8 ms·

it is survivable according to the Soviet doctrine, which denied the concept of MAD. Soviets focused on the survival of small military command in hardened bunker

by slt2021 1y ago

it is survivable according to the Soviet doctrine, which denied the concept of MAD. Soviets focused on the survival of small military command in hardened bunkers, rather than survival of entirety of civilian population. This doctrine allows unlimited pre-emptive nuclear strikes to achieve decisive victory over the enemy, and avoid attrition-style prolonged nuclear war

compass_copium 1y ago
Hmm, I remember reading that the Soviets had significantly better preparations for civilian protection in nuclear war than the US (including more bunkers in cities), but I'm struggling to remember where. Possibly Raven Rock (subtitle: The Story of the U.S. Government’s Secret Plan to Save Itself–While the Rest of Us Die) by Garrett Graff.
- slt2021 1y ago
  Moscow subway (many other subways and bunkers throughout the country) are the underground bunkers that could shelter the Soviet elites in the event of nuclear war
- bigyabai 1y ago
  Moscow in particular has a few low-hanging-fruits that can be mentioned; the Metro bunkers[0] and A-135 system[1]. Both were designed to make the city deeply survivable in the event of a targeted conflict, but it's questionable how well they would have worked. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-2 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_s...
  - arethuza 1y ago
    Moscow had, at least at one point, 179 DGZs (Designated Ground Zeros) from the US alone - with, I would imagine, at least another 20 or so from the UK and France. Moscow was the most overkilled places on the planet - doesn't matter if you were in a bunker - all that would do is delay your death a bit.
ajcp 1y ago
Got a source for that doctrine?
vkou 1y ago
> Soviets focused on the survival of small military command in hardened bunkers, rather than survival of entirety of civilian population. How exactly is the focus of the Americans any different? The VIPs[1] will be whisked away into bunkers, you and me will be vaporized. --- [1] Who have utterly and irredeemably failed in their most important job - of preventing a nuclear war. In a just world, not a single one of them should be allowed to survive such a failure. We don't live in a just world, though, the captain will run for the VIP life raft at the first glint of sea ice.
- slt2021 1y ago
  the difference is ideology and class difference. American VIPs want to survive because they are rich and want to enjoy their wealth, they don't want to die. Soviet VIPs were not wealthy and their goal of survival was purely decisive military win and achievement of political goals.
  - vkou 1y ago
    I assure you, people and VIPs and their desires are more or less the same the world over. Othering and ascribing alien ambitions to the enemy only fools yourself. Why do you think their goals differed from those of someone like, say, Kissinger? Or any of the other people who have spent the past century and a half grooming and growing the empire?
    - slt2021 1y ago
      who blinked first during Cuban missile crisis? It was JFK who called Khrushev for deescalation. who blinked first during Ukraine-Russia war? It was Jake Sullivan who redirected military gear from Urkaine to Israel and drip-fed the ammunition shipments, when Russia showed they are ready to use tactical nukes if necessary and formally updated their nuclear doctrine
      - vkou 1y ago
        You're rewriting history. The actual timeline was that Kennedy blockades Cuba, Soviet vessels turn around rather than start a shooting war, Khruschev makes a secret proposal to de-escalate, Kennedy agrees to it, both side declare victory, Soviet bombers are removed from Cuba, the blockade is lifted, the US removes missiles from Turkey. That you see all this, and your takeaway is that "Kennedy blinked first because unlike Ivan, he isn't a power-hungry monster" belies an unnuanced, zero-sum, exceptionalist view of the world. As for Israel and Ukraine, I think all that demonstrated was that the US cared more about kowtowing to Israel, than it did about having a proxy war with Russia. Weirdly enough, though, to this day, weapons and cash (that is immediately spent on weapons) continue to pour into Ukraine. Someone should probably notify Canada and the EU about that new Russian red line, they clearly haven't gotten the memo.
lupusreal 1y ago
American doctrine too. Both countries built thousands of tactical nuclear weapons.
unyttigfjelltol 1y ago
You have agreed with my comment that the event would not be survivable by society. Duck-and-cover drills are for those who you call civilians, who will not survive. At best they invite the misinterpretation that such an event is survivable and capable of generating a “decisive victory over the enemy.” Would military command really have achieved a decisive victory by glazing the surface of their own country and burying what’s left underground for the foreseeable future? Clearly a failure of strategic thinking by our erstwhile competitors.
- slt2021 1y ago
  the nuclear deterrence is basically a game of Russian roulette, and nobody can play it better than the Russians. The Soviet bet was that the collective West is more wealthy and hedonistic than Soviets, and has more to lose in the global hot war, and therefore would be less willing to climb up the escalation ladder, thus giving the escalation dominance to the Soviets, as long as technical means of delivering the decisive strike are available (ICBM, IRBM, SLBM, ALBM, MIRV, Perimeter, etc). examples are numerous: 1. Cuban missile crisis. It was JFK who blinked first in the Caribbean crisis and called Khrushev to deescalate and agreed to remove missiles from Turkey 2. Ukraine war. It was Jake Sullivan that turned off the tap on military shipments to Ukraine, when Russia communicated that they will be using tactical nukes in Kherson
  - unyttigfjelltol 1y ago
    Anyone who finds themselves in a game of Russian roulette is a loser. Perhaps the Soviet elite had less to lose and could rationalize a reckless escalation spiral. But, if your government acts like foaming madmen with— we all should recognize— no actual ability to decisively do anything to great powers, and relying on the rest of the world to act like statesmen and leaders and stop the escalation spiral— no, that government is destined for the dustbin of history. Where the Soviet Union is now. To the extent I’m incidentally describing any modern Western leadership, it’s a shame, we all lose.
    - slt2021 1y ago

compass_copium 1y ago

Hmm, I remember reading that the Soviets had significantly better preparations for civilian protection in nuclear war than the US (including more bunkers in cities), but I'm struggling to remember where. Possibly Raven Rock (subtitle: The Story of the U.S. Government’s Secret Plan to Save Itself–While the Rest of Us Die) by Garrett Graff.

