|
VikingSkull posted:Seconding Threads. It's a horrifying movie. Blast protection might work if one bomb goes off. More accurate now.
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:14 |
|
NosmoKing posted:More accurate now. I think I mentioned it in the thread already but the amount of fratricide that would have occured before they got SIOP sorted out was hilarious.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
NosmoKing posted:More accurate now. I figured it was that high, just wasn't sure. I always chuckled when it's mentioned that the Soviets had better civil defense than the US, like herding them deep underground in a train station was somehow a better survival prospect. The first 24 hours, sure, but I don't want to be around after that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 04:33
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I figured it was that high, just wasn't sure. I always chuckled when it's mentioned that the Soviets had better civil defense than the US, like herding them deep underground in a train station was somehow a better survival prospect. That's the civil defense plan in Seoul. The subway stations are DEEP, hugely deep, with a lot of open space for people to gather in. Except for the fact that Seoul is utterly and completely hosed if stuff does happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 05:56
|
|
|
could someone do a write up/ point some links that talk about the navy's plan? from reading Tom Clancy and a few other books the Atlantic side seemed to be protect the carriers, stop the Russians at the guik gap, counter attack as needed. but what about the Med and the Pacific? if nukes were going to be chucked fast and loose early were carrier groups going to respond to bomber formations or surface groups with nukes too? and not to put too fine a point but if the nukes do fly and there is a ship or submarine that survives the exchange, was there even a plan or reccomendation? or did plans really stop at like, step #30: congratulations, you've started global thermonuclear war; kiss your rear end goodbye?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 07:18
|
|
|
Karl_moebius posted:could someone do a write up/ point some links that talk about the navy's plan? from reading Tom Clancy and a few other books the Atlantic side seemed to be protect the carriers, stop the Russians at the guik gap, counter attack as needed. but what about the Med and the Pacific? if nukes were going to be chucked fast and loose early were carrier groups going to respond to bomber formations or surface groups with nukes too? and not to put too fine a point but if the nukes do fly and there is a ship or submarine that survives the exchange, was there even a plan or reccomendation? or did plans really stop at like, step #30: congratulations, you've started global thermonuclear war; kiss your rear end goodbye? Too late to do a full blown write up, but in order...the war in Western Europe would be won or lost in the North Atlantic, so all that other stuff (protect the carriers, close the G-I-UK gap, etc) was all so merchant convoys could get from the U.S. to Western Europe. If the Soviets could close the Atlantic, the war would be over pretty quickly. Reforger would allow troops to flow to be mated with the prepo equipment, but there weren't enough consumables (ammo and POL) prepo'd in Europe for the war to go on more than a week or two without resupply from the U.S. The role of the Navy in the Med was to keep the Black Sea fleet bottled up as well as preserve Sea Lines of Communication (SLOCs) along NATO's southern flank (mostly Turkey and Greece, as well as Italy). In the Pacific it really depended on what was going on...best case, the war would be kept localized to Europe and the Navy would just do deterrence operations to support U.S. allies in the region without having to use force. Worst case, the Navy would keep SLOCs open to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan while providing support for other operations (Defense of Taiwan, Defense of South Korea, etc.) Another big role to consider for the Navy was keeping the Straits of Hormuz open and the oil flowing. Without POL, it would be a pretty short war. It was assumed that the weapons used to strike CVBGs with conventional weapons (air launched and sub launched cruise missiles as well as sub launched torpedoes) would be used to deliver nuclear weapons as well. This is part of the reason why carrier defense was such a big deal...while letting any missiles through would be bad if they were armed with conventional warheads, a conventional warhead leaking through and severely damaging a Tico or, worst case, the carrier is small potatoes compared to one nuclear tipped missile leaking through and taking out the entire CVBG. The only major surface threat posed by the Soviets would be the Kirov class battlecruiser, whose primary offensive weapon are Shipwreck antiship cruise missiles, which would have been armed with nuclear warheads at the time. I don't know as far as Navy plans for after we execute the Whether this was realistic is left up to the reader. Regarding the effects of nuclear weapons and Threads...I've mentioned it before, but the "Guide to Armageddon" (part 1 is here) is well worth a watch. It's also done by Mick Jackson and is the "textbook" to Threads' "novel." The first half is about the effects of nuclear weapons, both on structures and humans. It is coldly instructive. The second half is all about taking the U.K.'s civil defense recommendations and putting them into practice. Short version: unless you a) have a plot of land big enough (unlikely in the city), b) have the money to pay someone to come out and do serious excavation and