NonDawg Read a new book Nuclear War: A Scenario

[GeorgeWashingtonDawg]

I was listening to Dan Carlin’s podcast and he interviewed the author last week and it was pretty interesting so I bought it and read it. It was hard to put down but in a horrifying way.

The author interviewed hundreds of officials and members of the military and created a hypothetical scenario about what she learned.

It’s an unbelievable read if that subject interests anyone.

You may lose a little sleep after reading it. The part concerning our ballistic missiles and their inability to transit to North Korea without flying over Russia was pretty shocking.

It’s somewhat hilarious that we live in such a world where this scenario is a realistic possibility and everyone just shrugs and is cool with it.

I highly recommend the book though.

 

[NWGA_DAWG]

We're also all going to die one day OP, Happy Masters Sunday!

 

[WestchesterDAWG]

I was listening to Dan Carlin’s podcast and he interviewed the author last week and it was pretty interesting so I bought it and read it. It was hard to put down but in a horrifying way.

The author interviewed hundreds of officials and members of the military and created a hypothetical scenario about what she learned.

It’s an unbelievable read if that subject interests anyone.

You may lose a little sleep after reading it. The part concerning our ballistic missiles and their inability to transit to North Korea without flying over Russia was pretty shocking.

It’s somewhat hilarious that we live in such a world where this scenario is a realistic possibility and everyone just shrugs and is cool with it.

I highly recommend the book though.

Nuclear subs…..

 

[Pugknows]

Nuclear subs…..

This. I certainly expect the author conceded the fact that we have the largest and most technologically advanced submarine fleet in the world and can park close enough to North Korea to use shoulder-fired RPGs from the deck if we wanted.

 

[DonutDawg]

everyone just shrugs and is cool with it.

Well the alternative is walking around scared of nuclear war, which is completely out of our control 😂

 

[Boom MFer Dawg]

I was listening to Dan Carlin’s podcast and he interviewed the author last week and it was pretty interesting so I bought it and read it. It was hard to put down but in a horrifying way.

The author interviewed hundreds of officials and members of the military and created a hypothetical scenario about what she learned.

It’s an unbelievable read if that subject interests anyone.

You may lose a little sleep after reading it. The part concerning our ballistic missiles and their inability to transit to North Korea without flying over Russia was pretty shocking.

It’s somewhat hilarious that we live in such a world where this scenario is a realistic possibility and everyone just shrugs and is cool with it.

I highly recommend the book though.

Do you suggest living in fear instead?

 

[NedRacineDawg]

Read "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy

 

[GeorgeWashingtonDawg]

Read "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy

Excellent read.

 

[Utley1992]

Humanity is both intelligent enough and dumb enough to create our own destruction

 

[East Lake Dawg 61]

I was listening to Dan Carlin’s podcast and he interviewed the author last week and it was pretty interesting so I bought it and read it. It was hard to put down but in a horrifying way.

The author interviewed hundreds of officials and members of the military and created a hypothetical scenario about what she learned.

It’s an unbelievable read if that subject interests anyone.

You may lose a little sleep after reading it. The part concerning our ballistic missiles and their inability to transit to North Korea without flying over Russia was pretty shocking.

It’s somewhat hilarious that we live in such a world where this scenario is a realistic possibility and everyone just shrugs and is cool with it.

I highly recommend the book though.

I don't think everyone is cool with it. But what, exactly, are we supposed to do? Freak out about it every day? It's a fact of life we all have to live with. I'm more concerned about idiots and drunks on the roads than nuclear bombs.

 

[claydawg99]

I was listening to Dan Carlin’s podcast and he interviewed the author last week and it was pretty interesting so I bought it and read it. It was hard to put down but in a horrifying way.

The author interviewed hundreds of officials and members of the military and created a hypothetical scenario about what she learned.

It’s an unbelievable read if that subject interests anyone.

You may lose a little sleep after reading it. The part concerning our ballistic missiles and their inability to transit to North Korea without flying over Russia was pretty shocking.

It’s somewhat hilarious that we live in such a world where this scenario is a realistic possibility and everyone just shrugs and is cool with it.

I highly recommend the book though.

We don’t need to much to neutralize N Korea we could completely shut them down in a few hrs if needed and make them incapable of doing anything

 

[East Lake Dawg 61]

Humanity is both intelligent enough and dumb enough to create our own destruction

We will eventually do exactly that. Our latest foray into possible self destruction is uncontrolled AI. But there is a long list of our species' suicidal tendencies in addition to that.

