[Zarax]

Originally posted by Janos


Oh yes they can. They can do it very well.
 Maybe not in very long range, if the war gets drawn out and they have lost their highest echelons and they don't have a nuclear arsenal of their own. However, using your or even 200 nukes to destroy enemy's population centers has A) usually pretty big repercussions if you're facing a country with nuclear arsenal, B) little effect on your adversary's military power at that point, which is usually what wins the wars.

Strategic nukes are not always used against populace centers. Thats usually not even their primary mission. The real targets are much more important: enemy's nuclear assets - launch sites etc. - radar positions, transportation network, rallying points and command centers, manufacturing facilities. Also, some of these suck up far more than single warhead or even MIRV. You are familiar with the nuclear tactics against enemy nuclear missile shelters?

Also, you should maybe remember that if China has 20, or even 200, strategical intercontinental ballistic missiles, the russia has, what, over 2000? Then we have tactical weapons and submarine assets, and Russia is leading the war.

I am also wondering how 300 nukes - what size? - could bring the world back a several centuries. OK, you bomb every major city - you won't even destroy every one of them completely - and then what. That's about it. The point is, the difference between nuclear weapons and conventional weapons is not very clear - modern tactical nukes are very clean in terms of radiation and heavy elemements, and sometimes even yield smaller destructive power than most massive "conventional" explosives. Strategical nuclear assets are immensely powerful, but also insanely requiring in terms of research, R&D and economy.

1) There's a thing called morale, and nukes fired on a city tends to break it quite well... Especially if the target has a culture with a certain value towards human life.

2) You don't need to level a whole city with a nuke, radiation is good enough to finish the job, no matter how "clean" (and chinese nuclear missiles aren't being copies of 1960s US tech) they are.

3) Take out the cold war nuclear strategy as you haven't an ocean between you.
In case of conflict between Russia and China it would be a total extermination war once nukes are fired.
Both sides gets the effect as winds have a nasty tendency to transport radioactive dust and other not so nice stuff around (Chernobyl anyone?) and so you can say goodbye to both countries logistical infrastructure, making the war a fight on terms of raw power between the remnants of both armies.

So, in the unlikely case of war you have

a) conventional war, where China would win (at no small cost of course) over Russia (alone)

b) both sides are dead (MAD)

4) Tactical nukes? No one got tactical nukes except the US that is resurrecting them after getting out of the Moscow treaty (congratulations btw), we're talking about strategic ones here.

5) How can 300 nukes bring the world back?

a) you level out the most importan economic centers for 50 years

b) you poison air, land, water and food with radiation

c) you fry a good share of world's electric equipment

d) as there would be no organized government on large scale anymore = anarchy and no development

[Janos]

Originally posted by Zarax


1) There's a thing called morale, and nukes fired on a city tends to break it quite well... Especially if the target has a culture with a certain value towards human life.

[/b]
Even though you really can't draw any laws from history, the historical predecent is usually at least telling. Tell us how many times civilian bombings have crushed the enemy morale?

2) You don't need to level a whole city with a nuke, radiation is good enough to finish the job, no matter how "clean" (and chinese nuclear missiles aren't being copies of 1960s US tech) they are.

If you use one nuke per city, you have to airburst it - actually, you should always airburst when engaging building complexes, much more destructive power that way - but way less fallout.  Then you don't get too much of radiation, really. You could get a lot radiation by making the bomb a neutron bomb, when it would turn into relatively weak tactical nuke. Destrying civilian centers requires more than one nuke, and rendering the ground uninhabitable for longer time requires quite a bit of excessive ground-turning.

3) Take out the cold war nuclear strategy as you haven't an ocean between you.
In case of conflict between Russia and China it would be a total extermination war once nukes are fired.

Nuclear exchange strategy is pretty universal. The response time varies - if China launched a first-strike, Russia would have less time to decide their course of action than in US-Russia lobmatch.

