How many nuclear warheads does it really take?

I hear everyone talking these days:

Russia wins because they have 16,000 warheads vs the USA's 11,000.

But I wondered how much it really takes to win a war. In fact, it would really only take 20 missiles from each side to completely and utterly decimate the other side. This is due to MIRV of course. 20 missiles all carrying 10 RVs could and would wipe out all enemy silos, and god forbid major cities.

So I wonder...how many of these warhead would be used before the war is won? Even though this would never happen in war, theoretically one or two missiles could wipe out all major US cities and all major Russian cities.

Here is the point: How much of an arsenal does it really take to completely and utterly decimate your enemy? Do you really need 16,000 or 11,000 warheads? Do you really even need 1,000 warheads?

I think Russia would win personally, but thats only becausei believe they have the upper hand in technology (scalar weapons). As for nukes and winning a war... no one wins a war that way, both sides might keep their government safe, but what use is a government when you have no population to govern..

Honestly it should only take one, once the receiving country has been hit they will either give up or launch everything. But it is my humble opinion that one is all it takes.

My 2 cents

Anyone have change

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
I think Russia would win personally, but thats only becausei believe they have the upper hand in technology (scalar weapons). As for nukes and winning a war... no one wins a war that way, both sides might keep their government safe, but what use is a government when you have no population to govern..

Oh christ...I really dont want to start this discussion. No America vs Russia. We already know what would happen: MAD.

My question is how much it takes to win a war: Does it really take more than a hundred or so?

No, I believe that that the large number of missiles is for redundancy. Some may fail to lauch or the launch site may have been wiped out by a preemptive strike. Having an extra supply makes it harder to be taken out and ensures a counter strike. It's like the spare tire on your car. You only need 4 to get down the road, but the 5th tire gives you peace of mind.

If a war started between the U.S. and Russia the initiating side would surely launch as much as possible to avoid a counter-attack. I don't believe there would be a one missile war.

while reading this, the following kept running through my mind...

*80's computer voice*
"shall we play a game" and "the best stratetgy is to not play the game"

I remember when War Games first came out I watched it and it actually scared me a little... I went to the library and checked out a book on Nuclear War, got very scared when a list of possible targets was in there, the city I lived in was listed in the top 20... Catlettsburg, KY - because of the Oil Refinery there....

How many nukes does it take? Not an easy question to answer.

Are we supposing a period of political tension and rising readiness states within the military, that could eventually, lead to a conventional war?

Are we also supposing that one of the belligerents are loosing and loosing badly enough to consider the nuclear option?

Are we looking at a 'first strike' as the only option available to a government?

If we (NATO) were loosing a conventional war against the former Warsaw Pact, I can tell you now, the only response would have been to go nuclear.
Not only on the battlefield, but also retalitory strikes against the major cities of the aggressor.

If we consider a strike against a non nuclear country, then the standard is Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Were we to go up against a nuclear armed country using a pre-emptive strike, we need to consider the options available.

Let's take the United States as our 'target', no offense intended to our friends across the pond.

The First Strike should be targetted as follows:

1. High yield airbursts or exo-atmospheric detonations over command and control centres of the US military, concentrating on Washington State, Wyoming and Nevada - possibly launched from space or atmospheric vehicle of some type. Surprise is essential in order to obtain a complete electronic 'blackout'.

2. One pre-supposes that POTUS is aloft in Air Force One. A small nuclear weapon detonated 1 mile from AF1 (airburst) would render the US military leaderless for a few hours.

3. US military installations need to be taken down quickly with either ground or airburst detonations.

Depending on who the attacker is, there would be a need to neutralize the USAF facilities at Keflavik (Iceland) together with Sondrestrom and Thule (Greenland), Anderson (Guam) and of course Diego Garcia (Indian Ocean)

4. Nuclear weapon and storage sites need to be destroyed as quickly as possible.

5. The US Navy needs to be located and destroyed using conventional anti-ship missiles together with nuclear weapons set to detonate within 5 to 10 nautical miles.

As you can see, the list is endless. The above is just the tip of the iceberg.

There are far too many variables to ensure that even a first strike is 100% effective.

Another major operation would be to start a widescale boomer hunt to nullify second strike capabilities..

What about subs? The Trident II carries 8 RVs and can carry up to 10, making it currently the most powerful weapon the US controls.

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
What about subs? The Trident II carries 8 RVs and can carry up to 10, making it currently the most powerful weapon the US controls.

Yeah, I know mate! Please remember I am really getting on. At 55 the brain is willing, the fattening fingers type but whilst they do, the mind wanders....................................... and I was getting bored!

Errrr oh yes! The subs! Well obviously BlackWidow23, we must hunt down and eliminate the subs, but how to do so, uhm?

Thats why I think that subs are the ultimate nuclear deterrent. They can move around at 35 MPH, launch 50 megatons of nuclear weapons, than than completely dissapear without a trace, impossible to find. When moving at a dead crawl.

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Thats why I think that subs are the ultimate nuclear deterrent. They can move around at 35 MPH, launch 50 megatons of nuclear weapons, than than completely dissapear without a trace, impossible to find. When moving at a dead crawl.