 

[claydawg99]

Well the alternative is walking around scared of nuclear war, which is completely out of our control 😂

Right everyone freaking out about Iran now ..oh no it’s the end of days …L M A O

 

[Moosefish]

The part concerning our ballistic missiles and their inability to transit to North Korea without flying over Russia was pretty shocking.

Even beyond the sub option listed above, this is a non-issue.

1. Limited options doesn't mean no options...and that's even assuming that transiting Russian airspace is a "no go" (it's not).

2. There is very little reason to use ICBMs against a foe with no or very limited ability to reach CONUS. Bombers or subs are much better options, especially as the replacement for the ALCM is fielded & NK's ability to counter the B-2 remains limited.

3. Even a well-researched book will not have all the information needed to know exactly what we can & cannot do & what actually concerns nuclear planners. Is it full of good information? I'm sure. But, even not having read it, I'm confident there is no way she has the "full picture".

We don’t need to much to neutralize N Korea we could completely shut them down in a few hrs if needed and make them incapable of doing anything

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. The main problem is all their artillery aimed at Seoul. Literally thousands of pieces that cannot be easily removed before they inflict incredible damage to a highly populated area. "Incapable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting for you there, and is absolutely incorrect.

Their low-tech, "old" equipment plays in their favor when all they want to do is inflict harm. When all you're doing is aiming for the country to the south, it's difficult to miss.

Right everyone freaking out about Iran now ..oh no it’s the end of days …L M A O

Nobody said that. What was said was that it's a big deal...literally unprecedented. Certainly worthy of more than a "meh" and inappropriate to dismiss with a "lol".

But, ignorance is clearly bliss, I guess.

 

[claydawg99]

Even beyond the sub option listed above, this is a non-issue.

1. Limited options doesn't mean no options...and that's even assuming that transiting Russian airspace is a "no go" (it's not).

2. There is very little reason to use ICBMs against a foe with no or very limited ability to reach CONUS. Bombers or subs are much better options, especially as the replacement for the ALCM is fielded & NK's ability to counter the B-2 remains limited.

3. Even a well-researched book will not have all the information needed to know exactly what we can & cannot do & what actually concerns nuclear planners. Is it full of good information? I'm sure. But, even not having read it, I'm confident there is no way she has the "full picture".



Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. The main problem is all their artillery aimed at Seoul. Literally thousands of pieces that cannot be easily removed before they inflict incredible damage to a highly populated area. "Incapable" is doing a lot of lifting for you there, and is absolutely incorrect.

Their low-tech, "old" equipment plays in their favor when all they want to do is inflict harm. When all you're doing is aiming for the country to the south, it's difficult to miss.


Nobody said that. What was said was that it's a big deal...literally unprecedented. Certainly worthy of more than a "meh" and inappropriate to dismiss with a "lol".

But, ignorance is clearly bliss, I guess.

Our Navy can literally neuter all of North Korea in hours we don’t have to fire one shot literally press buttons and be done.

Let’s see what Israel’s response it first they don’t want or need anymore conflict than what they already have

 

[Moosefish]

Our Navy can literally neuter all of North Korea in hours we don’t have to fire one shot literally press buttons and be done.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. None.

Anybody that has told you that is either lying to you or is also clueless.

Let’s see what Israel’s response it first they don’t want or need anymore conflict than what they already have

That doesn't change the fact that what has already happened is a big deal or that Israel got help from some of their "neighbors".

 

[claydawg99]

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. None.

Anybody that has told you that is either lying to you or is also clueless.



That doesn't change the fact that what has already happened is a big deal or that Israel got help from some of their "neighbors".

Yeah okay 👍 I’ll trust guys that deal with this on a daily basis with over 25 years of experience than a board moderator

 

[Moosefish]

Yeah okay 👍 I’ll trust guys that deal with this on a daily basis with over 25 years of experience than a board moderator

I've spent 20 years in the AF as a Bomber WSO and worked as a Nuc planner at Stratcom for 3 years. If your "guys" are telling you anything different than me, they're wrong.

 

[claydawg99]

I've spent 20 years in the AF as a Bomber WSO and worked as a Nuc planner at Stratcom for 3 years. If your "guys" are telling you anything different than me, they're wrong.

