Nuclear Weapons & War Discussion Thread

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

A while ago on /k/, there was this one tripfag named Oppenheimer (Not to be confused with J. Robert Oppenheimer). Someone with actual security clearance around the use of nuclear weapons who would discuss nuclear war with the members of /k/ between 2013 and 2018. He would conduct wargames, give clarification about questions on things such as nuclear weapons and how they worked, how certain countries would use nuclear weapons in differing scenarios, etc. This was until he was almost doxed by some zoomer faggots who thought he was full of shit.

The point of this thread nonetheless is to recapture that atmosphere to whatever extent possible. It's very unlikely someone with security clearance will sign up to the forum to talk about nuclear weapons and nuclear strategy with forum users due to how negative the site's reputation is, and that's pretty disappointing. However, we can nonetheless look through declassified documents, discuss our findings, and speculate.

 

[Toji Suzuhara]

Obligatory Moscow Metro-2 mention

https://www.outono.net/elentir/2023/02/22/d-6-the-images-of-a-mysterious-metro-network-that-runs-through-moscow-at-great-depth/

 

[Jewthulhu]

Nuclear strategy is my autistic interest. It honestly started with reading posts from Oppenheimer and realizing that nuclear strategy was more complex than just hitting cities (though if I can criticize Oppenheimer for one thing, he tends to put a little too much weight on counterforce as a winning strategy). I read one of the books he recommended (On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century) and went down a rabbithole from there.

I guess all this is to say I'm more than willing to answer questions and talk strategy.

P.S. I already made a nuclear thread

Obligatory Moscow Metro-2 mention

https://www.outono.net/elentir/2023/02/22/d-6-the-images-of-a-mysterious-metro-network-that-runs-through-moscow-at-great-depth/

It's really a shame the US didn't invest more in civil defenses. They're really not as destabilizing as the cult around MAD made them out to be.

 

[Jewthulhu]

American, English and French weapons are well maintained for various reasons BUT are maintained at full functionality, Russian an Soviet weapons where not designed like that they where focused on numbers and for a small number kill power, They have since the fall of the USSR not maintained there reactors with known long known flaws, if there was a nuclear exachange We'd end up blowing a few citys and in a generation or two are inhabitable.

Post-Soviet Russia's invested heavily into their nuclear/rocket forces.

Soviet weapons are dirty, an while they might be able to reach critical mass they come bearing gists that stick around, and persist for generations level of pollution

Russian/Soviet weapons are "dirtier" than western weapons because they invested more into megatonnage.

Russia has some functional IBMS but not many but what it does have is short range deliverable by bomber weapons hat are easyer to maintain

Russia has the largest ICBM force in the world. It's many times larger than their gravity-bomb stockpile.

and if you want to deploy as a dirty bomb.

Dirty bombs have little strategic value. And that's not even the advantage of gravity bombs.

 

[Falcos_Commisar]

Nuclear strategy is my autistic interest. It honestly started with reading posts from Oppenheimer and realizing that nuclear strategy was more complex than just hitting cities (though if I can criticize Oppenheimer for one thing, he tends to put a little too much weight on counterforce as a winning strategy). I read one of the books he recommended (On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century) and went down a rabbithole from there.

I guess all this is to say I'm more than willing to answer questions and talk strategy.

P.S. I already made a nuclear thread


It's really a shame the US didn't invest more in civil defenses. They're really not as destabilizing as the cult around MAD made them out to be.

Oppenheimer almost certainly worked at RAND or similar or MAYBE even Sandia

Similar to the guy posting on Alt history. Net or ff.net writing about Angles and Demons invading in.... 2010/2011 I think and absolutely SUCKING OFF General Patraeus.

As for nukes, these days a first use would probably lead to turbo sanctions from the West and probable indifferent from the East (except Japan)

 

[Jewthulhu]

As for nukes, these days a first use would probably lead to turbo sanctions from the West and probable indifferent from the East (except Japan)

Probably. Of the three biggest risks for first use (North Korea, Pakistan, and Russia), only Pakistan isn't being heavily sanctioned already. Nuclear use would completely cut Pakistan off from the west (among other consequences). As for the East, China is outwardly strong on nuclear nonuse, but I suspect realpolitik would win out and they'd stay silent if one of their allies were to use the bomb.

That's not to mention military consequences. Because any nuclear use would force a response, conventional or otherwise.

 

[Flatline]

Nuclear War: A Scenario is worth reading.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

Nuclear War: A Scenario is worth reading.