Very good point me old chum, but one that is easy to counter.

How can a dead crawl, crawl, if it's dead?

Okay so you guys have the Ohio or whatever, and we'll soon have the Astute. Good news for us, very bad news for them.

Actually, you don't even have to get close to a missile boat to kill it. With the advancements in sonar together with a really good operator, you can put a nuclear armed 'fish' in the water, set it to passive search and off it will go.

If you then cut the wires and shove off, provided you have set the warhaed to detonate at a set distance, then goodbye hostile missile boat.

There appears to be growing conjecture that the US supplied software for UK leased Trident missiles may have been doctored, in order to prevent the UK from targeting the US.

At the heart of this speculation is the fact that the US refuse to supply the UK with the full Trident software - the UK are only permitted to examine a desensitised version.

Because of this censorship, some wonder whether the UK's software contains US preventative measures such as:

Preventing the use in all circumstance except tests, or preventing the missiles from being fired Westward, towards the US from the normal patrol areas, should be possible.

Restricting the system to only NATO or joint US/UK plans

This speculation was made public when the Scottish CND presented their written evidence to the UK Select Committee on Defence Written Evidence (see link.)

www.publications.parliament.uk...





zero lift

[edit on 17-5-2007 by zero lift]

Make your own nukes!!
At least then you know whom to blame!

Very interesting link you provided, Zero lift. I read the pages in full, then browsed another couple of subjects listed in the Defence section, and came to the following conclusion.

1. Our British independent nuclear deterrent, never has been and never will be, truely independent.

2. Targetting software for the British Trident D5s, are still controlled by the data and codecs put in place by American contractors. That they are verified by British companies is irrelevant, as the companies employed to do so, are subsidiaries of those US contractots who supplied data and codecs on the initial set up.

3. There is a very long history of the US DoD and it's contractors, not giving the British government what it thought it was paying for.

This goes back to the original Polaris Agreement [later ammended for Trident] but also encompasses the JSF, Chinook and Apache programmes.

Obviously these topics have been done to death in other threads, but to me at least, it shows us that the US wants us as a friend, but does not trust us one iota.

I genuinely think it is time for the UK to distance itself from our US friends, not politically or financially, but militarily speaking.

We must develope our own weapon systems and make them truely independent of our American masters.

Funnily enough, fritz, the subject of defence information sharing between the US and UK was mentioned by President Bush in a 'Joint Press Availability with United Kingdom Prime Minister Blair' yesterday.

Finally, we agreed to improve defense cooperation by working towards an agreement reducing barriers to trade in defense goods and services and information between the United States and the United Kingdom, including defense industries. This is an important issue for the Prime Minister; it's an important issue to me. I made it clear to the Prime Minister we will work on this issue tirelessly until we can get it solved.



zero lift

Great news then, zero lift. If it's been made public, been on the news and in the papers, then I guess it must be true.

I for one, will not be holding my breath!

Imo, Bush gave this subject the 'kiss of death' with his final sentence:

I made it clear to the Prime Minister we will work on this issue tirelessly until we can get it solved

So its not a yes then, George



zero lift

You've hit the nail on the head, zero lift.

Very much like the oft trumpeted but long forgotten, Middle Eastern Road Map to Peace!

"How many nukes does it take?"

The answer depends on the yield, accuracy, and reliability of the devices in question, and on the aims of the entity (presumably 'nation') that is conducting the laydown.

Assuming that the 'open source' figures for the Minuteman warhead are accurate, and assuming that whatever is incoming is about on par with that, a single warhead is about 90% likely to knock out one missile silo. So, if you're gong with a counter-force strike against the U.S., you'll need at least 500 (1 per silo), with 1,000 a better bet (2 / silo, for a 99% probability of a kill). Since there is a failure rate of 5-10%, but you don't know *which* 5-10% will fail, you add a third 'insurance' device, and we're up to 1,500. Add in 1-3 more on places like Minot ND, Barksdale AFB, Fairbanks AK, and Whiteman AFB to take care of Air Combat Command's bombers, and 1-2 more on every major airport (so they can't be used as alternate bomber fields), and at least 1-2 on the Trident support bases on both coasts, and on places like Newport News (to remove the Navy's support structure), and a few dozen targeted on C3I faciilities, and you're pushing up toward the 3,000 mark.

A 'counter-value' strike is going to be about the same size (in terms of number), but targeted on cities, major bridges, and economic infrastructure.

The "Stone Age" option (a counterforce and countervalue strike) would probably require about 6,000 warheads on the continental U.S.

Now, add in the fact that nuclear devices have a 'shelf life'. This is one reason that so-called 'suitcase nukes' aren't really worth the trouble, except in spy movies. Over time a warhead degrades to the point that, while still capable of initiation, and obviously dangerous, it's not reliable enough to actually use in a laydown. At that point, it either gets reconditioned (rare) or replaced with a new one, and the old one is 'put out to pasture' in a storage facility. I don't know how many of these 'second string' warheads the U.S. and Russia have, but I'd be willing to bet that 1-2,000 would be likely on both sides.

In short, it takes a lot more nukes than you might think...which is why both the U.S. and Russia wound up with so many of them. Sad, isn't it?