If the whole world attacks the US, can the US survive?

This is why I said that the first things to be launched would be the missiles in the silos. These are static and stationary, so would be the first ones launched. This salvo alone would be devistating to any nations they were aimed at.

The SLBMs and SLCMs would simply be icing on the cake afterwards.

End results, a devistated planet, nobody wins, everybody looses.

And that is very true about MIRVs. I remember one training film I saw that described how they operated. It was believed at that time (early 1980's) that the Soviets had 5 ICBMs aimed at LA, each with 4-5 MIRVs of the 20 kt range. And most of their targets were the "usual suspects". LA, Seattle, Portland (destruction of the city and bridges would stop transportation down the Columbia river), Pittsburg, Houston, places like this. Cities like Boise would be untouched (although Mountain Home AFB was a target 50 miles away). El paso would be blasted (home of both PATRIOT air defense, and other military units), but Los Cruces, and Santa Fe New Mexico would be untouched. Cheyanne Mountaon would be a slag heap with all the nukes dropped on it, but nothing was aimed anywhere near Fresno, Nashville, or Carson City.

I think most people have little scale to the size of the US. The US is a massive country compared to what they think about in Europe. If you place the Mississippi River across the old "Iron Curtain", you run out of Europe long before you reach Russia. And Spain ends long before you hit the Western States. The single state of Texas is about half the size of all of Europe.



In WWII, Germany ran out of steam long before they could take Moscow. To compare to the US, if Hitler had started in New York, he would not even have made it to the Mississippi River. Or from the West Coast, starting in Los Angeles, he would have stalled before he even reached Texas.

Anybody that thinks that a conventional invasion of the US would work needs a serious reality check. Logistically, it is simply impossible. They could never support the kind of supplies that would be needed to do anything more then take some of the coastal regions at best. The country is simply to vast to "invade".

And the same with nukes. No country is willing to commit suicide by throwing them around at the US. I read lots of coprolite in here, but nothing that really has any bearing on a military operation. Just lots of uninformed opinions.

 

Yes, in a MIRV system.

A ballistic missile can only lift so much weight. And if you are swapping out a single warhead for multiple warheads, you have to make them smaller.

1 100 kt warhead, you then have 2 50 kt warheads. Sure there are missiles that can carry larger warheads (the US, France and Russia all have them). However, you were talking about UK missiles and warheads launched from submarines. If you want to move the topic around, then say so. But you can't bounce back and forth without being called on it.

The Minuteman III was designed with multiple configurations. The most common 2 were with a single 1.2 MT warhead (for striking hardened facilities like enemy ICBM sites), or with MIRV (typically 3 330 kt warheads) for hitting softer targets like cities.

But it did not carry multiples of the larger warheads. Only 1. To go to a MIRV capacity, the warheads were much smaller.

The Russian Bulava system carries 6 150 kt warheads, that is the newest MIRV system that is in use today.

And just like the Minuteman III, this is a land based system. Not a SLBM. This allows the missiles to be much larger, to carry a larger payload, and to fly greater distances.

If you are going to talk about SLBM, then talk about SLBM. If you want to talk about ICBM, then talk about ICBM. And in a SLBM, the missiles are smaller, so they have much less carrying capacity.

 

When did I say that? When did I say anything like that?

I make no claims about any kind of ASW defeating missiles aimed at the US. I have not even mentioned any kind of ABM system. I am simply talking of the insanity of anybody launching one in the first place.

The winner of a nuclear war? Nobody. Not the US, not the rest of the world.

Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

 

Agreed. We may display small differences in opinion and culture, but at the end of the day we are all after the same thing....also both seem to have an unbelievable ability to act retarded.






Peace out fellow westerners

 

OK, great. You were not alive in the 1970's. However, those movies I mention were made in the 1980's.

And yes, I understand the effects. All to well. Heat, blast and radiation. At a radius of around 4 miles, it would be complete destruction. The fireball alone would be around 1-2 miles.

Going out, the first 10 miles would be severe destruction. Most buildings destroyed or heavily damaged, 75% of people living in this area would die from blast effects (flying debris) or from severe radiation sickness.

Then you have 11-15 miles, moderate damage. Most structures survive, especially reinforced concrete and brick. Most deaths here would be from falling buildings and blast effects. Most people not in direct line of sight will survive the radiation effects, as long as they are not downwind of the blast. Shortened lifespans for everybody not in the direct path of the radiation.

Beyond 15 miles, little to no effect other then broken windows. Other then those downwind of the blast.

So oh yes, I know the effects all to well. Unless you are within around 10 miles, you should come out pretty good. Then your only worry is fallout. Taking shelter in a basement or reinforced concrete building should protect you from most of those effects (most of the fallout threat is from Beta particles, an inch of wood protect you from those). Alpha particles are a threat when injested, but a heavy coat protects you from those. Gamma Rays are not a threat, because those are only released when the blast goes off (and may be a concern in the epicenter of the blast), but are not a threat afterwards.