According to one of the nuclear strategy & doctrine experts that I've been in brief contact with, the scenario presented in the book is extremely flawed at best and out right retarded at worst. For one it handwaves Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense entirely. Not just THAAD, but also AEGIS, Patriot, and Ground-Based Interceptor. The experts that were consulted were specifically Arms Control experts who have an agenda in getting rid of nuclear weapons. She did not consult people who worked on or were familiar with the ins and outs of ballistic missile defense or even war planners. You know, the people who's job it is to plan for a nuclear war.

The scenario itself is retarded. North Korea parks a Soviet Era Diesel powered ballistic submarine around 200-300 miles off the coast of California. For those who don't know, diesel powered submarines especially ones using specs from the 60s or 70s are very loud and can be picked up by sonar. The fact that submarine wasn't detected or destroyed in the Sea of Japan by the Japanese, South Korean, or even the US Navy is also a massive issue. If a US Navy observatory in Maine was able to hear an implosion. On top of that, this doesn't even account for the US Satellite Network that could pick up any ICBM launches, the way that South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, or Australia would respond. There's no mention of US Military bases outside of the US in the book. Not a single mention of Guam, Okinawa, or our bases in South Korea, Japan, and the Philippines. There's one mention of an Air Base being hit with chemical weapons and that's it. The Pentagon, Capitol, and the White House are wiped out and it is believed the US would be unable to function. This is despite the various contingency plans and the fact that various bases could act on their own.

There is a whole fuck ton of issues with the book as a whole. Annie Jacobson really fucked up in her writing of the book and the scenario as a whole, it's so negative to the point where it might as well be fear porn. From the international diplomacy side, to the military doctrine side the entire god damn book is a fuck fest of retardation.

 

[Jewthulhu]

For people who don't mind "technical" reading, here's a really interesting inside look into nuclear planning (from the early Carter administration). This is a series of documents, memos, and meetings that lead up to the signature of PD-59, which was designed to give the president more flexibility outside the SIOP during a nuclear incident.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb390/

 

[♦️ King of Diamonds ♦️]

Call me a bit conspiratorial but I don't believe nukes are real... I figure if they were real Pakistan and India would have gone at it by now.

 

[WinchesterWhiskey]

I'll just wait in Mount Yamantau. Nothing bad happens in there, right?

 

[Jewthulhu]

There's a scenario that I've been toying with in my head and I'd like to see how people here would respond (if this thread isn't too dead).

In short:
Let's say there is a conventional war between red and blue. Both sides are major nuclear superpowers. During the war, red uses a single low yield nuclear weapon against a major blue military asset (logistics hub, airbase, etc.). How should blue respond?

 

[ChefBourgeoisie]

I do not have security clearance. I only watch this shit from afar. I thought we had put this shit to bed decades ago, back when I graduated high school in the early 1990s. The only possible nuclear war left was supposed to be India vs. Pakistan, a limited exchange before China and the other more distant superpowers stepped in and put things to rest.

But every presidential administration since the 1990s has been wishy-washy, acting as if they might not go full-psycho on anyone who dared to hint they might try a first strike. So not Russia's getting uppity, and other shithole coutries are staring at them admiringly.

How should blue respond?

Blue should end the world. But, Blue needs to make this very clear months and years in advance that not only will they do it, they'll feel as if they have no choice but to do so and do it quickly. Before 6 hours has passed. Convince everyone (not just Red) that it's not fucking around, that nothing will be left as a prize of the other side.

Red should do the same. None of us should yearn to live in a world where tactical nuclear weapon use is normalized.

 

[Jewthulhu]

But every presidential administration since the 1990s has been wishy-washy, acting as if they might not go full-psycho on anyone who dared to hint they might try a first strike. So not Russia's getting uppity, and other shithole coutries are staring at them admiringly.

I agree and disagree. I think nuclear policy has dangerously fallen to the wayside since the end of the Cold War, and that the US needs to take a far, far more assertive stance. But I also suspect the other half of the issue is not having limited war options. Without the ability to credibly deter limited escalation, the question of "would America commit suicide over a limited strike" becomes very pressing.

Blue should end the world. But, Blue needs to make this very clear months and years in advance that not only will they do it, they'll feel as if they have no choice but to do so and do it quickly. Before 6 hours has passed. Convince everyone (not just Red) that it's not fucking around, that nothing will be left as a prize of the other side.

