3 ms·

A first strike against Russia and China is probably a part of Obama's nuclear playbook even today. I'm curious what a US first strike would look like. Would we

A first strike against Russia and China is probably a part of Obama's nuclear playbook even today. I'm curious what a US first strike would look like. Would we assume any strike would devolve into nuclear terror bombing? If so, maybe we'd hit their cities in a first strike. But there is a possibility that a first strike purely against Russian nuclear weapons wouldn't cause the Russians to bomb US cities. In that scenarios Russia might retaliate against US military targets but not civilian targets. I wonder where we came down on that.

chiph 10y ago
And now you know why Game Theory is so important to the Pentagon and State Department.
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
A few years ago there was an online story about the US plans for Moscow - which apparently even Dick Cheney was shocked by, because the idea was to destroy it with hundreds of warheads. I seem to remember 600 or so. Obviously no one has any idea what that would do because it's never been tested. But I'd guess it would remove absolutely all trace of the city and leave only a glassy layer of bedrock, which might take a few centuries to cool. US and Russian cities have significant missile defence systems, so I guess the rationale is to make sure that at least some warheads get through. If that's the plan for the biggest capital cities on both sides, details become academic.
- shabble 10y ago
  "During his first week on the job, Butler asked the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff to give him a copy of the SIOP. General Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had made clear that the United States needed to change its targeting policy, now that the Cold War was over. As part of that administrative process, Butler decided to look at every single target in the SIOP, and for weeks he carefully scrutinized the thousands of desired ground zeros. He found bridges and railways and roads in the middle of nowhere targeted with multiple warheads, to assure their destruction. Hundreds of nuclear warheads would hit Moscow—dozens of them aimed at a single radar installation outside the city." From Command & Control by Eric Schlosser
- mikeash 10y ago
  Moscow's defenses include about 100 anti-ICBM missiles. Depending on how stuff comes in, each one might, if it's lucky, take out multiple incoming warheads. Add in potential losses in the attacking force due to counterstrikes and malfunctions, and attacking Moscow with hundreds of warheads starts to make some sense. Other Russian cities don't have such things, nor do any American cities. At least as far as is known.
7952 10y ago
A first strike with conventional weapons is an interesting possibility. If you could wipe out the command and control layer swiftly enough maybe immediate retaliation could be avoided. Use ballistic weapons to deliver GPS guided conventional bombs once the radar systems are down. Of course all that would depend on having the ability to locate and sink the missile subs.
sgt101 10y ago
Ok - let's say that the retaliation is purely aimed at military installations and comes after a completely successful US first strike. God help us all, but let's think this through. Only one of the Borei submarines would be on patrol, it's reasonable for there to be some failures, but even with a 50% fail of missiles and warheads 30+ nukes would be hitting the USA. I imagine that the targeting for Russian SLBM's is calculated to cause maximum loss to the USA - maximum loss of life and economic damage. I imagine this because if I were Russian that would be the message I would want a US president to have when calculating this, but it is just possible that there is a military targets only war plan, and this is the scenario you are exploring here. In this scenario the minimal retaliation would be 30 ~200 kt warheads striking military bases - like San Deigo, Puget Sound and so on. Each strike would probably result in ~5k dead and 100k other casualties. So, minimum, 30 craters, 3 million casualties and 150k dead. That's three Vietnams in an afternoon. Now, discount the stain of murdering many more Russians (because the successful first strike would involve many strikes that would result in large scale civilian deaths), I find it really hard to think that any rational human could contemplate causing the death of ~150k fellow citizens for "the greater good".

chiph 10y ago

And now you know why Game Theory is so important to the Pentagon and State Department.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago

A few years ago there was an online story about the US plans for Moscow - which apparently even Dick Cheney was shocked by, because the idea was to destroy it with hundreds of warheads. I seem to remember 600 or so. Obviously no one has any idea what that would do because it's never been tested. But I'd guess it would remove absolutely all trace of the city and leave only a glassy layer of bedrock, which might take a few centuries to cool. US and Russian cities have significant missile defence systems, so I guess the rationale is to make sure that at least some warheads get through. If that's the plan for the biggest capital cities on both sides, details become academic.

shabble 10y ago
"During his first week on the job, Butler asked the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff to give him a copy of the SIOP. General Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney had made clear that the United States needed to change its targeting policy, now that the Cold War was over. As part of that administrative process, Butler decided to look at every single target in the SIOP, and for weeks he carefully scrutinized the thousands of desired ground zeros. He found bridges and railways and roads in the middle of nowhere targeted with multiple warheads, to assure their destruction. Hundreds of nuclear warheads would hit Moscow—dozens of them aimed at a single radar installation outside the city." From Command & Control by Eric Schlosser
mikeash 10y ago
Moscow's defenses include about 100 anti-ICBM missiles. Depending on how stuff comes in, each one might, if it's lucky, take out multiple incoming warheads. Add in potential losses in the attacking force due to counterstrikes and malfunctions, and attacking Moscow with hundreds of warheads starts to make some sense. Other Russian cities don't have such things, nor do any American cities. At least as far as is known.

7952 10y ago

A first strike with conventional weapons is an interesting possibility. If you could wipe out the command and control layer swiftly enough maybe immediate retaliation could be avoided. Use ballistic weapons to deliver GPS guided conventional bombs once the radar systems are down. Of course all that would depend on having the ability to locate and sink the missile subs.

sgt101 10y ago

Ok - let's say that the retaliation is purely aimed at military installations and comes after a completely successful US first strike. God help us all, but let's think this through. Only one of the Borei submarines would be on patrol, it's reasonable for there to be some failures, but even with a 50% fail of missiles and warheads 30+ nukes would be hitting the USA. I imagine that the targeting for Russian SLBM's is calculated to cause maximum loss to the USA - maximum loss of life and economic damage. I imagine this because if I were Russian that would be the message I would want a US president to have when calculating this, but it is just possible that there is a military targets only war plan, and this is the scenario you are exploring here. In this scenario the minimal retaliation would be 30 ~200 kt warheads striking military bases - like San Deigo, Puget Sound and so on. Each strike would probably result in ~5k dead and 100k other casualties. So, minimum, 30 craters, 3 million casualties and 150k dead. That's three Vietnams in an afternoon. Now, discount the stain of murdering many more Russians (because the successful first strike would involve many strikes that would result in large scale civilian deaths), I find it really hard to think that any rational human could contemplate causing the death of ~150k fellow citizens for "the greater good".