So please tell me, and show me, how I do not understand this. Show me the references to show how a single bomb destroys all of a major city and leaves it burning for months.

I have no idea where you get your theories, but I was instructed in this back in 1983. When the concern of a nuclear exchange was very high. So please, show me where I am wrong.

 

It was this guy.

 

Honestly, I cannot be bothered! However, if you wish to understand why I think your wrong, you may wish to start by considering how the facts and figure's you just spurted out in your last post, correspond with that beautiful picture of New York that you posted earlier. Answer - They don't.

Also, I was born in '84. Although those films were made in the '80's, I was far to young to watch them. There are laws relating to that in the UK.

I am done with this now. Peace out.

 

Highlighted the magic phrase there.

Did you look at that picture? May I ask, what is the size of the circle of total destruction on it for a 100 kt bomb?

Wow, is that around 10 miles across? Golly gee, imagine that! Exactly what I said the radius of total destruction would be.

So tell me then, how big of an area would be devistated by a single 100 kt nuclear detonation? Please tell me, since you are such a genius and expert on the subject, how big is the fireball in your opinion. 10 miles? 100 miles? Will it cover the entire nation?

Please oh please, give us your expert opinions on this.

And yes, I am finding for some reason my sarcasm rate has gone up a lot lately, along with my bs alarm. Maybe it has something to do with my becoming a civilian agian, and no longer caring what others think of what I sat.

 

You're separating from the service?

Yes it is liberating in some ways, in terms of the freedom to politically express one's opinion without the fear of an Article 88.

Best of luck sir in your readjustment back to civilian life and a sincere thank you for your service.

 

Quick comment on this. And I am going to say a few things as I see them, and to hell with the censor. And trust me, none of this is personally aimed at you at all.

Great, you were born in 1984. Before you were born, I was guarding these mother(*)(*)(*)(*)ing things. For several months my job was guarding nuclear weapons, and I hated it with an absolute passion. These things feel absolutely evil to me, and anybody who advocates their use should be boiled in a cauldren of their own (*)(*)(*)(*) and be chopped up and burried upside down in a hole willed with (*)(*)(*)(*).

You should feel lucky, you really did miss out of the Cold War. It was over before you really realized it even existed. I grew up with it. I remember Nuclear Attack drills in school. I remember being given plans to make my own Home Fallout Shelter.

And in my military training, extensive instruction was given in how to survive and operate in a Nuclear Battlefield. And to make this as plain as possible, I would rather see the US fall to a conventional invasion and become a Communist nation subject to the orders of China before I would see a single nuclear bomb fall anywhere in the world.

I find the concept that anybody is willing to let even a single nuclear weapon be used is sickening and disgusting. And discussing full nuclear exchanges is simply beyond comprehension. Because to some people it all just seems so clinical.

"Oh, I am launching 200 nuclear weapons and destroying my enemies."

No, the murderous (*)(*)(*)(*)wad without a single shread of human decency is actually talking about slaughtering hundreds of millions of people. And I do not care if it is in the US, the UK, Russia, China, Iran, Australia, or anywhere else. To even consider the use of such a weapon is beyond inhumane.

Is that plain enough for everybody? Call me a foolish old man, call me whatever you like. I really do not care. But simply seeing how many in here over the last day or so have actually advocated the use of these weapons has made me sick beyond almost all ability to tell.

And think about it, I am a 15 year veteran of the military. 10 years in the Infantry. If I am horified and disgusted, I can't imagine why everybody else is not, as well as being disgusted with even joyfully discussing this and what it would do.

 

Yea, the term is "RCP". Translation, I am being laid off.

After all, we need to cut the defense budget. Most people do not really realize that that means laying off over 30,000 people. And being 47 years old with bad knees, I am out the door.

I often wonder why people look at the military the way they do. If some company or any other branch of the Government announced they are laying off 30,000 people, you have screams of outrage and demands that something be done.

When you announce you are reducing the number of people in the military by 30,000, they scream for more of the same. Never once actually realizing that they are talking about laying off 30,000 people.

But it's ok, I went through the same thing in 1993. I am doing the reserve thing, and can still retire. But at a fraction of what I would have gotten otherwise. Now for the fun part of looking for work all over again.

And this lovely big gaping hole in my resume.

1995-2007, computer engineer
2007-2012, military

Anybody have needs for a computer engineer with skills 5 years out of date?

 

Forget the size of the "fireball". Destruction is not about whats within the primary blast radius.

You said earlier a 100kt warhead would only destroy those within a 10 mile radius. Then, in your next post, you went on to describe how far out the secondary effects go, which completely contradicted you 10 mile statement (also playing down the effects of fallout, but forget that for now).

All things considered, 1 or 2 warheads would destroy New York as you know it. I will state that 100% confidently.





Also, if you wish to know why you felt you needed to be sarcastic, it is because you felt you got "one up" on me. You made a point of pointing out you had served in the Military, as if to suggest to me that that in some way makes you more of an authority on this subject - it doesn't. I help to make some of the fine military aircraft NATO (inc. the US), use. Doesn't mean I can fly them.

