So, the U.S.S.R. would guarantee its own destruction if a nuke launched from somewhere obliterated Chita?
Read the first post...
Doomsday Peace
- Thread starter Fenwick
- Start date
Read the first post...
I think you have misunderstood my posts in nthis thread. Maybe I have not been clear. The Soviets would guarantee the destruction of the world if one conventional nuke was fired into Russia by some foe, be it the U.S., China, or someone else?
Okay...
1. If you nuke me,
a. you take me out in one hit, you win.
b. you miss a few I fire back, you loose.
Action: 50% chance you loose.
Outcome: Why take a chance?
2. I nuke you,
a. I take you out in one hit, I win.
b. I miss a few you fire back, I loose.
Action: 50% chance I loose.
Outcome: Why take a chance?
3. You nuke me, world ends.
a. you fire everything at me, world ends, we loose.
b. you fire a single weapon into the nation, world ends, we loose.
Action: 100% chance we loose.
Outcome: We both do nothing and live.
This doesn't seem flawed to me, it's Game Theory, the best outcome is one that neither side wins. So unless the two superpowers change how they interact with each other the outcome will always end with both sides backing down. For despite what others have mentioned Russia will be lost as well if the US has no chance but to nuke her.
Last edited:
Compared to a missile that will literally destroy the world without additional strikes? Yes.
Right but wouldn't you argue that the Soviets being up front with the knowledge of what would occur following such an attack would discourage any nuclear attack of any kind? Not to mention a conventional one?
Plus as I mentioned this is a bit of a double edged sword, while it stops the USSR from being attacked, it also would hinder some of the Soviets aggressiveness, for they cannot really threaten a nuke anymore. But I'd rather be safe.
So, if the U.S. had after the 1993 WTC attacks decided that it would use nukes against all of its enemies should another major terrorist attack occur on U.S. soil, and the 9/11 attack still happens, then it would be sound for the U.S. to nuke on September 12, 2001 Tehran, Kabul, Islamabad, Damascus, Pyongyang, and Tripoli?
This is essentially what you would suppose having the Russians do in your scenario, only on a much larger scale.
No, but it would be alright, because those governments are not the terrorists themselves. Russia could us diplomatic or conventional military forces to deal with the terrorists. It Iran started bombing the US then sure why not? But I made a point of combat against the USSR, terrorism, spying, even encouraging a coup is not military combat.
What my scenario does do is discourage conventional military, and nuclear attacks against Russia. If Chenyain terrorists attacks Russia it will not end in nuclear war, because that isn't a government, its a group.
If Russia is reduced to using conventional means to respond to a nuclear terrorist strike, you know what you're going to see?
A lot more nuclear terrorist strikes. What does a terrorist organization care? They just take the resources and money from governments, they don't live in the country. If the Soviets make noises about entering afghanistan, they'll walk into Iran.
Not that the USSR would get the international go-ahead from the US to invade another country, because what's the guarantee to the US that the Soviets aren't just going to attack, find what terrorists they can, and then set up a puppet government, which is suddenly on the list of "don't mess with or we kill ourselves.' In an age of paranoia and distrust and heightening tensions, who would believe the Red Menace would just have held selfless intentions?
Yes, a single nuclear blast is a pinprick to Russia. Russia is too big and has too many people for any single blow to be catastrophic short of your planet killer. Think 9-11; it did damage. It killed short of 3,000 people and cost a lot of money.
So what? 3,000 out of approaching 300,000,000 is insignificant. The money? You could drop it in our debt and no one would notice after a little while. This is the scale of a single nuklear attack on the Soviets, and yet something this tiny would have them kill themselves, defeating the real purpose of retaliation?
And you still haven't shown me that any Soviet leadership would be prepared to go through on the threat. Remember, the possibility of accidents is always there, and with conventional nukes you can follow a tit-for-tat response for such accidents. The Soviets no longer have this option. The Soviet leadership may have been many things, but insane isn't one of them. They want the Soviet Union to live, and the best way to do that (to an extent) was through a nuclear offensive capability, which as a result led to MAD.
The Tsar bomb you describe? I can only see someone with their backs to the wall using it. And by backs to the wall, I don't mean a glancing blow. I mean no longer having any chance for military victory or a return to status quo ante bellum. A very possible chance is that the military seizes control of the nukes in a coup of during rising tensions, making it impossible for a radical leadership to trigger the bombs without military consent. And militaries, by their very nature, are conservative and don't exactly support bombing themselves at the slightest provocation.
NATO disbanding strikes me as ludicrous as well. The Red Army is still there. Nuclear threat had already been there. The US can still threaten nuclear strike if the Soviets attack. You haven't gone beyond MAD. You've just limited the Soviets to MAD-only response.
In my eyes, nothing can turn out well for the Soviets under this situation.