Both sides gets the effect as winds have a nasty tendency to transport radioactive dust and other not so nice stuff around (Chernobyl anyone?) and so you can say goodbye to both countries logistical infrastructure, making the war a fight on terms of raw power between the remnants of both armies.

You need pretty hardcore nuclear wasteland for the winds to be some poisoned breath from hell over very long distances. Short distances yeah. Radioactive and poisonous dust is pretty heavy, and does not float over very long distances. The radioactivity itself is usually not the issue, but breathing heavy metals and other toxic instances.

So, in the unlikely case of war you have
a) conventional war, where China would win (at no small cost of course) over Russia (alone)

What would be the goals of China? Annex eastern Siberia? Doable. Get Russia surrender? Hmmm. The power point of Russian Federation is the western Russia, and the supply routes grow long. The toll on transportation capability would be enormous.

b) both sides are dead (MAD)

I guess not much would happen.

4) Tactical nukes? No one got tactical nukes except the US that is resurrecting them after getting out of the Moscow treaty (congratulations btw), we're talking about strategic ones here.

What, no tactical nukes? wtf

5) How can 300 nukes bring the world back?
a) you level out the most importan economic centers for 50 years
b) you poison air, land, water and food with radiation
c) you fry a good share of world's electric equipment
d) as there would be no organized government on large scale anymore = anarchy and no development [/B]

[/quote]
You have some pretty hardcore nukes there. Humanity has an incredible capabilty to repair damage and overcome.
Levelling out the most important economic centers, like New York, London, Berlin, Beijing and Tokyo - sure. Easy. I don't know who would do that though, but that's irrelevant. OK so now we have worldwide depression and something would propably happen.
Poisoning the air, land, water and food - with the same 300 nukes you have already used a part on grinding the major cities to dust? You can cause local famines (even on global economics the famines are for some incomprehensible reason local effects). Now you can scratch over at least 50 nukes, maybe even more.
EMP assaults? Go ahead, that's pretty good idea. They're repairable, though, and quite a significant amount of really important ones are hardened already.
As for the anarchy - someone will ALWAYS take control. Are you destroying all of the most important governments, along with good chunks of world's military power and so on, with the same 300 nukes you have already used to radiate food supplies (short-term), destroy major cities (geopolitical unforseemeable consequences) and cause EM pulses (nice). You have great strategical eye there.

Here's everything you need to know about nuclear weapon effects. It's long, though, but very accurate.

[aldo_14]

NB: China has 420 (declared) nuclear weapons.

France has 350, UK 200, US 7000, and Russia 8000.  The US is said to have a further 3000 warheads in reserve, and Russia 11,000 in non-operational stockpiles.

[Zarax]

Originally posted by Janos

Even though you really can't draw any laws from history, the historical predecent is usually at least telling. Tell us how many times civilian bombings have crushed the enemy morale?

How many nuclear bombings have crushed the enemy morale?

As of today 1/1 = 100%

If you use one nuke per city, you have to airburst it - actually, you should always airburst when engaging building complexes, much more destructive power that way - but way less fallout.  Then you don't get too much of radiation, really. You could get a lot radiation by making the bomb a neutron bomb, when it would turn into relatively weak tactical nuke. Destrying civilian centers requires more than one nuke, and rendering the ground uninhabitable for longer time requires quite a bit of excessive ground-turning.

Tell that to the Japanese or those poor souls that lives in Nevada...

You need pretty hardcore nuclear wasteland for the winds to be some poisoned breath from hell over very long distances. Short distances yeah. Radioactive and poisonous dust is pretty heavy, and does not float over very long distances. The radioactivity itself is usually not the issue, but breathing heavy metals and other toxic instances.

Chernobyl's side effect got over half europe, and that was just a leak...
Again, tell that to Ukrainians.

