4 ms·

> enabling this horrific scheme In a world where the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP)¹ was the plan for decades, involving vapourising thousands upon

> enabling this horrific scheme In a world where the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP)¹ was the plan for decades, involving vapourising thousands upon thousands of targets, on a pre-set and inflexible list, including virtually all the cities in Russia and most of China with an estimated death toll near 300 million, this probably one of the less horrific plans. Still hare-brained, but at least not outright murderous. 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Integrated_Operational_Plan https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Integrated_Operationa...

arethuza 3y ago
Daniel Ellsberg gives an "official" figure of about 600 million for a US nuclear strike in the early 1960s - this would probably include about 100 million in Western Europe. This was known to be an underestimate as US targetting ignored some relatively unpredictable effects of nuclear weapons - their thermal radiation. https://apjjf.org/-Daniel-Ellsberg/3222/article.html https://apjjf.org/-Daniel-Ellsberg/3222/article.html
golergka 3y ago
The mere existence of these plans and weapons have successfully deterred a nuclear war — so, while the execution of the plan would have been horrific indeed, the plan itself was something completely opposite. It's sad that people often evaluate strategic military matters without applying even the minimal level of game theory.
- WeylandYutani 3y ago
  MAD prevented war but trying to circumvent it did not. Which is ultimately why space weapons were banned. The nuclear arms race is a game nobody should ever be allowed to win. That's a key point of the whole doctrine.
- adhesive_wombat 3y ago
  I didn't say it wasn't an effective strategy, since as it happened and we're alive, clearly, luckily, it was. It's just that a plan to blow up a small part of the lunar surface seems fairly not-horrific compared to the actually authorised and deployed plan with a intentional 9-figure death toll and the practical annihilation of many allied countries (the UK in particular was not projected¹ to do very well at all). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strath_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strath_Committee and that is for a fairly mild strike of "only" 10 bombs.

arethuza 3y ago

Daniel Ellsberg gives an "official" figure of about 600 million for a US nuclear strike in the early 1960s - this would probably include about 100 million in Western Europe. This was known to be an underestimate as US targetting ignored some relatively unpredictable effects of nuclear weapons - their thermal radiation. https://apjjf.org/-Daniel-Ellsberg/3222/article.html https://apjjf.org/-Daniel-Ellsberg/3222/article.html

golergka 3y ago

The mere existence of these plans and weapons have successfully deterred a nuclear war — so, while the execution of the plan would have been horrific indeed, the plan itself was something completely opposite. It's sad that people often evaluate strategic military matters without applying even the minimal level of game theory.

WeylandYutani 3y ago
MAD prevented war but trying to circumvent it did not. Which is ultimately why space weapons were banned. The nuclear arms race is a game nobody should ever be allowed to win. That's a key point of the whole doctrine.
adhesive_wombat 3y ago
I didn't say it wasn't an effective strategy, since as it happened and we're alive, clearly, luckily, it was. It's just that a plan to blow up a small part of the lunar surface seems fairly not-horrific compared to the actually authorised and deployed plan with a intentional 9-figure death toll and the practical annihilation of many allied countries (the UK in particular was not projected¹ to do very well at all). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strath_Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strath_Committee and that is for a fairly mild strike of "only" 10 bombs.