slt2021 1y ago
Moscow subway (many other subways and bunkers throughout the country) are the underground bunkers that could shelter the Soviet elites in the event of nuclear war
bigyabai 1y ago
Moscow in particular has a few low-hanging-fruits that can be mentioned; the Metro bunkers[0] and A-135 system[1]. Both were designed to make the city deeply survivable in the event of a targeted conflict, but it's questionable how well they would have worked. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-2 [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_s...
- arethuza 1y ago
  Moscow had, at least at one point, 179 DGZs (Designated Ground Zeros) from the US alone - with, I would imagine, at least another 20 or so from the UK and France. Moscow was the most overkilled places on the planet - doesn't matter if you were in a bunker - all that would do is delay your death a bit.

ajcp 1y ago

Got a source for that doctrine?

vkou 1y ago

> Soviets focused on the survival of small military command in hardened bunkers, rather than survival of entirety of civilian population. How exactly is the focus of the Americans any different? The VIPs[1] will be whisked away into bunkers, you and me will be vaporized. --- [1] Who have utterly and irredeemably failed in their most important job - of preventing a nuclear war. In a just world, not a single one of them should be allowed to survive such a failure. We don't live in a just world, though, the captain will run for the VIP life raft at the first glint of sea ice.

slt2021 1y ago
the difference is ideology and class difference. American VIPs want to survive because they are rich and want to enjoy their wealth, they don't want to die. Soviet VIPs were not wealthy and their goal of survival was purely decisive military win and achievement of political goals.
- vkou 1y ago
  I assure you, people and VIPs and their desires are more or less the same the world over. Othering and ascribing alien ambitions to the enemy only fools yourself. Why do you think their goals differed from those of someone like, say, Kissinger? Or any of the other people who have spent the past century and a half grooming and growing the empire?
  - slt2021 1y ago
    who blinked first during Cuban missile crisis? It was JFK who called Khrushev for deescalation. who blinked first during Ukraine-Russia war? It was Jake Sullivan who redirected military gear from Urkaine to Israel and drip-fed the ammunition shipments, when Russia showed they are ready to use tactical nukes if necessary and formally updated their nuclear doctrine
    - vkou 1y ago
      You're rewriting history. The actual timeline was that Kennedy blockades Cuba, Soviet vessels turn around rather than start a shooting war, Khruschev makes a secret proposal to de-escalate, Kennedy agrees to it, both side declare victory, Soviet bombers are removed from Cuba, the blockade is lifted, the US removes missiles from Turkey. That you see all this, and your takeaway is that "Kennedy blinked first because unlike Ivan, he isn't a power-hungry monster" belies an unnuanced, zero-sum, exceptionalist view of the world. As for Israel and Ukraine, I think all that demonstrated was that the US cared more about kowtowing to Israel, than it did about having a proxy war with Russia. Weirdly enough, though, to this day, weapons and cash (that is immediately spent on weapons) continue to pour into Ukraine. Someone should probably notify Canada and the EU about that new Russian red line, they clearly haven't gotten the memo.

lupusreal 1y ago

American doctrine too. Both countries built thousands of tactical nuclear weapons.

unyttigfjelltol 1y ago

You have agreed with my comment that the event would not be survivable by society. Duck-and-cover drills are for those who you call civilians, who will not survive. At best they invite the misinterpretation that such an event is survivable and capable of generating a “decisive victory over the enemy.” Would military command really have achieved a decisive victory by glazing the surface of their own country and burying what’s left underground for the foreseeable future? Clearly a failure of strategic thinking by our erstwhile competitors.

slt2021 1y ago
the nuclear deterrence is basically a game of Russian roulette, and nobody can play it better than the Russians. The Soviet bet was that the collective West is more wealthy and hedonistic than Soviets, and has more to lose in the global hot war, and therefore would be less willing to climb up the escalation ladder, thus giving the escalation dominance to the Soviets, as long as technical means of delivering the decisive strike are available (ICBM, IRBM, SLBM, ALBM, MIRV, Perimeter, etc). examples are numerous: 1. Cuban missile crisis. It was JFK who blinked first in the Caribbean crisis and called Khrushev to deescalate and agreed to remove missiles from Turkey 2. Ukraine war. It was Jake Sullivan that turned off the tap on military shipments to Ukraine, when Russia communicated that they will be using tactical nukes in Kherson
- unyttigfjelltol 1y ago
  Anyone who finds themselves in a game of Russian roulette is a loser. Perhaps the Soviet elite had less to lose and could rationalize a reckless escalation spiral. But, if your government acts like foaming madmen with— we all should recognize— no actual ability to decisively do anything to great powers, and relying on the rest of the world to act like statesmen and leaders and stop the escalation spiral— no, that government is destined for the dustbin of history. Where the Soviet Union is now. To the extent I’m incidentally describing any modern Western leadership, it’s a shame, we all lose.
  - slt2021 1y ago