No one doubts your experience and thanks for your service but again I’ll listen to guys that are in the moment and literally sitting in the pentagon and the WH dealing with current events

 

[Moosefish]

I’ll listen to guys that are in the moment and literally sitting in the pentagon and the WH dealing with current events

 

[Moosefish]

Here's an article that adequately summarizes the problem with North Korea's artillery, as I discussed above. It certainly can't be solved quickly with the "press of a few buttons"

North Korea's Simple But Deadly Artillery Holds Seoul And U.S. Hostage

In a matter of minutes, these heavy, low-tech weapons could begin the destruction of the South Korean capital with blizzards of glass shards, collapsed buildings and massive casualties that would decimate this vibrant U.S. ally and send shock waves through the global economy.

“These perfectly positioned offensive artillery firing positions are virtually impenetrable, extremely difficult to take out by counterfire,” said retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales. “The terrain greatly favors the North, this arc of south-facing granite mountainsides just over the [Demilitarized Zone], in a position to pummel Seoul for weeks on end.” This leaves South Korea and the U.S. “with very little real capability to respond.”

If there is anybody that actually exists in the White House or Pentagon that is unaware of this problem or believes it's an issue that can be "neutered" quickly, they are absolute morons. This has been a well-known planning factor for years and hasn't changed.

 

[GeorgeWashingtonDawg]

Here's an article that adequately summarizes the problem with North Korea's artillery, as I discussed above. It certainly can't be solved quickly with the "press of a few buttons"

North Korea's Simple But Deadly Artillery Holds Seoul And U.S. Hostage





If there is anybody that actually exists in the White House or Pentagon that is unaware of this problem or believes it's an issue that can be "neutered" quickly, they are absolute morons. This has been a well-known planning factor for years and hasn't changed.

The book seems to jive with this article. The North Korea situation is something that I think a lot of people are very unaware of.

 

[Moosefish]

The book seems to jive with this article. The North Korea situation is something that I think a lot of people are very unaware of.

The other problem is the terrain. The effects of nuclear weapons are greatly hindered by things like mountains. We rely on accuracy vs. high yields. We simply don't throw megatons at targets.

We also care about fallout and collateral damage...which I know sounds weird in nuclear warfare, but it's a big concern.

If you're interested in this subject and want to play around with a pretty neat tool, check THIS out. Compare the presets of well-known yields and note the exponential differences that comes as you dial yields up and down. Then, compare it with a "low-yield" weapon from our arsenal (the 0.3 KT sub option).

We are much closer to an exchange of nuclear weapons than the public at-large believes, imo. I absolutely expect it to happen again in my lifetime. Especially as the Nuclear/Conventional Firebreak decreases, as discussed in THIS (really interesting).

Nuclear deterrence is the single most important job of the US military, as everything else (including diplomacy, assurance for our allies, etc.) is built off that foundation. It's unfortunate how few appreciate or understand that concept or the simple concepts of the nuclear mission, in general (which is a problem across the military, too).

 

[Moosefish]

We also care about fallout...

Simple explanation for anybody interested: The closer to the target (i.e. ground) that a nuclear yield occurs, the greater the probability of destruction. But, conversely, the more "radiated dirt/debris" (fallout) you throw up in the air, subject to be carried great distances (usually by wind) and potentially "radiating" places you don't want radiated (like allies or cities full of civilians).

There is a 'height of burst' where no fallout occurs, but it can greatly reduce the probability of destruction...depending on what the target is.

Thus, the conundrum of wanting a fallout-free yield, but target not destroyed vs. potential fallout & target likely destroyed. Finding the right balance between the two obviously a big deal.

 

[oldmandawg]

Humanity is both intelligent enough and dumb enough to create our own destruction

And it will happen one day, but on God's time-line.

 

[GeorgeWashingtonDawg]

Simple explanation for anybody interested: The closer to the target (i.e. ground) that a nuclear yield occurs, the greater the probability of destruction. But, conversely, the more "radiated dirt/debris" (fallout) you throw up in the air, subject to be carried great distances (usually by wind) and potentially "radiating" places you don't want radiated (like allies or cities full of civilians).

There is a 'height of burst' where no fallout occurs, but it can greatly reduce the probability of destruction...depending on what the target is.

Thus, the conundrum of wanting a fallout-free yield, but target not destroyed vs. potential fallout & target likely destroyed. Finding the right balance between the two obviously a big deal.