Heck, even depleted uranium got pretty bad side effects, grab some statistics about cancer and leucemia near ex yugoslavia/gulf I vets/live ammo training complexes

What would be the goals of China? Annex eastern Siberia? Doable. Get Russia surrender? Hmmm. The power point of Russian Federation is the western Russia, and the supply routes grow long. The toll on transportation capability would be enormous.

Once China gets Siberia you can be pretty sure of a truce... Just the time to mine enough resources to deliver the finishing blow.

What, no tactical nukes? wtf

It's one of the START treaties, can't remember which one...
It banned tactical nukes until last year, when US refused to renew it...

[/quote]

You have some pretty hardcore nukes there.

No, you just need decent winds and they'll do the dirty job for you.

 Humanity has an incredible capabilty to repair damage and overcome.
Levelling out the most important economic centers, like New York, London, Berlin, Beijing and Tokyo - sure. Easy. I don't know who would do that though, but that's irrelevant.

During Cold War there was at least one strategic nuclear warhead aimed at each major city in both NATO and Warsaw pact.

OK so now we have worldwide depression and something would propably happen.
Poisoning the air, land, water and food - with the same 300 nukes you have already used a part on grinding the major cities to dust? You can cause local famines (even on global economics the famines are for some incomprehensible reason local effects).

You keep forgetting the winds... Try reading any serious post-nuclear scenario, those made for India-Pakistan are quite detailed and can be used for Russia China due to many similarities

Now you can scratch over at least 50 nukes, maybe even more.
EMP assaults? Go ahead, that's pretty good idea. They're repairable, though, and quite a significant amount of really important ones are hardened already.

I don't think there is a single civilian structure hardened against EMP.
Hardened chips are hard as hell to make, have very low performance and are very costly, so only a few selected places gets them and most are inside of strategic bombers (B1).

As for the anarchy - someone will ALWAYS take control.

Sure, local warlords like Africa/Middle East

 Are you destroying all of the most important governments, along with good chunks of world's military power and so on, with the same 300 nukes you have already used to radiate food supplies (short-term), destroy major cities (geopolitical unforseemeable consequences) and cause EM pulses (nice). You have great strategical eye there.

Once all major civilian infrastructures are out the military follows in short time, during cold war the estimated power to annihilate the whole human race was about 1000 warheads per side...

[vyper]

We need more...

[Zarax]

Originally posted by vyper
We need more...

The less, the better...

[Ford Prefect]

No way, man. Nukes kick ass.





YEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAWW!!!!

[Zarax]

Stanley Kubrick P0wns J00!

[NGTM-1R]

Originally posted by Zarax


How many nuclear bombings have crushed the enemy morale?

As of today 1/1 = 100%
 

Incorrect. Japan had already made surrender overtures, via Russia, before the Potsdam conference. The problem revolved around the retention of the Emperor. Final surrender granted Japan reflected this; they would have kept fighting right up until the whole country was a wasteland otherwise.

[achtung]

They killed two birds with one very big stone with the nuke in 1944, they got an active battlefeild test of it and they used it to fight their enemy.  Althgough the test part sounds gruesome it seems to be easily beleivable to me.

[General Freak]

Originally posted by Stunaep


We are talking about the country whose president is former head of the KGB, where all liberal media has effectively been destroyed and whose foreign policies are still hampered by the fact that they refuses to admit that they perhaps had done something wrong in the last 60 years or so?

There is still a difference between the two Russian governments and I still prefer the Russian federation to the Soviet Union.

EDIT: Oh, and they hit a third bird, but it didn't die. ;P The atomic bomb was used to scare the Soviets, because the Soviets had already control over half of Europe, and none of the Red Army conscripts were going anywhere, while the Western Allies' troops were all eagerly anticipating their journey home.