construction for a no poo poo shelter and c) have the money to provision said shelter for the amount of time necessary for the radiation/fallout to lower, there's really no point. Failing that the best case scenario is if you have at least a few day's warning you can carve out a slit trench and live a miserable existence for the few weeks it will take for the fallout to settle, and you might survive provided you are far enough away from ground zero (unlikely if you are in any sort of built up area where there will be multiple warheads striking); worst case scenario your structure is able to deal with the thermal pulse without instantly bursting into flames, and you're okay...for the 16 seconds it takes for the blast wave to hit and blow your house apart with 300 mph winds. And even then, you've still got the whole "coming above ground to a completely destroyed radioactive wasteland" thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 08:44
|
|
|
Karl_moebius posted:if the nukes do fly and there is a ship or submarine that survives the exchange, was there even a plan or reccomendation? or did plans really stop at like, step #30: congratulations, you've started global thermonuclear war; kiss your rear end goodbye? There was a training film for this scenario made in 1959 featuring Gregory Peck and Fred Astaire.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 08:48
|
|
|
The Proc posted:There was a training film for this scenario made in 1959 featuring Gregory Peck and Fred Astaire. Heh, I thought about that as soon as the question came up but forgot to mention it. In case you don't get the reference. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Aug 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 08:54
|
|
|
Karl_moebius posted:or did plans really stop at like, step #30: congratulations, you've started global thermonuclear war; kiss your rear end goodbye? An interesting twist on this is the British concept of the Letter of Last Resort, which is a secret letter hand signed by the Prime Minister, sealed in an envelope and delivered to each captain of a nuclear submarine departing for a patrol. The letter is locked in a vault, and contains the manner of conduct to be followed by the Captain should all official functions of the Government cease to exist. In essence, the Letter of Last Resort is the final act of the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Only the prime minister knows the contents, as they are destroyed upon a change of government, but likely they contain orders to attack a pre-set group of targets, as well as orders to report to the Navy of a surviving government and offer services upon mission completion. Do US ballistic submarines have a similar deterrent mechanism?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 09:52
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:I don't know as far as Navy plans for after we execute the Looking up SIOP on Wikipedia let me to a great article on Slate. It's not AIRPOWER, but it's plenty Cold War.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
Also: more pictures of the T-50 here: http://warfare.ru/?catid=255&linkid=2280 and huge: http://www.airliners.net/photo/Russia---Air/Sukhoi-T-50/1968186/L/&sid=d000a138ac35790f79a37a6e7524728d I thought the YF-22/23 looked pretty, but they make some pretty pretty planes. I have this image (because of Red Storm Rising) that in the atlantic carrier groups supported by land based assets would look like two boxers fighting, with movement and misdirection playing an important part. The Med isn't all that large to begin with, and they're trying to keep the Black Fleet bottled? Dear god, that would be a slugging match with conventional weapons, with nuclear weapons, ick. I dunno if you've read this but, Gorbachev talking about the fall of the Soviet Union http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/16/gorbachev-guardian-interview Karl_moebius fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Aug 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 15:12
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:An interesting twist on this is the British concept of the Letter of Last Resort, which is a secret letter hand signed by the Prime Minister, sealed in an envelope and delivered to each captain of a nuclear submarine departing for a patrol. The letter is locked in a vault, and contains the manner of conduct to be followed by the Captain should all official functions of the Government cease to exist. "PS - Save one for Belfast"
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 16:28
|
|
|
This article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7758000/7758347.stm gives the response of one PM and one 'alternate decision-taker' I do find fascinating the stark difference in mindset between the civilians writing pieces about 'what would happen' and the missileers who they are interviewing when I surf through articles about nuclear weapons and the servicepeople involved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 17:50
|
|
|
Are you a Fulda Gap Commie tank? Maybe a Scud? Or are you on the wrong end of some CAS? I made a GIF for you:
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 19:32
|
|
|
Ygolonac posted:"PS - Save one for Belfast" I think if it came to a full exchange then most neutrals would get hit. The Brits would likely pop one on Argentina for old times sake. The letter to sub commanders under Thatcher was meant to simply say 'Strike Back'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 20:22
|
|
Baconroll posted:I think if it came to a full exchange then most neutrals would get hit. The Brits would likely pop one on Argentina for old times sake. PS- Avenge Yorktown!