 

In my case it was up or out...and the writing was on that wall even in '06; a downsizing of the USAF.

There's a lot of resources now for veterans seeking employment. I would try something in the government sector, you would have a leg up on other applicants as a veteran.

http://www.nvf.org/

http://www.vetjobs.com/

http://www.gijobs.com/

http://www.militaryhire.com/

 

An unusually passionate reply, when considering the outrageous scenario being discussed here.

 

That is right, destroy, not damage. Do you need a dictionary to understand the difference?

Translation, if you are within 10 miles, almost nothing is left but rubble. A few things might survive, like a heavily reinforced concrete building in the lee of a larger building. But not much beyond that.

Damage is very different. Unreinforced buildings closer to the blast will likely be destroyed. But very rapidly as you move away, the damage will be less and less. Especially when things like other structures and the terrain affect the moving blast wave.

The most damaging part is blast. Translation, a great big freaking wind. Or to be techinical, a "pressure wave". As it goes out, it rapidly looses it's power, until at about 20 miles, when you only have a few broken windows and nothing more.

 

People would die.

 

I can't really be passionate enough about things like this.

Yes, I have spent 15 years in and out of uniform. My job for 10 of those (Marine Infantry) was learning how to kill people. Then 14 years as a civilian, and another 5 in the Army doing missile defense.

Over and over in here the last few years I have seen people coldly discuss the use of nuclear weapons, and it makes me sick to my stomach. To them it is just a tool to be used to "kill the enemy".

Wrong.

Nucelar weapons do not kill the enemy. They kill tens or hundreds of millions of civilians, that had little to nothing to do with the conflict. I wish a pox lasting a million years without end upon anybody that launches such weapons. And if the US launches them first, then let it be upon them as well.

I often gladly enter these discussions, as a way to look at the logistics of such operations. How to move X number of divisions, and counter Y number of obsticles. This is much like chess to me, I try and think out ways to make such things work, or fail. And do not really care if the pieces are black, white, red, blue, green, or anything else. It is just a mental exercise.

But once the use of "Special Weapons" like Chemical, Nuclear, or Biological weapons starts being considered, all such considerations immediately come off the table. Because now it is no longer a discussion of military against military, but about the wholesale slaughter of civilians that should have nothing to do with the conflict.

Nuclear weapons are not military weapons to be used against the enemy soldiers. They are political terror weapons to be unleashed upon civilians who should have nothing to do with the conflict. Because whenever people talk about their use, it is never as 1 or 2 against troop concentrations (which could be considered a military use). Instead, they talk about their use against heavily populated civilian areas, with little to no military significance.

The actual horros is not as much at the weapons themselves, but their after effects. The fallout and radiation deaths. In many ways, the people who live within 10 miles of such a blast are the lucky ones. They will not have the years of cancers and other sicknesses that those 20 miles away will be suffering with for years and decades to come.

Be glad you grew up in an era where the imminant threat of Armageddon was not something you had to live with. I remember exploring the tunnels under LA when I was in High School, trying to find ways to travel around in the event such a thing happened. And before I moved there, I remember exploring abandoned mines in Idaho with the same thing in mind.

Yes, the Generation Gap can be a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Just be glad you were not of mine, where such a nightmare seemed all to real.

 

So, by taking part in this rhetorical debate and not being born during the cold war era, I do not understand the horror of WMD's and am somehow indifferent?

I am just an Engineer who cares about what the situation is in the world. You, on the other hand, have spent time in the worlds largest and most deployed military. In Afghan alone, 30,000 innocent people have died.

Conventional or nuclear - a innocent death is an innocent death. Tagging the word Nuclear to the beginning does not make it any more or less of a horror.

 

Consider looking at Android development? It's relatively new, easy to train for and full of potential opportunity.

 

How do you know 30,000 were "innocent."

You've interviewed them yourself to determine this?

It's an asymmetrical war, bad guys don't wear a uniform that distinguishes them from non-combatants.

 

The UN estimates approx 45,000 "insurgents" and 30,000 civilians killed by NATO. What else could, or should, I go by?

 

If you include Canada against the U.S. (with the World) and the World is prepared to wait it out?

America would eventually lose as it would run out of oil and many other natural resources it needs.

If it secured Canada and all it's resources (which considering the relatively weak armed forces Canada has and it's distance from help from other countries - is certainly a very attainable goal), then I think America could hold out for a LONG time.

 

Reference please?

Because most references I have seen place the toll at around 7,000 from NATO actions, and around 20,000 from insurgents.

 

Apologies. I meant to type NATO and Insurgents.

Regardless, Direct and indirect deaths by NATO are stilll said to be around 20-30,000.

Not the best source, but a good breakdown here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

Still, it doesn't detract from the fact that lots of people died and not a single nuke was used.

 

Most reasonable and realistic reponse that this ridiculous topic has had.

Congratulations. Here, have 100 internet points... and a donut