4 ms·

I took the liberty to look through the document and saw this: "This guidance also reflects evolving nuclear threats. The 2010 Planning Guidance focused on 10 k

I took the liberty to look through the document and saw this: "This guidance also reflects evolving nuclear threats. The 2010 Planning Guidance focused on 10 kiloton (kT) and smaller-yield detonations consistent with the threat of nuclear terrorism, all occurring at the Earth’s surface. This 2021 Planning Guidance update addresses an expanded range of threat scenarios, including nation-state threats with much larger explosive yields. This guidance also considers nuclear devices delivered by ballistic missile or aircraft that can deliver detonations elevated above the surface." However, after skimming the guide, there is no specific recommendation on what to do when a weapon over 100kT detonates. As of 2021, Russia has over 460 500-800kT warheads that can be delivered via ICBM, and around 1000 100kT warheads. Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2021.1885869 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00963402.2021.18... Possible inferences: 1. Cities are not targets for high yield weapons (maybe it is not strategically valuable to completely annihilate cities). 2. Cities attacked with a 100kT or lower yield have a chance of survival and ability to mount an emergency response. 3. Cities attacked with a high yield (e.g. 800kT) have no chance of survival and making a guide for local authorities is useless. Does anyone know if nuclear doctrine (Russian, American, or other) designate what yields would be used on cities? For example, lets assume, a nuclear aggressor can do a surprise strike and target NYC. As of 2019 the vaults of the NY FED had 6,190 tons of gold. Wouldn't a 800kT bomb, obliterate or damage the gold? Wouldn't the infrastructure of the city be wasted? It makes senses to target locations that would help a country wage war so military bases and factories, but cities?

adrianN 4y ago
I mean, what recommendations do you expect? If ICBMs start flying all you can do is get to the most sturdy reinforced concrete structure you can reach in a couple of minutes and pray. Afterwards try not to breathe in dust and move as far away from the dust cloud as you can.
- michaelplny 4y ago
  Of course, in the minutes waiting for the bomb to detonate one can only shelter and hide, the guide also mentions this. The guide is more for how localities can mount rescue operations within the first 12-24 hours after detonation and before Federal Aid would arrive. What is most eye opening is that the guide recommends for first responders that zone around ~ 1 mile from ground zero of a 10 kT nuclear explosion has the greatest lifesaving potential through early responder actions.
aerostable_slug 4y ago
Cities are generally not targets for high yield weapons. Multiple low(er) yield weapons do more damage to soft targets, like cities, than fewer high yield weapons. Additionally, they don't need to be as accurate for these roles. This is traditionally the realm of submarine-launched ballistic missiles: a countervalue guarantee against a first strike. The Trident D5's incredible accuracy and high yield changed that calculus a bit but that is a different post. High yield weapons are used against hardened targets such as ICBM silos, underground command posts and launch control centers, communications hubs, leadership shelters, etc. The relationship between yield and accuracy is of course related, but at the end of the day counterforce weapons tend to be on the higher end of the scale. Earth penetration capabilities also influence yield choices, e.g. the B61-11 bomb @ 400 kilotons replaced the massive B53 @ 9 megatons. Both are bunker-busters, but the former bomb can penetrate rock and earth before detonating while the latter sits on the surface at detonation. Counterforce vs. countervalue targeting touches upon some of your points. It's a long discussion but in essence the former approach is designed to reduce the ability for the enemy to effectively wage war, especially nuclear war. This means targeting command posts, communications hubs, air bases, missile silos, nuclear weapon storage facilities, etc. Countervalue targeting is meant to inflict unacceptable damage to the enemy by targeting power plants and other infrastructure, transportation hubs, and cities & their civilian population. Countervalue targeting requires far fewer weapons and lower accuracy, but it means direct mass murder of civilians a la the firebombing of WWII, rather than the indirect mass murder of civilians as a byproduct of targeting militarily-useful assets. A large scale "pure" counterforce attack would inevitably result in many civilian casualties though they were not the targets.
- michaelplny 4y ago
  Thank you for your response! Can you recommend any reading material or content about nuclear weapons strategy?
  - aerostable_slug 4y ago
    Oh boy, it's a huge subject. I'd actually start with the wiki entries on nuclear warfare & countervalue vs. counterforce targeting. The National Security Archive has some very good briefing books on the evolution of the SIOP which deal with the flexibility policymakers started to want over time as well as debates about launch on warning (where you fire once you believe you're under attack) vs. launch under attack (where you ride out at least some of the first wave). Alex Wellerstein's blog is a good one and he links to other quality sources as well (though note some are decidedly abolitionist when it comes to nuclear weapons).

adrianN 4y ago

I mean, what recommendations do you expect? If ICBMs start flying all you can do is get to the most sturdy reinforced concrete structure you can reach in a couple of minutes and pray. Afterwards try not to breathe in dust and move as far away from the dust cloud as you can.

michaelplny 4y ago
Of course, in the minutes waiting for the bomb to detonate one can only shelter and hide, the guide also mentions this. The guide is more for how localities can mount rescue operations within the first 12-24 hours after detonation and before Federal Aid would arrive. What is most eye opening is that the guide recommends for first responders that zone around ~ 1 mile from ground zero of a 10 kT nuclear explosion has the greatest lifesaving potential through early responder actions.

aerostable_slug 4y ago

Cities are generally not targets for high yield weapons. Multiple low(er) yield weapons do more damage to soft targets, like cities, than fewer high yield weapons. Additionally, they don't need to be as accurate for these roles. This is traditionally the realm of submarine-launched ballistic missiles: a countervalue guarantee against a first strike. The Trident D5's incredible accuracy and high yield changed that calculus a bit but that is a different post. High yield weapons are used against hardened targets such as ICBM silos, underground command posts and launch control centers, communications hubs, leadership shelters, etc. The relationship between yield and accuracy is of course related, but at the end of the day counterforce weapons tend to be on the higher end of the scale. Earth penetration capabilities also influence yield choices, e.g. the B61-11 bomb @ 400 kilotons replaced the massive B53 @ 9 megatons. Both are bunker-busters, but the former bomb can penetrate rock and earth before detonating while the latter sits on the surface at detonation. Counterforce vs. countervalue targeting touches upon some of your points. It's a long discussion but in essence the former approach is designed to reduce the ability for the enemy to effectively wage war, especially nuclear war. This means targeting command posts, communications hubs, air bases, missile silos, nuclear weapon storage facilities, etc. Countervalue targeting is meant to inflict unacceptable damage to the enemy by targeting power plants and other infrastructure, transportation hubs, and cities & their civilian population. Countervalue targeting requires far fewer weapons and lower accuracy, but it means direct mass murder of civilians a la the firebombing of WWII, rather than the indirect mass murder of civilians as a byproduct of targeting militarily-useful assets. A large scale "pure" counterforce attack would inevitably result in many civilian casualties though they were not the targets.

michaelplny 4y ago
Thank you for your response! Can you recommend any reading material or content about nuclear weapons strategy?
- aerostable_slug 4y ago
  Oh boy, it's a huge subject. I'd actually start with the wiki entries on nuclear warfare & countervalue vs. counterforce targeting. The National Security Archive has some very good briefing books on the evolution of the SIOP which deal with the flexibility policymakers started to want over time as well as debates about launch on warning (where you fire once you believe you're under attack) vs. launch under attack (where you ride out at least some of the first wave). Alex Wellerstein's blog is a good one and he links to other quality sources as well (though note some are decidedly abolitionist when it comes to nuclear weapons).