1. They are trying to hold the entire world hostage, not exactly a good thing for making friends. All the US has to do is say "We only strike back at those who hit us. The Reds, they'll kill you if some nutjob hits them." Expound on it, and the Soviets are going to wonder why all those people who believed in there benevelence have been pushed to the side lines. Threatening everyone if they don't leave you alone pretty quickly gets you left alone, which isn't what the USSR really wants. It wants to spread its ideology and influence, not lock it in a box no one else can approach.
2. Can you say insurgency? If conventional assault is out of the picture even more than before, the US may decide to restart a European insurgency, and try to work out the kinks in the process. The Soviets can't really kill themselves for something so small, since they do all across the world. But eventually, the insurgency can gain strength and what do you know? The Soviets have yet another Vietnam/Afghanistan/nasty insurgency in Germany, or Poland, or, or... The cost for the allies to do this will be less than it was prior to the planet-killer, and the cost to the Soviets will easily outweigh the cost of the nuclear arsenal they tried to bypass.
3. Considering how no one attacked the USSR with tanks or nukes OTL, the tensions of the European front have two possibilities: no change or higher tensions. NATO will still be there to defend against the Red Army. But now that the Red Army is going to have those "massive" new funds to play around with, they'll probably be much stronger. Remember, doubting nuclear threats is two-sided. The Soviets may become convinced that they're Army can overrun Europe before the Americans arive (always a threat OTL), and may also believe that the US won't have the will to carry out their threat. The potential awards may outweigh the risks.
But continue on at that thread for a moment. The Reds invade, and the US reponds with tactical nukes on Western soil. No one has bombed the USSR or even its allies technically, and only replaceable troops were lost. The USSR can't respond with tit-for-tat tactical nukes on Europe. "The Line" hasn't been crossed, since neither the Soviets or its allies have been directly attacked. The Soviets aren't going to kill themselves because an invasion isn't going as hoped.
And what if they keep fighting? Then they've commited to fighting for the prize, and have locked themselves out of their threat. As improbable as it is, let's say NATO throws the Germans back after a tactical nuke. The Soviets didn't kill the world, but neither have they agreed to an armistace. That means the conventional war is still on, and so NATO does its best to role into East Germany. I doubt there would be as much civilian resistance, and for the sake of the argument lets say that NATO liberates Germany without the world dying. The situation has become a major loss for the soviets, because they have lost Germany. They can't get it back by nuclear threat (a planet-killer can't work on the threat "give me or I die"). They can't get it back by conventional, either, for NATO has already learned that tactical nukes, when done on land they control (Germany will be immediatly reunified, I'm assuming), don't trigger doomsday response.
What could have been victory has turned into disaster for the Soviets. They've lost an important satellite in Europe. Tactical nukes are no longer taboo, all but ensuring their use in the future. At best, they can request a cease fire to end the fighting and keep what they've got (if they're being thrown back uncontrollably, then a planet-killer could be believed). But this is what I was warning about: the Soviets only had a choice between destruction or humiliation once the Americans used tac nukes. And you saw how the war escelated? Conventional invasion west, tac nukes on own territory, conventional invasion East? This is how the doomsday threat can be sidestepped; by making the Russians constantly redraw "The Line" while never crossing it.
So the Soviets have been nuked (making war nukes non-taboo in the future), and the world lives.
3. And of course, the Reds could make a threat, not have it believed, and one or more of the bombs is detonated. Then the world dies, and the "defensive" threat was about as useful as maginot lines in France:inpenetrable from one direction, useless from another.
This is just a thought, but couldn't the US use the MAD doctorine to keep the Soviets in check. Pres. johnson could tell the world that the Soviets and its allies are safe from invasion, but if any Soviet or communist attack occurs on any noncommunist nation, that the US would attack, therefore forcing the Soivets to kill themselves along with the rest of us.
Mad worked in the OTL simply because we'd have nuked each other. MAD didnot stop wars. The Berlin crisis, Korea, Vietnam, and so on all happened bacause neither side would use them. The small dirty wars and battles were allowable when the big picture was really seen.
Neither the Soviets or the US even really wanted to use nukes (except in WW2), but would have if push came to shove. But a planetkiller..... I can't see the Kremlin ever pushing that button unless they felt that their way of life was about to end. I'd suspect that the Kremlin would make the statements about destroying the world if attacked, but as soon as the next small war started, the diplomats would have worked out a set of parameters to keep that conflict from expanding and leading to the end of the Earth. Pretty much the way things worked out in the OTL.
Mad worked in the OTL simply because we'd have nuked each other. MAD didnot stop wars. The Berlin crisis, Korea, Vietnam, and so on all happened bacause neither side would use them. The small dirty wars and battles were allowable when the big picture was really seen.