Red should do the same. None of us should yearn to live in a world where tactical nuclear weapon use is normalized.

I get the argument for maximum deterrence. Nuclear weapon use should never be normalized and any use necessitates harsh retaliation for the continuation of deterrence. And I think the consequences for employment must be made clear from the start. But again, I'm skeptical of the credibility of threatening MAD over the single use of a tactical nuclear weapon. The reason I would imagine red would deploy a single TNW in this scenario is because they feel that blue does not have a credible, effective response.

I personally see the question as a conflict between deterrence, proportionality/credibility, and effectiveness. I have yet to see a way to balance all three.

 

[Thel]

There's a scenario that I've been toying with in my head and I'd like to see how people here would respond (if this thread isn't too dead).

In short:
Let's say there is a conventional war between red and blue. Both sides are major nuclear superpowers. During the war, red uses a single low yield nuclear weapon against a major blue military asset (logistics hub, airbase, etc.). How should blue respond?

The use of a single nuclear weapon against a logistical structure is unlikely. Nuclear weapons, if they were ever used in a tactical sense, would have several deployed at a time. If I remember correctly, early cold war western doctrine actually involved the deployment of multiple tactical nukes, not against logistical targets, but to simply wipe entire sections of an advancing enemy frontline off the map.

That being said, if in your scenario a single weapon were used between powers, I would assume things would escalate very quickly with several more being used withing days, and eventually either total nuclear war, or the negotiatiated end of the war. Once nukes start coming into play, the concern of MAD stopa becoming a concern, and more of an obligation. "Oh, you nuked me? You can't get away with that! I'll nuke you!".
I back this up with the fact that the United States changed our first strike nuclear policy to allow for first strikes when hypersonic weapons were introduced in Ukraine. The concern was instantly nuking the enemy before they nuke us, since the enemy had the upper hand for a while.

 

[Gruntgar The Indentured]

"How to Make War (Fourth Edition): A Comprehensive Guide to Modern Warfare in the Twenty-first Century" by James F Dunnigan is a good read on modern warfare. I gave my first edition copy to a USMC recruiter in the 80's and he really enjoyed it.
​

 

[Bummer]

So here is something that has kept me up at night and I'm curious if I'm just retarded. I really wish we had road mobile weapons as our ground leg of the triad. If we were to go straight fisticuffs the first swing the other guy is going to make is at our silos. Our silos that are in the bread basket of our country. And what's more, they are going to be trying to dig those fuckers up when they do it so all of those shots are going to be deep ground bursts kicking up ungodly amounts of fallout. Again, directly in the heart of the country. The only practical reason I can see not to go mobile is range, other than that I have to assume we don't do it mainly because it would give people bad feels seeing a 1.2 megaton bomb rolling up I95 on occasion. Are we really that retarded to risk any survivability to or am I retarded wanting road mobile bombs?

 

[Jewthulhu]

So here is something that has kept me up at night and I'm curious if I'm just retarded. I really wish we had road mobile weapons as our ground leg of the triad. If we were to go straight fisticuffs the first swing the other guy is going to make is at our silos. Our silos that are in the bread basket of our country. And what's more, they are going to be trying to dig those fuckers up when they do it so all of those shots are going to be deep ground bursts kicking up ungodly amounts of fallout. Again, directly in the heart of the country. The only practical reason I can see not to go mobile is range, other than that I have to assume we don't do it mainly because it would give people bad feels seeing a 1.2 megaton bomb rolling up I95 on occasion. Are we really that retarded to risk any survivability to or am I retarded wanting road mobile bombs?

From what I can find there's no technical reason not to go road-mobile. There was a "best of both worlds" rail garrison system (that would have shuttled ICBMs around silos underground), but that was scrapped due to budget after the collapse of the USSR.

As for some reasons for why the US didn't/doesn't switch:

1. States that field ICBMs get a massive kickback from the fed, plus an influx of jobs. Senators from those states constantly vote against any proposal of reducing silo-based forces.

2. The US has been slacking on its nuclear forces since the collapse of the USSR (or more accurately, since Reagan). There's a recent modernization program going on, and some thinktanks have proposed including road-mobile systems as part of that, but so far there's been no word that their proposals are being taken into consideration.

3. Budget. There's been more slack recently in the budget for nuclear modernization, but it'll still take a lot of money and R&D to develop a road-mobile system on top of all the other shit being worked on.