Do you think there is any such thing as a limited nuclear war? One thing the author mentions is that in every single scenario that was war gamed by Proud Prophet the end result was all the same.

Obviously that was performed at a different period of time than present (1983).

I appreciate your commentary on this subject. I’m not sure why but I find it absolutely fascinating.

 

[Moosefish]

Do you think there is any such thing as a limited nuclear war? One thing the author mentions is that in every single scenario that was war gamed by Proud Prophet the end result was all the same.

Obviously that was performed at a different period of time than present (1983).

I appreciate your commentary on this subject. I’m not sure why but I find it absolutely fascinating.

1. Absolutely, it's the most likely scenario. It's why Russia's fielding of low-yield weapons forced us to field low-yield options, too. The concept being that Russia would use the low-yield against an ally, but the US would be reluctant to respond in-kind out of a fear of escalation (escalation control is a very important concept/factor). The fact that we very recently fielded it as an option is a key deterrent against its use. We're all now safer, because of it.

I also can think of several scenarios where a country's single use of a weapon would lead to similar limited war in a mixed conventional/nuclear conflict designed to prevent escalation and/or further nuclear capability. Frankly, there are targets out there that could quickly be taken out w/ an accurate, lower-yield weapon that would be very difficult to neutralize via conventional means.

You can read more on Limited Nuclear War HERE. One of my favorite things about Nuclear Weapon academic writing is that even if you don't agree w/ all or any of an author's conclusions, the explanation of topics & concepts will almost always increase your total knowledge of the subject.

One of my favorite authors (I got to hear him speak at the USSTRATCOM Deterrence Symposium a few years ago) is Matthew Kroenig. Specifically, his The Logic of American Nuclear Strategy is very good.

2. How our plans are constructed has obviously changed a lot since 1983. The biggest change is the increase in nuclear-armed states, especially of the authoritarian variety. As described in the 'Nuclear/Conventional Firebreak" piece I linked above, the threat of losing power when faced with certain defeat is the most likely scenario of a nuclear exchange and why stopping nuclear proliferation is so important.


EDIT: I'll also add, there is a lot "out there" that you would assume the US would want to keep a secret, but we literally "advertise" to other countries (via treaty control). The US actually wants potential foes to know how we keep our arsenal safe, secure, & reliable because it increases deterrence and demonstrates commitment to the nuclear mission. In other words: you can find out a lot more than you might otherwise think you can, the more you look into the subject.

 

[Athens is Heaven]

No one doubts your experience and thanks for your service but again I’ll listen to guys that are in the moment and literally sitting in the pentagon and the WH dealing with current events

1. Absolutely, it's the most likely scenario. It's why Russia's fielding of low-yield weapons forced us to field low-yield options, too. The concept being that Russia would use the low-yield against an ally, but the US would be reluctant to respond in-kind out of a fear of escalation (escalation control is a very important concept/factor). The fact that we very recently fielded it as an option is a key deterrent against its use. We're all now safer, because of it.

I also can think of several scenarios where a country's single use of a weapon would lead to similar limited war in a mixed conventional/nuclear conflict designed to prevent escalation and/or further nuclear capability. Frankly, there are targets out there that could quickly be taken out w/ an accurate, lower-yield weapon that would be very difficult to neutralize via conventional means.

You can read more on Limited Nuclear War HERE. One of my favorite things about Nuclear Weapon academic writing is that even if you don't agree w/ all or any of an author's conclusions, the explanation of topics & concepts will almost always increase your total knowledge of the subject.

One of my favorite authors (I got to hear him speak at the USSTRATCOM Deterrence Symposium a few years ago) is Matthew Kroenig. Specifically, his The Logic of American Nuclear Strategy is very good.

2. How our plans are constructed has obviously changed a lot since 1983. The biggest change is the increase in nuclear-armed states, especially of the authoritarian variety. As described in the 'Nuclear/Conventional Firebreak" piece I linked above, the threat of losing power when faced with certain defeat is the most likely scenario of a nuclear exchange and why stopping nuclear proliferation is so important.


EDIT: I'll also add, there is a lot "out there" that you would assume the US would want to keep a secret, but we literally "advertise" to other countries (via treaty control). The US actually wants potential foes to know how we keep our arsenal safe, secure, & reliable because it increases deterrence and demonstrates commitment to the nuclear mission. In other words: you can find out a lot more than you might otherwise think you can, the more you look into the subject.