@Zarax: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear fission bombs. Nowadays we have nuclear fusion missiles. They work differently. And bigger cities. Those require different kind of explosions. The Soviets, in the 1960s, made the world's largest H-bomb, with more explosive force than all the explosives used in World War II combined, but it was just a propaganda show, and was obsolete, because it would only make a big hole in the ground (basically, it will start working vertically as well as horizontally). Also, if you look at both cities, neither were completely destroyed. A lot of people died, but the cities themselves survived.

[Ace]

Originally posted by Stunaep


We are talking about the country whose president is former head of the KGB, where all liberal media has effectively been destroyed and whose foreign policies are still hampered by the fact that they refuses to admit that they perhaps had done something wrong in the last 60 years or so?

...not too much different than:
"We are talking about the country whose president's father is the former head of the CIA, where all liberal media has effectively been destroyed and whose foreign policies are still hampered by the fact that they refuses to admit that they perhaps had done something wrong in the last 60 years or so?"

Guess which country I'm refering to?

[Zarax]

Originally posted by Ace


...not too much different than:
"We are talking about the country whose president's father is the former head of the CIA, where all liberal media has effectively been destroyed and whose foreign policies are still hampered by the fact that they refuses to admit that they perhaps had done something wrong in the last 60 years or so?"

Guess which country I'm refering to?

That's a tad too harsh imho, watch out for flames...

[aldo_14]

Harsh is a matter of opinion and perspective, though.  It's all to easy to judge elsewhere and ignore your own countries failing; I think we've all been guilty of it (including myself).

[Zarax]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Harsh is a matter of opinion and perspective, though.  It's all to easy to judge elsewhere and ignore your own countries failing; I think we've all been guilty of it (including myself).

Ahem...

I'm european like you Aldo, do not misread what I wrote please...

And about criticizing one's own country...
Just read what I posted about Italy and you'll see it's something I'm used to.

There are many ways to express criticism, some are costructive and some aren't.

The one exposed before wasn't imho, that's all.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Zarax


Ahem...

I'm european like you Aldo, do not misread what I wrote please...

And about criticizing one's own country...
Just read what I posted about Italy and you'll see it's something I'm used to.

There are many ways to express criticism, some are costructive and some aren't.

The one exposed before wasn't imho, that's all.

Point being, the issue of what is harsh critcism or not is a matter of perspective.

(the big about it looking different from your own country, etc, is just to pre-empt anyone who'd call me hypocritical for criticising the US more than my own - deeply ****ed up - country).   Truth is that the UK isn't of as much interest on a global scale.

[Swamp_Thing]

I don´t know about their army, but the russians currently possess the most destructive weapon on earth, and that´s scary enough.
And no, it´s not fiction. They have a bomb that makes the H-Bomb look like a firecracker.

[General Freak]

'On the planet destroying nukes one was designed for the US Army. Basically it takes up a huge room, like a hanger, with multiple large yield warheads focussed in a shaped charge to blow as deep a hole as possible. It is theorised that the resulting explosion would be sufficient to knock the earth out of its current orbit, much like what would happen if we were struck by a large meteor or comet.

Of course, there's no guarantee it would work, but hopefully noone's going to be stupid enough to test it.'

'The soviets also designed a nuke that would be stuck inside the hull of a massive ship which would meander around the coast of the USSR, unmanned, and if it sensed a rapid enough rise in radiation to indicate a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union it would unleash a weapon that would blacken the skies and end all life on earth. Sounds like science fiction, but they even went so far as to make out the blueprints, but in the final analysis they realized that it was too much power to put under anything but direct control, and even with direct control it was too big of a risk. Thank God for that decision, because had it been made, it would have been set off by the destruction of Chernobyl. Just another cool idea.'

Anything said about those bombs still existing after the Cold War IS fiction. Also, er, I think you're just talking about a really, really large H-bomb. There is no energy source known to mankind that is more powerful than nuclear fusion. Except perhaps the strength of Heracles.

[Carl]

antimatter is.

[Zarax]

Originally posted by Carl
antimatter is.

Only you can't mass produce it unless you turn the moon into a massive particle accelerator...