules changed after the coplapse of USSR).



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   
It wouldnt matter if you hit targets other then Russia and the US in a nuclear war most people in the world would die anyway. The amounts of nukes Russia and the US would shoot at each other would spray so much radioactive material into the air and would cause a nuclear winter.

Sun blacked out for a long time means most plants die which means world food production comes to a halt. Most people would starve to death or die a radiation.

If a nuclear war came about between Russia and the US it wouldnt just be between the two countries. Russia would hit US allies like the UK and the US would do the same to Russia's allies.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   
In a nuclear war Russia would destroy The United States 10 to 15 times over , Russian doesn't need China's help fighting anyone even the U.S., Russia has been fully prepared for ALL OUT nuclear war with the U.S. since 1962 Russia can evacuate 94% of it entire population in 15 minutes while the U.S. can only save around only 60,million of it's own , this FACT has been stated by many U.S. generals in the past, give me time and I'll run to the library to get the U.S. civil defence manule and I'll give you direct quotes. China only has 50 nuclear bombs, that it, U.S.A. has a little over 25,000 and Russia has just under 39,000 nuclear bombs AND Russia's average nuclear bombs are 4x more powerful than the "AVERAGE" nuclear bombs The United States has in it's arsenal

[edit on 9-11-2004 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 9-11-2004 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   
If you can find some links or something, that would be great. I would like to know how a present day Russia, much less a 1962 USSR, could evacuate 94% of its population within 15 minutes.

I think ShadowXIX has the idea. I've always been under the impression that if it came down to massive nuke lauches, pretty much everyone would be hit in some way, and that's with nuclear winter aside. The US and Russia would strike not only each other, but basically any other threat that could exist. It would probably be done with a far fetched hope that if anything remained of either country, they wouldn't have to worry about some intact third world country suddenly becoming a military super power. That, and if such a thing ever happens, it's a one shot kind of deal, so to take out all your enemies while you have the chance.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 11:29 PM
link   
no chucking nukes at states which are not involved in the conflict PLEASE!!Thats like committing suicide when your already on your death bed!!



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 11:47 PM
link   
If your a member of NATO you would get hit in a nuclear war. The same goes for Warsaw pact countries. Or if you have a US or other Nato member base in your country.

www.spacewar.com...

If you have nukes like say the UK and France you are targeted by Russia. Where do you think the UK and France have their nukes aimed? Russia can return in spades.

This a a reported list of US targets of course Russia but also China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya .

www.cdi.org...

If the nukes start to fly its all or nothing nobody will be saving any.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Siberian Tiger, c'mon man... you're not gonna let that comment stand are you? The comment about evacuating Russia? Are you serious?

A third grader with a basic understanding of math could tell you it's impossible to evacuate even 50% of Russia's population in 15 minutes. Do you know what the population of Moscow is? Over 8 million people my friend. And that's just one Russian city.

You couldn't evacuate that many people in 15 hours, much less 15 minutes. You're obviously a knowledgeable guy, but I coudn't let that slide. Gimme a break.


[edit on 10-11-2004 by troydayton]

[edit on 10-11-2004 by troydayton]



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
If your a member of NATO you would get hit in a nuclear war. The same goes for Warsaw pact countries. Or if you have a US or other Nato member base in your country.

www.spacewar.com...

If you have nukes like say the UK and France you are targeted by Russia. Where do you think the UK and France have their nukes aimed? Russia can return in spades.

This a a reported list of US targets of course Russia but also China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya .

www.cdi.org...

If the nukes start to fly its all or nothing nobody will be saving any.


So you mean to say that if a nuclear conflict arises between the US and Russia then the Russians will f'kn nuke all of europe along with the US and the US will nuke Russia along with China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya?

Ok even if this is true then where do India and pakistan stand?What about Japan and South Korea..?




posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
In a nuclear war Russia would destroy The United States 10 to 15 times over , Russian doesn't need China's help fighting anyone even the U.S., Russia has been fully prepared for ALL OUT nuclear war with the U.S. since 1962 Russia can evacuate 94% of it entire population in 15 minutes while the U.S. can only save around only 60,million of it's own , this FACT has been stated by many U.S. generals in the past, give me time and I'll run to the library to get the U.S. civil defence manule and I'll give you direct quotes. China only has 50 nuclear bombs, that it, U.S.A. has a little over 25,000 and Russia has just under 39,000 nuclear bombs AND Russia's average nuclear bombs are 4x more powerful than the "AVERAGE" nuclear bombs The United States has in it's arsenal

[edit on 9-11-2004 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 9-11-2004 by SiberianTiger]


You must mean go under table and pray? I really doubt those bunkers most areas doesnt have such solid rocks and the cost to make bunkers deep inside solid rock to prevent nuclear effect cost a lot, 94% is so over rated unless you count potato cellar as nuclear bunker. Its true none can surely know what happens underground, how deep russian have gone to make bunkers and how many those are, still fact remains 94% is too much, only Elite would truly survive nuclear war by going to military bunkers. civil bunkers maybe can last some normal bombing, but not nukes.



posted on Nov, 10 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Russia HAS built HUGE underground bunkers though out Russia through the 1950's and early 60's, for 94% of their poulation China has bunkers for MOST of it's people.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join