4. The Trident II SLBM and our nuclear submarines are really fucking good. Most of our nuclear inventory is actually in SLBMs, and there has been talk about going from a triad to a dyad for that reason (though that proposal went nowhere).

5. Silos can be useful in themselves to "eat up" the enemy's nuclear inventory. Hardening means that it takes a decent amount of overkill to take them out reliably, potentially taking bombs away from other targets.

6. Probably less of a consideration, but the US is the only country with a robust counterforce strategy. N.Korea (or Iran) will never rival the US arsenal, China still has a minimum viable deterrent, and AFAIK Russia prioritizes countervalue targeting. In other words, cities are a bigger target than silos for these countries.

 

[Dawdler]

So here is something that has kept me up at night and I'm curious if I'm just retarded. I really wish we had road mobile weapons as our ground leg of the triad. If we were to go straight fisticuffs the first swing the other guy is going to make is at our silos. Our silos that are in the bread basket of our country. And what's more, they are going to be trying to dig those fuckers up when they do it so all of those shots are going to be deep ground bursts kicking up ungodly amounts of fallout. Again, directly in the heart of the country. The only practical reason I can see not to go mobile is range, other than that I have to assume we don't do it mainly because it would give people bad feels seeing a 1.2 megaton bomb rolling up I95 on occasion. Are we really that retarded to risk any survivability to or am I retarded wanting road mobile bombs?

Silos will be rendered defunct even by a 100kgTNT bomb falling in vicinity.
Missiles are very sensitive to shock and in event of attack you can count a significant number will get taken out.
There is also secondary use of nuclear weapons in space to provide enough EMP and radiation to disable warheads or in case of previous designs, detonate them with proximate explosion. (Sympathetic nuclear detonation)

Bombs are flown by air simply because it's easier and more secure.
There is no winning in nuclear war. The first side that fires, looses. Either you go all in or do nothing and everyone picked nothing so far.

 

[The Dude]

I've mentioned this several times when articles are posted about Russia making threats, but I have serious doubts about Russia's nuclear arsenal. Hydrogen bombs require a LOT of upkeep and their tritium needs to be replaced every decade or so because it has a short half-life. Tritium is very expensive and difficult to produce in large amounts. That's why tritium sights for firearms are so expensive. It's one of the most expensive materials known, and thermonuclear weapons need quite a bit of it. Not to mention the other systems on nuclear warheads that need maintenance.

And then there's the missiles themselves. Both liquid and solid fueled rockets require a lot of upkeep. Solid fuel motors break down over time. Liquid fuels can be corrosive and need their tanks relined/replaced. Guidance systems need calibration. Circuits and relays need to be checked. If we have learned anything about Russia during its war in Ukraine, it's that they are really rather terrible at keeping everything in prime operational condition, or even serviceable condition. And that's before even discussing the corruption problem and the fact that a LOT of Russian weapons and equipment tends to find itself sold off to make Comrade Major Corruptovitch and Private Kelptokov some extra spending cash.

And then there's a problem that both Russia and the US are facing: all the people who designed and built the current weapons are all either dead or little old men in retirement homes. I remember reading within the past couple years that the US lost how to make a specific kind of aerogel important to US thermonuclear weapons designs because it was so top secret that the recipe for making it was never written down and there was no one around any longer who remembered how to make it. I'm sure Russia is facing similar issues. And then there's the problem of Brain Drain in Russia. All the people intelligent enough to be in these fields have fucked-off out of Russia to countries where they can get better money. And that's not just the nuclear weapons fields, but all military technology fields from basic weapons designs all the way up to aerospace.

And then there's the sheer expense of not only designing new warheads and delivery systems like Sarmat II or bombers, but maintaining the old Soviet era stockpiles. Russia has thousands of warheads in their arsenal, all of which need maintenance and upkeep. Same with the delivery systems. Russia's economy hasn't been that great since the Iron Curtain fell. Has every warhead and every missile and every bomber received the time and money it required to stay operational?

I personally think Russia has not kept it's nuclear arsenal maintained. I'm sure they've maintained what they could, but I highly doubt every warhead and missile are ready to be launched. My gut tells me that maybe they have as many warheads and delivery systems as China, so a few hundred or so, that are ready and operational. I think they know this and it scares them, which is why they are so ready to make nuclear threats. I think Russia is insecure about their nuclear readiness and overcompensate by threatening to use nukes at every minor provocation, hoping to frighten any nuclear adversary from attacking because they know they can't fully retaliate and would receive way worse than they can give back.