I used to think that the US had secretly developed weapons that we knew nothing about. I still believe that to a certain extent. Used to make me feel more secure thinking that.

 

[Utley1992]

I used to think that the US had secretly developed weapons that we knew nothing about. I still believe that to a certain extent. Used to make me feel more secure thinking that.

There is definitely stuff that is undisclosed, but I doubt there is anything mind blowing. A lot of current day efforts is all cyber warfare. And I know that there is stuff that we do that the public doesn't know about. Mostly just poking at China and Russia's security systems

 

[Athens is Heaven]

There is definitely stuff that is undisclosed, but I doubt there is anything mind blowing. A lot of current day efforts is all cyber warfare. And I know that there is stuff that we do that the public doesn't know about. Mostly just poking at China and Russia's security systems

I used to believe that we had secretly developed some type of laser weapon and I believe we are working on one.

 

[Utley1992]

I used to believe that we had secretly developed some type of laser weapon and I believe we are working on one.

I desperately want laser weapons. Lol


But if I had to guess, most of the stuff underwraps is stuff like drone technology

 

[GeorgeWashingtonDawg]

There is definitely stuff that is undisclosed, but I doubt there is anything mind blowing. A lot of current day efforts is all cyber warfare. And I know that there is stuff that we do that the public doesn't know about. Mostly just poking at China and Russia's security systems

There just isn’t really a lot that can be done to shoot down a missile traveling at 15,000 mph is there?

 

[Utley1992]

There just isn’t really a lot that can be done to shoot down a missile traveling at 15,000 mph is there?

I'm not the one to ask. @Moosefish would be better equipped for harder specifics

 

[Moosefish]

There just isn’t really a lot that can be done to shoot down a missile traveling at 15,000 mph is there?

I'm not the one to ask. @Moosefish would be better equipped for harder specifics

Can it maneuver in-flight? Speed is ultimately irrelevant, if you can predict where it will be. That's the key. Bring that in mass, it's always a problem, regardless. But, if you bring mass against us, be prepared for the big stick. Nobody wins, then.

 

[Moosefish]

I used to think that the US had secretly developed weapons that we knew nothing about. I still believe that to a certain extent. Used to make me feel more secure thinking that.

There is definitely stuff that is undisclosed, but I doubt there is anything mind blowing. A lot of current day efforts is all cyber warfare. And I know that there is stuff that we do that the public doesn't know about. Mostly just poking at China and Russia's security systems

I think DARPA is constantly working on all kind of cool concepts & ideas. I also think that anything that's going to be widely fielded in any significant way is going to become public knowledge sooner than later, mostly due to $$.

 

[Utley1992]

Can it maneuver in-flight? Speed is ultimately irrelevant, if you can predict where it will be. That's the key. Bring that in mass, it's always a problem, regardless. But, if you bring mass against us, be prepared for the big stick. Nobody wins, then.

That makes sense. It's just math at that point. How many rockets out there have unpredictable patterns? You would think something traveling at a distance like that would have to follow a basic linear-ish path

 

[Moosefish]

That makes sense. It's just math at that point. How many rockets out there have unpredictable patterns? You would think something traveling at a distance like that would have to follow a basic linear-ish path

That's the problem with hypersonic weapons, right now. They don't have ballistic paths and can maneuver at non-predictable points.

There are some weaknesses with them, but it's an emerging problem.

 

[NedRacineDawg]

Moosefish, as bad a moderator as you have been in selecting which posts to sanction, I do appreciate your input in this thread and respect your knowledge. I never realized that these idiots in the Pentagon have nuanced the nuclear war scenario to this degree,

Hope it is better thought out than their Iraq and Afghanistan game plans.

 

[Moosefish]

Moosefish, as bad a moderator as you have been in selecting which posts to sanction, I do appreciate your input in this thread and respect your knowledge. I never realized that these idiots in the Pentagon have nuanced the nuclear war scenario to this degree,

Hope it is better thought out than their Iraq and Afghanistan game plans.

There are some really big brains that think about Nuclear Deterrence/Nuclear Policy on a daily basis. It just doesn't get a lot of attention.

You should see the "new" STRATCOM HQ. It's amazing.

 

[doerunn]

I used to believe that we had secretly developed some type of laser weapon and I believe we are working on one.