M.a.d.

[waghorn41]

Interesting; wouldn't they have a few important command centres that you could take out?

Yes, but bear in mind the very large geographic area we are talking about and realise that they would have, by the very nature of their armed forces, a deeply layered command structure and disipation. Take out one command centre and there's half a dozen that can take it's place. So along came the 'star wars' programme and things got heated - again. Nobody wanted their comms satellites taking out because of the lack of protection for ground based comms which were subsceptible to being knocked out by an EMP burst from a small nuclear weapon. Most military forces have a number of highly specialised mobile command centres which they can deploy, some of these can even be airborne making their deployment even more flexible - while there's an airfield left to use

 

[montka]

Two countries which have nothing to fear from the "nuclear deterrent". Russia and China are geographically too big, and have too large a military force, both possible and standing, to be deterred or removed by nuclear threats.

Still I was under the impression from the oft repeated piece of information that both the U.S.A and Russia have enough nuclear arms between them to destroy the world several times over that a nuclear strike would doom a country completely. Clearly from what Waghorn is saying this is not necessarilly the case.

How can nuclear arms be able to destroy the world several times over and not able to incapacitate a single, albeit vast, nation?

 

[waghorn41]

Still I was under the impression from the oft repeated piece of information that both the U.S.A and Russia have enough nuclear arms between them to destroy the world several times over that a nuclear strike would doom a country completely. Clearly from what Waghorn is saying this is not necessarilly the case.

How can nuclear arms be able to destroy the world several times over and not able to incapacitate a single, albeit vast, nation?

If ALL the nuclear weapons were used then yes, the world could be obliterated over and again. But, and it's a big but, it depends on how many the protagonist is prepared to use against somebody who can hit back equally as hard. Certainly you can wipe out cities, industrial complexes and military installations, make agricultural land untenable because of radiation but is that really in anybody's interest? The 'Hiroshima' scenario of nuking cities with big weapons is long gone. It's senseless and does nobody any good. Bring on the tactical nuclear weapons and it's a new ball game. Small nukes with enough yield to obliterate your target, usually the massed enemy, and then wait for the dust to settle before moving on and through a zone which is radioactive but managable. remove the threat but keep the infrastructure as intact as possible. Hence the neutron bomb, goes through armour and buildings, kills people but leaves everything else almost as it was. So you don't need to 'take out' a whole country, just the bits which annoy you and then help yourself to the resources left undefended.

Of course if you're on the receiving end of massed nuclear weapons raining down then the chances are you'll launch everything you can in the time available as you might not get a second chance. But nobody wants to be on the receiving end of that sort of devastation - from either side. Look at the realities of M.A.D; if the old Warsaw Pact had attacked NATO with Nuclear weapons retaliation would have been immediate and uncompromising, you don't wait for them to land before getting your own off the launch pad. Now the Soviet Union has a long, and often disputed, border with China and knowing that China would try to take advantage of any weakness in the Soviet war machine it is likely that quite a few nukes would have been lobbed their way. Millions of soldiers of the Peoples Republic suddenly advancing unhindered across the Mother country would be unthinkable. Of course China would have retaliated. At that point the northern hemisphere is soaked in radiation and dirty 'dust' which with the natural movements of air around the globe would have carried it south. It was clear to everybody that M.A.D was indeed madness.

Actually this scenario is covered in a novel "On the Beach" by Nevil Shute !

 

[montka]

If ALL the nuclear weapons were used then yes, the world could be obliterated over and again. But, and it's a big but, it depends on how many the protagonist is prepared to use against somebody who can hit back equally as hard. Certainly you can wipe out cities, industrial complexes and military installations, make agricultural land untenable because of radiation but is that really in anybody's interest? The 'Hiroshima' scenario of nuking cities with big weapons is long gone. It's senseless and does nobody any good. Bring on the tactical nuclear weapons and it's a new ball game. Small nukes with enough yield to obliterate your target, usually the massed enemy, and then wait for the dust to settle before moving on and through a zone which is radioactive but managable. remove the threat but keep the infrastructure as intact as possible. Hence the neutron bomb, goes through armour and buildings, kills people but leaves everything else almost as it was. So you don't need to 'take out' a whole country, just the bits which annoy you and then help yourself to the resources left undefended.

How is this not a computer game already!?

Thanks again for an excellent explanation!

 

[waghorn41]

Care to explain your interest? Was it to help someone with a school/college project or just your own curiosity.

 

[Tercha]

Possession of a nuclear arsenal does not prevent aggression, Argentina had the balls to invade the Falkland islands and a "clean war" was fought to get them back, though a nuke on South Georgia as a warning (start moving out or Buenos Aries is next) would certainly have had the same effect.

 

[waghorn41]

The Argentine invasion of the Falklands was a face-saving effort by the ruling Junta, fact is they thought we'd sit back and do nothing; small islands, long way off and not worth the trouble. Never under-estimate the British. Yep, clean war free of NBC weapons - but let's face it against the Argentine forces we had all we needed using only fraction of our military, and that was because of the isolated location which was difficult to use our 'normal' resources against. Of course once we'd taken them back and built a decent airfield our ability to strike got a whole lot better - which is probably why they haven't come back

 

[montka]

Can't help taking an interest in the future of the world; had ideas for writing a book about it with a sci fi twist

 

[IdofEntity]

Can't help taking an interest in the future of the world; had ideas for writing a book about it with a sci fi twist

In that case I'd recommend this site:
http://hollylisle.com/index.php/Writers/forward-motion-for-writers.html

In case you've never seen it before.