You've heard countless times before nobody wins in a nuclear war. It's the theme of movies books video games and countless other mediums but it hasn't stopped people from trying. During the Cold War, both superpowers (the United States and the Soviet Union) sought ways to quickly defeat the other and avoid retaliation, so is it possible? There the current thinking on avoiding nuclear war rests on something called deterrence. Nuclear War
The United States calls it shared destruction or mutually assured destruction but every nuclear power has some similar deterrent strategy. It's discouraging someone from attacking you out of the fear of the consequences which in this case would be a nuclear Counter-Strike. This is a reason why we've never had a nuclear war. Nuclear War
As any attacker knows full well that they will suffer unacceptable levels of losses and counter strike. But the whole idea rests on the ability of a defender to be able to survive long enough to launch their own counter-attack, so in theory, if you could completely negate the ability for your enemy to respond you could win. Nuclear War
During the Cold War, both superpowers went to incredible lengths to make sure their nuclear weapons could survive a strike by the other or at least survive long enough so that they could retaliate. Many methods have been devised to make it more difficult for an enemy to wipe out its nuclear forces. Both nations spread out their nuclear missile silos so that one strike couldn't destroy them all. Nuclear War
In the U.S, you'll find that no two silos are within 5 kilometers of each other, this means an enemy attempting to take out your nuclear forces would need to use a separate warhead for each and every silo road-mobile ICBMs are developed. These could move around at any time making targeting them extremely difficult and nuclear missiles were placed on board submarines which could remain hidden anywhere in the world's oceans, this is one of the most effective. Nuclear War
The ocean is massive and finding an enemy's ballistic missile submarine is nearly impossible to let alone finding all of them at the exact same time. You could theoretically build enough ICBMs to take out all of an enemy's missile silos and use satellite imagery along with other intelligence assets to locate road-mobile missiles but destroying all missile submarines is virtually impossible. This option is the most expensive though not only do you have to build the missile and launching mechanisms as you do with silo base weapons but also design construct operate and maintain extremely complicated submarines to carry them, you also need to build several of them. Nuclear War
The basic rule of thumb has been for every three missile subs only one will be deployed at any given time so one deployed another likely import between patrols and the other undergoing maintenance. So the US for an example which currently operates 14 ballistic missile submarines you can expect to have no more than five on patrol ready to strike at any given time. These are just a few of the many methods used to increase the survivability of nuclear weapons. Some pretty crazy ideas have been developed over time such as tethering these missiles to the ocean floor, launching them from blimps, burying them in the sand, and many more. Nuclear War
But, is there a different way instead of taking out all of an enemy's nuclear forces? what if you could take out their leadership before they were able to authorize a counter strike. Every nation has its own policies regarding the use of nuclear weapons and many keep those policies secret but most require some form of authorization before they can be used. Nuclear War
This helps to prevent accidental launches or officers going rogue or even a terrorist group from using these weapons due to the massive implications. Any use of nuclear weapons has that authorization typically resides with the heads of state a president, Prime Minister, etc. Due to this many nuclear powers have set up sophisticated methods to ensure their leaders or other authorized parties will have the ability to quickly issue a counter-strike before it's too late. Nuclear War
Back in the 1950s before the development of ICBMs, the delivery method of nuclear weapons was bombers. Once in order to the strike was given it would take several hours before they would reach their targets. This gave time for the defender to prepare and launch their own bombers and also time for diplomacy calling up the leader of the attacker and trying to work out a deal to avoid nuclear war. With missiles, that time is greatly reduced approximately 30 minutes much less time to prepare and makes diplomacy impossible as missiles cannot be recalled like man bombers.
So the speed is key you need to be able to quickly authorize a strike. The most famous example of this is nuclear football in the U.S anywhere the president goes this briefcase follows him. Inside of this, our strike options and nuclear launch codes would then be transmitted through the command to issue the launch of a nuclear strike. Russia has a somewhat similar device called the Chicot. This also never leaves the side of the Russian president and can be used to authorize the use of nuclear weapons. So if you could launch a strike quickly enough to take out the leadership before they could act you could stop their ability to retaliate. Nuclear War
During the Cold War, The U.S nuclear ballistic missiles in places like Turkey cut the flight time in half from the 30 minutes of ICBMs to 15 minutes. Cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads like LICKIN could give even less time to prepare. These fly extremely low avoiding detection on the radar. An enemy might not have any time at all its react before it's too late. This was part of the reason for the inception of the INF treaty which banned these missiles. They were seen as destabilizing as they could render deterrence obsolete. To combat this other method of ensuring an ability to retaliate were devised if the U.S President was killed the Vice President has the ability to launch and if he is killed there is a whole line of succession to take the previous place.