Neither the Soviets or the US even really wanted to use nukes (except in WW2), but would have if push came to shove. But a planetkiller..... I can't see the Kremlin ever pushing that button unless they felt that their way of life was about to end. I'd suspect that the Kremlin would make the statements about destroying the world if attacked, but as soon as the next small war started, the diplomats would have worked out a set of parameters to keep that conflict from expanding and leading to the end of the Earth. Pretty much the way things worked out in the OTL.
Okay...
I am at the point where I can safely assume no one but I seems to think that diplomatic tactics would change. I do not see proxy wars ending, nor all of the spying stopping either. What I do see is the Soviet Union having something that doesn't require them to constantly keep up with the American nuclear stockpile.
To me it was the arms race that killed the USSR. Now they have but a few nukes to maintain, star wars doesn't even cause them to sweat. Maybe the Soviets are the ones who come out with the SALT treaties, whatever it doesn't matter.
What does matter is that no is going to outright attack the USSR. This is going to be like OTL stressful periods but nothing happens except sides backing down. Only now the Soviets are not bleeding themselves dry on an unusable stockpile.
Also Dean, when has anyone ever used a nuclear weapon in a terrorist capacity? Who would supply these terrorists with a nuke? Is any one really so stupid as to try and test the limits of "we will end the world?" You have made some good comments, but seriously you think that people will not change when faced with the end of the world?
Maybe this proves how naive I am but at some point will not uneasy peace be prefered to nothing?
I am at the point where I can safely assume no one but I seems to think that diplomatic tactics would change. I do not see proxy wars ending, nor all of the spying stopping either. What I do see is the Soviet Union having something that doesn't require them to constantly keep up with the American nuclear stockpile.
To me it was the arms race that killed the USSR. Now they have but a few nukes to maintain, star wars doesn't even cause them to sweat. Maybe the Soviets are the ones who come out with the SALT treaties, whatever it doesn't matter.
What does matter is that no is going to outright attack the USSR. This is going to be like OTL stressful periods but nothing happens except sides backing down. Only now the Soviets are not bleeding themselves dry on an unusable stockpile.
Also Dean, when has anyone ever used a nuclear weapon in a terrorist capacity? Who would supply these terrorists with a nuke? Is any one really so stupid as to try and test the limits of "we will end the world?" You have made some good comments, but seriously you think that people will not change when faced with the end of the world?
Maybe this proves how naive I am but at some point will not uneasy peace be prefered to nothing?
Last edited:
odd name
It's based on the Tsar Bomba. The Russians seem to like making these massive things and call them tsar.
Where did this test occur so that it was visible in the US and not cause EMP effects? And 6 km isn't close to orbit.
Its 1966, the few existing electronic systems that can be effected by EMP are probably military (avionics in figher planes, NORAD CinC, etc...) that are shielded from EMP anyway.
Nothing changes because it is still MAD doctrine... here is what I see as more likely:
1. If you nuke me,
a. you take out my land and sea based missiles in one hit (which is statistically impossible, you may somehow get all the land based ones but it will take quite a while longer for the sea based ones, especially submarines), you win... for a few months until winter starts and doesn't stop for a few years. (provided it survives the nuclear winter, "Federal govt" control will probably be very limited in its actual extent)
b. you miss a few I fire back, we both lose, not that anyone will be surrendering to anyone else due to lack of goverment remaining. Then we try and survive a years-long winter.
Action: 100% chance we both lose
Outcome: Both our nations effectively cease to exist beyond, at best, provincial governments and we're to busy trying to survive several years of winter to do something such as negotiate a true end to the war.
2. I nuke you,
a. I take out you land and sea based nukes in one hit. (again, statistically impossible it will take at least several days if not longer for one side to find and take out the other sides nuke subs which is far more time than is needed for their crews to launch). I win... until winter hits and stays for a few years. (of course, provided it survives the war, the government has got to try and survive the nuclear winter, good luck with that one)
b. I miss a few you fire back, we both lose, not that anyone will be surrendering to anyone else due to lack of goverment remaining. Then we try and survive a years-long winter.
Action: 100% chance we both lose.
Outcome: Both our nations effectively cease to exist beyond, at best, provincial governments and we're to busy trying to survive several years of winter to do something such as negotiate a true end to the war.
Here is what you get:
Soviets: We got 10 nukes that can wipe your nation off the map if you do anything
USA: Good luck finding the submarines before they counter-attack with several hundred nukes in your major cities
Action: 100% chance we both lose.
Outcome: We both do nothing and live.
So in effect, nothing really changes, its still MAD. You may take out my land based nukes but you'll never get all the sea based ones in time. (after a few hours of no communications from Command or responses to signals to such, with political tensions high, it won't be difficult for the crews to put 2 and 2 together and get 4... and even THEN thats provided that at least SOME sort of warning didn't go out over the comms)
This is ASB if only for one simple reason: the shielding necessary to ensure the warhead's successful reentry through the atmosphere would add so much additional payload weight that launch vehicle would have to increase dramatically in size.
