Could the US win a nuclear war if it went full retard?

>>30958345
Sure.
It could also lose one.

>>30958345
As long as the pussy Western politicians don't worry about "civilian casualities". The enemy could win with their brutality.

>>30958643
Tell me, Opp since someone posted it yesterday.

Are ICBM and SLBMs only capable of being used on specific preprogrammed (as in programmed when made, not before launch) targets?

>>30958345

Against Russia, NO.
Against anyone else, YES.

>>30958674
As they sit, US ballistic missiles have preloaded targets. Supposedly, the current target is in the middle of the ocean, as per the Moscow Declaration of January 1994. I am not sure if this is still the case. Or if it ever really was. In any case, it really doesn't matter and is largely symbolic. The reason for this is that the ICBM LCC has several preset targeting options that are aligned with the Major Attack Options.

When the crew receives a launch order, the process of launching the missiles can involve the changing of the preloaded target to a new one, but this can take a few minutes. This can be an eternity in the time frame of a nuclear war.

In reality, even if the missiles are still aimed at spots in the middle of the ocean, in the run up to an exchange, it is assumed that there will be a crisis (bolt from the blue nuclear attacks are not very likely). During this crisis, the missiles will likely be retargeted ahead of time, and given multiple preloaded targets that correspond with the probably attack options.

So in an attack, the President can say "Regular" or "Extra Crispy" and there will be no need to send new targets to the missiles. the crews just enter the code on their cookies and that tells the missile which of its available targets to select.

The exact number of preloaded targets that a missile can have is not known to me, and is probably classified, but Titan II's could have three.

>>30958828
>Supposedly, the current target is in the middle of the ocean, as per the Moscow Declaration of January 1994.

IIRC it's somewhere in the Northern Pacific. But anyway..

Yeah, I know of that. I should have specified a bit more.

There was an argument that missiles had preloaded targets and that was it - for example, they can target A, B or C and that was it.

I was under the impression from what I've read that that is not the case and they could technically be targeted at any latidue and longitude coordinates within their range and they were most definitely not merely permanently restricted to a handful of options.

Does anybody really "win" a nuclear war?

>>30958929
I don't see why not.

>>30958929
Soma spiteful madman who wants to see the world fucked for everyone?

>>30958828
How long would it take to retarget a missile to something not in the attack options?

What is a first strike likely to target?

What about a second?

Does it all depend on who launches first?

>>30958914
>There was an argument that missiles had preloaded targets and that was it - for example, they can target A, B or C and that was it.
They do have preloaded targets, but that is not it.

>I was under the impression from what I've read that that is not the case and they could technically be targeted at any latidue and longitude coordinates within their range and they were most definitely not merely permanently restricted to a handful of options.
This is accurate.
This might make it clearer.

Ways to target ICBM and the time it adds to launching:

1) Preloaded targets in the missile. Adds 0
2) New Targets from the LCC. Adds a few minutes.
3) All new targets from STRATCOM because reasons. Adds several minutes or more.

Current Strategic forces currently have a mix (assuming that they are not really targeted to the ocean) of countervalue targets in Russia and China preloaded, with options for counterforce strikes available for quick changes.

Here is a few examples of how this plays out.

1) Russia launches massive strike against the US because Jill Stein wins the election. The US orders missiles aimed at countervalue targets in Russia to fire, and attempts to change those not aimed at Russia to a countervalue option.

2) During a crisis, the US detects Chinese SSBNs putting to sea and mobile forces deploying. The US orders all missile forces to counterforce targets in China, with some left over for Nth country options and follow up strikes on countervalue targets.

3) The US detects North Korea readying a nuclear missile for a strike on US forces in Japan. STRATCOM gives new orders to the missile wings with new targets. Given the several hours it would take for the DPRK missile to be made ready, their is sufficient time to allow for this.

Also, these are just very basic examples. There are thousands of ways that you could vary these and limitless possibilities.

>>30958929
Sure.
What do you call "winning"?

>>30959011
everyone here is thinking with modern terms and not 1980s era government development
doing anything is guaranteed to be intuitive and time consuming

>>30959114
unintuitive*

>>30959011
Depends.
Is it something that they have never considered as a possibility? Like if Atlantis returned from a dimensional rip and was ready to take on the world?
That might take some time. Hours, or even a day.
At a minimum you would need to develop new attack options. With even a few dozen targets, timing the arrival of warheads to avoid fratricide while also minimizing warning time would take hours at a minimum. You might need new cookies for the ICBM crews, that would require the NSA to print new ones, check them for accuracy, and then get them physically delivered to the missiles.