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 20:27
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:PS- Avenge Yorktown! PPS avenge the BOER war
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
Flikken posted:PPS avenge the BOER war PPPS- Alliances will come and go, but the French will always be French.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 21:18
|
|
|
Sexual Lorax posted:PPPS- Alliances will come and go, but the French will always be French. PPPPS - Wogs begin at Calais.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
Ygolonac posted:PPPPS - Wogs begin at Calais. PPPPPS - Avenge Lord Mountbatten
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
Pigsfeet on Rye posted:PPPPPS - Avenge Lord Mountbatten PPPPPPS - Avenge the harrowing of the north
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 01:17
|
|
|
Sexual Lorax posted:Looking up SIOP on Wikipedia let me to a great article on Slate. It's not AIRPOWER, but it's plenty Cold War. Lesson #2: Rationality will not save us.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 01:49
|
|
|
Nuclear war game theory is fine and dandy until you realize that a human life is a pretty valuable commodity.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 10:13
|
|
|
It boggles my mind that the Plan had an appendix for "after total global nuclear war, return in case of needed sequel" And how fast was the expected speed between: storm of soviet tanks through fulda gap -> use of tactical nuclear weapons -> (some interim step) -> wide scale use of strategic nuclear weapons -> a million years later cockroaches evolve and colonize Mars. I ask because I would love to hear that someone would stop and think, diplomats would work things out, and someone wouldn't take the next evolutionary step and destroy everything. It also boggles my mind that I constantly still think in terms of US/Russia when I think of "nuclear exchange", followed by scenes from Mad Max (the second one), but India and Pakistan have nukes if they started incinerating each other via nuclear fire they wouldn't kill every living organism on the planet by themselves. I think?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2011 23:24
|
|
|
Hey iyaayas, one of my BFFs is a pilot at TransNorthern if you ever have interest in getting up close with one of the rare Super DC-3s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 01:04
|
|
|
Karl_moebius posted:And how fast was the expected speed between: While any ideas about what a U.S.-Soviet war would look like are all theoretical, as previously mentioned in the thread up until the '80s NATO doctrine involved the use of tactical nuclear weapons early and often in the event of a Soviet mechanized invasion. So "Soviet tanks roll through the Fulda Gap -> use of tactical nuclear weapons" would be pretty much automatic. The problem here is that the likely Soviet retaliatory measure would be intermediate theater level Soviet nuclear strikes on NATO bases in the rear (airbases, depots, stuff like that) and would probably involve strikes on major cities, possibly even European capitals...this would likely be within hours of NATO tactical strikes. At this point, there would be very large pressure on the US to initiate a strategic strike, due to the tens of millions of dead Europeans and the whole pesky "Article V/'an armed attack on one is an armed attack on all'" thing, not to mention the fact that both the U.K. and France possess an independent deterrent and NATO also (at the time) possessed a large number of theater nuclear weapons capable of reaching into Russia proper and striking Moscow. So really the only way a war in Europe didn't lead directly to a strategic nuclear conflict within a matter of hours was if NATO was able to stop the Soviets relatively early and the conflict devolved into a stalemate before anyone used tactical nukes (basically the scenario in Red Storm Rising). As for India and Pakistan, no, they don't possess enough nukes to destroy the world, and any exchange would more than likely be localized since neither side has intercontinental delivery vehicles (no real reason for them to have them since they are right next to each other, and India's other big rival, China, is also right next door). The problem here is that the amount of dirt thrown up into the atmosphere from a limited Indo-Pakistani nuclear exchange would still have a significant effect on the worldwide climate. Some estimates I've seen call for around an additional billion deaths worldwide due to issues with agriculture/food production/etc...not too mention two extremely densely populated countries having a nuclear exchange. SyHopeful posted:Hey iyaayas, one of my BFFs is a pilot at TransNorthern if you ever have interest in getting up close with one of the rare Super DC-3s. Cool, I might have to take your friend up on that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 04:52
|
|
|
Most scenarios I've ever read about usually have the time from Fulda Gap to strategic nukes at a week or less, with the tactical to strategic switch taking about 36 hours. There's so many variables, though, it's hard to tell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 20:54
|
|
|
Britain's Cold War.jpg: Vulcan B.2 and TSR.2 taken from a Concorde.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
Lobster God posted:Britain's Cold War.jpg: What is that A-5 looking aircraft?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
SyHopeful posted:What is that A-5 looking aircraft? Like he said, TSR.2. Cancelled '60s era British supersonic strike and reconnaissance aircraft...roughly the U.K. equivalent to the Canadian Arrow in terms of cancelling a well performing project for political reasons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 23:42
|
|
|
Avro Arrow 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2011 23:53
|
|
|
mikerock posted:Avro Arrow  But hey, on a positive note you guys got some of your heritage back the other day. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Aug 21, 2011 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
It's all a ploy to get Kate over to christen any new ships 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 01:16
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Like he said, TSR.2. Cancelled '60s era British supersonic strike and reconnaissance aircraft...roughly the U.K. equivalent to the Canadian Arrow in terms of cancelling a well performing project for political reasons.  doh
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 02:04
|
|
|
I still say the Avrocar cancellation was the greatest tragedy in Canadian Aerospace:  
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 04:33
|
|
|
priznat posted:I still say the Avrocar cancellation was the greatest tragedy in Canadian Aerospace:  (Cropped because I don't know how to do masking in GIMP).
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 06:00
|
|
|
Their rims even rrrroll up!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 06:44
|
|
|
1955 was SO CUTE. I just want to pinch its cheeks and say "mama knows child, mama knows."
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 07:40
|
|
|
    Lockheed l-1011The plane who, with help from the oil crisis and some badly timed airline bankruptcies, ended Lockheed's involvement in civil aviation. Sort of the friendly cute cousin of the c-5 Here's a video fo the c-5 dropping a minuteman missile that ignites and flies away http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96A0wb1Ov9k I hope no one's posted it already
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 08:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:14 |
|
|
WEREWAIF posted:Here's a video fo the c-5 dropping a minuteman missile that ignites and flies away This is awesome. I wish my dumps would ignite and fly away too.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2011 08:34
|
|