By way of comparison: The "Tsar Bomba," which theoretically had a yield of ~100MT, had a mass of 27,000 kg, which is close to the combined mass of the Apollo command and service modules. And that's just the mass for a dumb gravity bomb with a barometric altitude trigger. Add in some kind of rudimentary guidance package and the all-important heat shield, and you're probably adding another 6,000 kg at a minimum.
So you're looking at a payload of somewhere around 33,000 to 35,000 kg. (That's 73,000 to 77,000 lbs. The heaviest bomb in the US arsenal was the MK-17/24, at around 40,000 lbs., which only was in the inventory aboout two years.) This isn't a rolling railcar delivery system; this is a "we need a really big Soyuz-level rocket to push this."
The public will crap themselves, but in the Pentagon, Curtis LeMay is thinking, "All we gotta do is hit Baikonur and Plesetsk, and this is over."
And while a 100 MT weapon would be fearsome, and would pretty much wipe out everything within a 75 mile radius, that's ignoring that 1) the US is a pretty darn big place, and 2) Soviet electronics are NOT world class. A 100 MT weapon has zero value in a military application. It is a population-killer, period. So even if the Sovs were to get one or two off, the best they could hope for is killing one or two cities. These bombs do nothing to inhibit or destroy the American arsenal. Reprisal would be immediate and total, using more accurate, more plentiful ICBM and SLBMs which would hit so many more targets, eliminating both military and command, as well as population centers.
The mid-60s Soviets may not have been the sharpest knife in the drawer, but they weren't so stupid as to put all their hope on one type of weapon. The Tsar Bomba was a publicity stunt, a Soviet ego boost, nothing more.
By way of comparison: The "Tsar Bomba," which theoretically had a yield of ~100MT, had a mass of 27,000 kg, which is close to the combined mass of the Apollo command and service modules. And that's just the mass for a dumb gravity bomb with a barometric altitude trigger. Add in some kind of rudimentary guidance package and the all-important heat shield, and you're probably adding another 6,000 kg at a minimum.
So you're looking at a payload of somewhere around 33,000 to 35,000 kg. (That's 73,000 to 77,000 lbs. The heaviest bomb in the US arsenal was the MK-17/24, at around 40,000 lbs., which only was in the inventory aboout two years.) This isn't a rolling railcar delivery system; this is a "we need a really big Soyuz-level rocket to push this."
The public will crap themselves, but in the Pentagon, Curtis LeMay is thinking, "All we gotta do is hit Baikonur and Plesetsk, and this is over."
And while a 100 MT weapon would be fearsome, and would pretty much wipe out everything within a 75 mile radius, that's ignoring that 1) the US is a pretty darn big place, and 2) Soviet electronics are NOT world class. A 100 MT weapon has zero value in a military application. It is a population-killer, period. So even if the Sovs were to get one or two off, the best they could hope for is killing one or two cities. These bombs do nothing to inhibit or destroy the American arsenal. Reprisal would be immediate and total, using more accurate, more plentiful ICBM and SLBMs which would hit so many more targets, eliminating both military and command, as well as population centers.
The mid-60s Soviets may not have been the sharpest knife in the drawer, but they weren't so stupid as to put all their hope on one type of weapon. The Tsar Bomba was a publicity stunt, a Soviet ego boost, nothing more.
1. Its not space based. In my POD the Soviets simply launched one into orbit to show how powerful the bloody thing is.
2. You are correct it is a population killer. These things go off and blanket the earth in radiation and fallout. I'll assume most of the life on the planet is gone. For I am talking of ten 100MT nuclear weapons exploding at the same time.
3. Are you familar with the RAND coporation? They proposed a doomsday device (even coined the term), which would end all life on earth. The scenario I am proposing is that this weapon will kill everyone.
These won't be launched, they will just go off.
4. This isn't a first strike, or second strike kind of weapon. If it goes off everyone dies, so what is the point if the US has submarines? I am placing this on the sheer fear of such a thing. I know this is MAD, to me it is the final step in MAD a weapon so pointlessly deadly that the best option is always to back down.
2. You are correct it is a population killer. These things go off and blanket the earth in radiation and fallout. I'll assume most of the life on the planet is gone. For I am talking of ten 100MT nuclear weapons exploding at the same time.
3. Are you familar with the RAND coporation? They proposed a doomsday device (even coined the term), which would end all life on earth. The scenario I am proposing is that this weapon will kill everyone.
These won't be launched, they will just go off.
4. This isn't a first strike, or second strike kind of weapon. If it goes off everyone dies, so what is the point if the US has submarines? I am placing this on the sheer fear of such a thing. I know this is MAD, to me it is the final step in MAD a weapon so pointlessly deadly that the best option is always to back down.