7 ms·

While there was lots of bluffing on both sides (Star Wars, cough), the notion of "better" is a terrible misunderstanding of that time, and of nuclear weapons to

While there was lots of bluffing on both sides (Star Wars, cough), the notion of "better" is a terrible misunderstanding of that time, and of nuclear weapons today. Once capacity exists on all sides to end earth several times over, better is an exercise and distinction without meaning, a mad illusion of value maybe to military grammar nazis

asimilator 6y ago
More effective?
- iagovar 6y ago
  When you have 100 nukes comming at you, it doesn't matter that much how effective they are. You'll get nuked, no doubt.
  - jacobush 6y ago
    It matters, a great deal in a sort of sad way. I can only speak for Sweden, but a lot of large military and civilian defence bunkers (and hardened, fixed in bedrock artillery) went obsolete went “the other side” got better targeting systems. Until then, a lot of the installations were immune to anything but a direct hit, which was incredibly unlikely. Airbursts just wouldn’t have cut it to crack open the more serious underground installations.
    - iagovar 6y ago
      Hmm, didn't think it that way, you're right.
    - nyolfen 6y ago
      modern airburst fuzes are indeed accurate enough to destroy hardened underground bunkers: https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-moderni...
      - jacobush 6y ago
        Minutiae: Just to clarify I meant the old “hit somewhere in the city core” airbursts against which our underground shelters would have held up pretty well. To maximise impact a ground hit is seldom the right choice, too much energy is initially absorbed. (Also the fallout is made worse in a ground burst which can be a bad thing for an attacker if they want to follow up with boots on the ground.)
tlear 6y ago
Capability of actual MAD did not exist for most of the Cold War. If Kennedy went bonkers and initiated pre-emptive strike. USA would survive. It would lose some of the major cities and tens of millions of people, but it would live. USSR would cease to exist a long with all of its proxies in east Europe. A lot of the Europe would be gone but again probably damage on level of Black Death not extinction event. Soviet intel and propaganda was always far above what west could do. It is what kept it looking close for two decades. Korea for example. US could easily use nukes with impunity. It did not but there would be no consequences in terms of nuclear retaliation as Stalin knew what the equation was. Still he took the bet to attack south.. just a mad lad that he was. When Chinese counter attacked if US used nukes again there would be no retaliation, McArthur got retired over that. I am really happy we lived through that. It is incredibly lucky that it was US that got the nukes first and not Germany or USSR or other similar regime.
- andrepd 6y ago
  >A lot of the Europe would be gone but again probably damage on level of Black Death not extinction event. If you think "oh this is not so bad" you should watch Threads.
  - ArnoVW 6y ago
    Second that. Left me in a state of shock for weeks when I saw it. Compared with threads, "the day after" is kids stuff. https://archive.org/details/threads_201712 https://archive.org/details/threads_201712
- arethuza 6y ago
  In the early 1960s an all out attack by the US would have resulted in at least 600 million dead - including 100 million dead in Western Europe. Add to that the effects of medium range Soviet weapons in Western Europe (which they had a lot of) then things would have been very bad here. Source: The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner by Daniel Ellsberg
- heavenlyblue 6y ago
  What are you on about? The whole race was about creating nukes to nuke the other nukes out of the orbit when they are attacking, so the total amount of nukes was way beyond what was required to destroy the other side.
sien 6y ago
Fun fact - the US spent more on developing stealth aircraft than on Star Wars. The USSR seemed to spend little or nothing on stealth. From the book 'Stealth' by Peter Westwick.

asimilator 6y ago

More effective?

iagovar 6y ago
When you have 100 nukes comming at you, it doesn't matter that much how effective they are. You'll get nuked, no doubt.
- jacobush 6y ago
  It matters, a great deal in a sort of sad way. I can only speak for Sweden, but a lot of large military and civilian defence bunkers (and hardened, fixed in bedrock artillery) went obsolete went “the other side” got better targeting systems. Until then, a lot of the installations were immune to anything but a direct hit, which was incredibly unlikely. Airbursts just wouldn’t have cut it to crack open the more serious underground installations.
  - iagovar 6y ago
    Hmm, didn't think it that way, you're right.
  - nyolfen 6y ago
    modern airburst fuzes are indeed accurate enough to destroy hardened underground bunkers: https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-modernization-is-undermining-strategic-stability-the-burst-height-compensating-super-fuze/ https://thebulletin.org/2017/03/how-us-nuclear-force-moderni...
    - jacobush 6y ago
      Minutiae: Just to clarify I meant the old “hit somewhere in the city core” airbursts against which our underground shelters would have held up pretty well. To maximise impact a ground hit is seldom the right choice, too much energy is initially absorbed. (Also the fallout is made worse in a ground burst which can be a bad thing for an attacker if they want to follow up with boots on the ground.)

tlear 6y ago

Capability of actual MAD did not exist for most of the Cold War. If Kennedy went bonkers and initiated pre-emptive strike. USA would survive. It would lose some of the major cities and tens of millions of people, but it would live. USSR would cease to exist a long with all of its proxies in east Europe. A lot of the Europe would be gone but again probably damage on level of Black Death not extinction event. Soviet intel and propaganda was always far above what west could do. It is what kept it looking close for two decades. Korea for example. US could easily use nukes with impunity. It did not but there would be no consequences in terms of nuclear retaliation as Stalin knew what the equation was. Still he took the bet to attack south.. just a mad lad that he was. When Chinese counter attacked if US used nukes again there would be no retaliation, McArthur got retired over that. I am really happy we lived through that. It is incredibly lucky that it was US that got the nukes first and not Germany or USSR or other similar regime.

andrepd 6y ago
>A lot of the Europe would be gone but again probably damage on level of Black Death not extinction event. If you think "oh this is not so bad" you should watch Threads.
- ArnoVW 6y ago
  Second that. Left me in a state of shock for weeks when I saw it. Compared with threads, "the day after" is kids stuff. https://archive.org/details/threads_201712 https://archive.org/details/threads_201712
arethuza 6y ago
In the early 1960s an all out attack by the US would have resulted in at least 600 million dead - including 100 million dead in Western Europe. Add to that the effects of medium range Soviet weapons in Western Europe (which they had a lot of) then things would have been very bad here. Source: The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner by Daniel Ellsberg
heavenlyblue 6y ago
What are you on about? The whole race was about creating nukes to nuke the other nukes out of the orbit when they are attacking, so the total amount of nukes was way beyond what was required to destroy the other side.

sien 6y ago

Fun fact - the US spent more on developing stealth aircraft than on Star Wars. The USSR seemed to spend little or nothing on stealth. From the book 'Stealth' by Peter Westwick.