To ensure that a single strike could never completely eliminate every government officials in that line of succession, there is what is called a designated survivor during events such as the State of the Union where the President and most of the government officials attend. One person is always kept back hidden in a bunker so there will always be somebody alive to take over the responsibility to retaliate. The Russians have a similar system but have even taken it one step further with perimeter better known as a dead hand. Nuclear War
We don't know exactly how the system works but it's believed to be a semi-autonomous system that will order a counter strike if certain parameters are met. For example, the loss of communications with the command is likely not running 24/7 but turned on during an extremely tense crisis. Once triggered it would launch a rocket that would fly across the country broadcasting in order to Russian nuclear forces to launch their missiles. This way even if the entire leadership is taken out in a quick strike they would still have the ability to counter strike. Nuclear War
Another way to win a nuclear war that has been suggested is the use of EMPS. This would include detonating nuclear weapons high in the atmosphere or even in space above an enemy, where the electromagnetic pulse emitted, would fry all electronics hopefully destroying their ability to retaliate. I'm not gonna get too much into this as frankly, I don't know enough about it. I've read countless articles on the viability of such weapons some of which say they would work and others dismiss it.
But even if it did work as advertised it would be unlikely to completely stop the nation's ability to counter strike. Missile silos and headquarters can be hardened protecting them against the MPs and ballistic missile submarines deep in the ocean would remain unaffected. So even if you could find a way to cripple an enemy before they could respond you would need to be 100% certain it would be successful. Nuclear War
If there is even the slightest chance that it could fail you risk being totally annihilated yourself. All nuclear powers have put an incredible amount of effort to ensure the survivability of their forces so that they can retaliate. So now it's virtually impossible to win a nuclear.
The United States calls it shared destruction or mutually assured destruction but every nuclear power has some similar deterrent strategy. It's discouraging someone from attacking you out of the fear of the consequences which in this case would be a nuclear Counter-Strike. This is a reason why we've never had a nuclear war. Nuclear War
As any attacker knows full well that they will suffer unacceptable levels of losses and counter strike. But the whole idea rests on the ability of a defender to be able to survive long enough to launch their own counter-attack, so in theory, if you could completely negate the ability for your enemy to respond you could win. Nuclear War
 |
| Operation Crossroad Nuclear Test Image |
During the Cold War, both superpowers went to incredible lengths to make sure their nuclear weapons could survive a strike by the other or at least survive long enough so that they could retaliate. Many methods have been devised to make it more difficult for an enemy to wipe out its nuclear forces. Both nations spread out their nuclear missile silos so that one strike couldn't destroy them all. Nuclear War
In the U.S, you'll find that no two silos are within 5 kilometers of each other, this means an enemy attempting to take out your nuclear forces would need to use a separate warhead for each and every silo road-mobile ICBMs are developed. These could move around at any time making targeting them extremely difficult and nuclear missiles were placed on board submarines which could remain hidden anywhere in the world's oceans, this is one of the most effective. Nuclear War
The ocean is massive and finding an enemy's ballistic missile submarine is nearly impossible to let alone finding all of them at the exact same time. You could theoretically build enough ICBMs to take out all of an enemy's missile silos and use satellite imagery along with other intelligence assets to locate road-mobile missiles but destroying all missile submarines is virtually impossible. This option is the most expensive though not only do you have to build the missile and launching mechanisms as you do with silo base weapons but also design construct operate and maintain extremely complicated submarines to carry them, you also need to build several of them. Nuclear War
The basic rule of thumb has been for every three missile subs only one will be deployed at any given time so one deployed another likely import between patrols and the other undergoing maintenance. So the US for an example which currently operates 14 ballistic missile submarines you can expect to have no more than five on patrol ready to strike at any given time. These are just a few of the many methods used to increase the survivability of nuclear weapons. Some pretty crazy ideas have been developed over time such as tethering these missiles to the ocean floor, launching them from blimps, burying them in the sand, and many more. Nuclear War