If it is something that has an attack option available? An hour or so.

>>30959094
>What is a first strike likely to target?
Our opponents own nuclear weapons and strategic command and control systems.

>What about a second?
As in a response to a first strike? Your opponents surviving nuclear forces and command and control systems, as well as economic and political targets.

Is it a follow on to your own first strike? Then you are hitting whatever you think may have survived of their strategic forces and beginning limited strikes on economic and political targets to attempt to force capitulation, assuming that you haven't totally decapitated them.

>Does it all depend on who launches first?
Yes.

>>30959095
Thanks, just wanted to clear all that up.

>>30958345
Not against itself.

>>30959189
Presumably scrambling a bomber with a B83 or a B61 would be a much easier option, right?

>>30958345

No one would really win. We would probably survive but it wouldn't look the same.

Also we should develop the ability to clean that shit up now while our population is high rather then after when our pop is low.

This isnt fallout a single small team of scientists wont have good odds on figuring out how to clean the water.

>>30959279
Yes.
Or with a cruise missile.

Isn't it some sort of war crime to nuke cities for the sole purpose of causing civilian casualties? Whoever ordered that would be remembered as the biggest criminal in history.

>>30959356
You aren't trying to kill the people.
You are trying to destroy the economic assets in those cities.

>>30959356
If a nuclear exchange has escalated to the point that civilian populations are purposefully targeted it doesn't fucking matter anymore.

Yes.

Anyone but Russia is toast. I'd be interested to see how China develops their program if the USA keeps antagonizing.

File: YouWannaLiveForeverYouApes.gif (940KB, 627x502px) Image search: [Google]

940KB, 627x502px

>>30959939
>how China develops their program if the USA keeps antagonizing.

Please elaborate

>>30960110
>>30959939

I guess more nuclear bombs being produced and increasing the number of and making newer versions of the DF-41 ICBM's.

Perhaps increasing the amount of SSBN's.

>>30960185
Sorry I meant
>the USA keeps antagonizing
part. Not trynna be edgy here, I just wanted to know more since I'm kinda behind on the area. General consensus seems that China is very aggressive in land grabbing but I mean same could be said for everyone else really...

File: 20141220_IRM937_1.png (606KB, 800x542px) Image search: [Google]

606KB, 800x542px

How likely is Canada to be nuked? I've read somewhere that Edmonton is a target as it's a nexus for oil distribution. I don't know if our radar stations and air bases are even considered relevant.

>>30959939
They have a very very long way to go

>>30959378
Kinda like how you are not supposed to use anti armor weapons against enemy soldiers, so you just aim at the flashlight on his belt.

Interesting game. The only winning move is not to play.

>>30959378
Aren't people a type of economic asset?

>>30961510
people are expendable

>>30961510
Not really compared to industry and infrastructure. That stuff is difficult to rebuild while fighting a war. Manpower, however, is far more prevalent, resilient, and replaceable.

>>30961510
Its impractical to kill every worker, even every skilled worker.

But if you destroy the industrial plant, it wont matter how many workers are alive.

>>30961579
Entirely relative.

In a total war scenario, replacing a factory will take less effort than training skilled engineers, people niche industrial positions and those that have developed experience and knowledge.

Concrete doesn't need years to learn how to do its job properly.

>>30961686
You can always move more workers to intact factories from undamaged areas.

>>30961717
I guess I'm being stupid in thinking they would or even could target people that aren't as replacable as minimum wage factory workers.

>>30961723
You could try, but how?

What the fuck is with all these shitty threads lately that are like: "Could X do Y if it went full retard?"

>>30961686
You target the people by targeting the basic infrastructure that keeps them alive in high-density urban areas.

Take out a handful of power and fuel hubs, and the cities suffer 90%+ casualty rates after the first month without food and basic services. Add in strategic industry targets to prevent repair and recovery until it's too late.

>>30958828
>>30958914
Nuking Nemo

>>30961287
Oppie, were you the one who told us the story of the Chinese generals who bragged about their population reserves in front of our nuclear planners during a visit, only for the planners to show them how vulnerable their geography made them? That's always stuck with me.

>>30958345
How many nukes would actually be required to actually devastate the earth full on apocalypse hollywood style?

Like hundreds of thousands ala if the us and soviets never stopped stockpiling, etc?

>>30961852
No. I have heard that story, but Im not sure if its true for a large number or reasons.

>>30958345
Nobody "wins" in a full scale nuclear war.

The only way a nation could win in a nuclear exchange is if it was a small scale. Between 2 countries at most

>>30961794
>implying a thread that summons Oppenheimer could be shit