But, is there a different way instead of taking out all of an enemy's nuclear forces? what if you could take out their leadership before they were able to authorize a counter strike. Every nation has its own policies regarding the use of nuclear weapons and many keep those policies secret but most require some form of authorization before they can be used. Nuclear War
This helps to prevent accidental launches or officers going rogue or even a terrorist group from using these weapons due to the massive implications. Any use of nuclear weapons has that authorization typically resides with the heads of state a president, Prime Minister, etc. Due to this many nuclear powers have set up sophisticated methods to ensure their leaders or other authorized parties will have the ability to quickly issue a counter-strike before it's too late. Nuclear War
Back in the 1950s before the development of ICBMs, the delivery method of nuclear weapons was bombers. Once in order to the strike was given it would take several hours before they would reach their targets. This gave time for the defender to prepare and launch their own bombers and also time for diplomacy calling up the leader of the attacker and trying to work out a deal to avoid nuclear war. With missiles, that time is greatly reduced approximately 30 minutes much less time to prepare and makes diplomacy impossible as missiles cannot be recalled like man bombers.
So the speed is key you need to be able to quickly authorize a strike. The most famous example of this is nuclear football in the U.S anywhere the president goes this briefcase follows him. Inside of this, our strike options and nuclear launch codes would then be transmitted through the command to issue the launch of a nuclear strike. Russia has a somewhat similar device called the Chicot. This also never leaves the side of the Russian president and can be used to authorize the use of nuclear weapons. So if you could launch a strike quickly enough to take out the leadership before they could act you could stop their ability to retaliate. Nuclear War
During the Cold War, The U.S nuclear ballistic missiles in places like Turkey cut the flight time in half from the 30 minutes of ICBMs to 15 minutes. Cruise missiles armed with nuclear warheads like LICKIN could give even less time to prepare. These fly extremely low avoiding detection on the radar. An enemy might not have any time at all its react before it's too late. This was part of the reason for the inception of the INF treaty which banned these missiles. They were seen as destabilizing as they could render deterrence obsolete. To combat this other method of ensuring an ability to retaliate were devised if the U.S President was killed the Vice President has the ability to launch and if he is killed there is a whole line of succession to take the previous place.
To ensure that a single strike could never completely eliminate every government officials in that line of succession, there is what is called a designated survivor during events such as the State of the Union where the President and most of the government officials attend. One person is always kept back hidden in a bunker so there will always be somebody alive to take over the responsibility to retaliate. The Russians have a similar system but have even taken it one step further with perimeter better known as a dead hand. Nuclear War
We don't know exactly how the system works but it's believed to be a semi-autonomous system that will order a counter strike if certain parameters are met. For example, the loss of communications with the command is likely not running 24/7 but turned on during an extremely tense crisis. Once triggered it would launch a rocket that would fly across the country broadcasting in order to Russian nuclear forces to launch their missiles. This way even if the entire leadership is taken out in a quick strike they would still have the ability to counter strike. Nuclear War
Another way to win a nuclear war that has been suggested is the use of EMPS. This would include detonating nuclear weapons high in the atmosphere or even in space above an enemy, where the electromagnetic pulse emitted, would fry all electronics hopefully destroying their ability to retaliate. I'm not gonna get too much into this as frankly, I don't know enough about it. I've read countless articles on the viability of such weapons some of which say they would work and others dismiss it.
But even if it did work as advertised it would be unlikely to completely stop the nation's ability to counter strike. Missile silos and headquarters can be hardened protecting them against the MPs and ballistic missile submarines deep in the ocean would remain unaffected. So even if you could find a way to cripple an enemy before they could respond you would need to be 100% certain it would be successful. Nuclear War
If there is even the slightest chance that it could fail you risk being totally annihilated yourself. All nuclear powers have put an incredible amount of effort to ensure the survivability of their forces so that they can retaliate. So now it's virtually impossible to win a nuclear.
0 Comments