Nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union

Scroll to see replies

Anyone can swear, provided it is filtered out and not aimed at anyone.

I have no doubt the S-400 is a very capable system, though I don't think it has ever been combat tested? The patriot is all round a pretty poor system judging from it's use in combat. I believe there was a computer issue that actually stopped it from firing when it had a valid target at one point. There was a big cover up after the First Gulf war because the system had not actually intercepted any Iraqi scuds.

I am very sceptical of ABM systems and tend to feel they are based more on wishful thinking than anything else. Better than nothing but not reliable either.The going comparison is shooting a bullet with another bullet, the slightest miscalculation will lead to a failure in the system. I'd be interested if you could find that link, as far as I was aware there have not been too many successful tests of ABM systems. It is a dangerous route to go down anyway, anything that erodes deterrence should not be pursued imo.

Interesting to look at the system the South Koreans are purchasing. The KM-Sam is an almost indigenous version of the S-400. Supposedly with twice the performance of the Patriot. Maybe it will be as good as they say but I'll reiterate my scepticism.

Not to my knowledge but then one hopes such systems don't have to be combat tested, no? The only countries it would be useful against you wouldn't want to see a situation where they'd have to be used... Regardless the S-300 was/is an excellent piece of kit and scarred the crap out of NATO when they threatened to put it in Syria and the S-400 is essentually an upgrade, even the Chinese like it rather a lot...

I'd go along the lines of its American of course its bad that being said the Israeli missile what's it called Arrow? doesn't do too badly albeit its a colossal waste of money in how its being used but since the Russians have far more experience in the field i'd still trust their tech over anyone elses.

Impressive, a Scud shouldn't be too hard to shoot down relatively speaking theyre not that fast and have a very noticable flight path...

Maybe but then again they arent designed to hit said object usually are they more get close enough to blow it up which providing it doesn't weave around the place isn't impossible... The Aster for instance is also rather nifty.

More or less albeit with the makers of the S-300 etc. helping them along. and as mentioned most things are better than the patriot :L

Reply 61

Aj12

Original post by Soldieroffortune

The Russians have made quite a few bold claims about it, I know that Iran getting it also terrifies the Israeli's. It pretty much guarantees they could't launch a sole assault.

They say they fixed the issue, but it caused a huge scandal. God knows what would have happened had Saddam put chemical war heads on those Scuds, given the state of his WMD program in 1991. Had Israel not been willing to absorb the hits the entire coalition would have collapsed and Kuwait might be Iraqi.

The Patriot does seem to work well in the AA role. It took out a British and an American fighter effectively during the second Iraq war....

The Israeli's have three systems, all designed for various levels. Iron Dome, David's Sling and Arrow. Israeli weapon systems are usually top notch. They tend to approach every threat as if it will wipe them out so tend to make sure things work.

No but there have been problems with interceptors misidentifying targets and hitting either other interceptors or decoys. The speeds involved are colossal and given the atmosphere they are working in there are lots of unpredictable variables. I don't think the American missiles use decoys but I am pretty sure the Russian missiles tend to? So then you could have a MIRV with however many warheads, only one has to be genuine and the rest decoys, you'll achieve victory through saturation. Actually the approach to overcoming American tactics from carriers to nukes seems to be saturation....

I will say one thing about the Russian nuclear deterrent, right now it appears more advanced than the Americans. Although the US and every nuclear power is going through modernization efforts right now.

Reply 62

Soldieroffortune

Original post by Aj12

The Russians have made quite a few bold claims about it, I know that Iran getting it also terrifies the Israeli's. It pretty much guarantees they could't launch a sole assault.

They say they fixed the issue, but it caused a huge scandal. God knows what would have happened had Saddam put chemical war heads on those Scuds, given the state of his WMD program in 1991. Had Israel not been willing to absorb the hits the entire coalition would have collapsed and Kuwait might be Iraqi.

Ah yes I remember, it was Saddams hail Mary shot as it were if he could get the Israelis to appear to fight back with the coalition, I think the missiles tending not to land anywhere populated helped although didn't a few cause casualties?

The Patriot does seem to work well in the AA role. It took out a British and an American fighter effectively during the second Iraq war....

Oh indeed but then again shooting down a plane is a piece of cake compared to taking out a warhead which is tiny in comparison the two U2 incidents spring to mind.

The Israeli's have three systems, all designed for various levels. Iron Dome, David's Sling and Arrow. Israeli weapon systems are usually top notch. They tend to approach every threat as if it will wipe them out so tend to make sure things work.

Can't say i've put much study into the Israeli defense network but isn't Iron Dome and Davids Sling two systems using the Arrow missile? Oh aye they've even made a name for themselves in international weapons dealing :L

No but there have been problems with interceptors misidentifying targets and hitting either other interceptors or decoys. The speeds involved are colossal and given the atmosphere they are working in there are lots of unpredictable variables. I don't think the American missiles use decoys but I am pretty sure the Russian missiles tend to? So then you could have a MIRV with however many warheads, only one has to be genuine and the rest decoys, you'll achieve victory through saturation. Actually the approach to overcoming American tactics from carriers to nukes seems to be saturation....

Oh now that is amusing it's as bad as the Americans testing their first ICBMs well and the Russians for that matter when it went up about 100meters and then promptly fell back on them.
Not to my knowledge they rely on the warheads themselves getting through and as such they have countermeasures but the Russian Missiles are generally speaking chock full of decoys and other odds and sods the R-36 was the current ones such as Topol-M, Yars and Bulova all have some the new missile when it enters service has an astounding throw weight [assuming it works] 15 or so war heads with a huge number of decoys too so assuming an actual war a volley of those would over whelm any air defense. Bingo well its one of two in the Russian regard either fire as many missiles as possible or go nuclear and simply wipe out the battle group :L I would be interested to see how that works though as their ASM fleet generally employ plunging fire techniques.

I will say one thing about the Russian nuclear deterrent, right now it appears more advanced than the Americans. Although the US and every nuclear power is going through modernization efforts right now.

I would be inclined to concur the Americans are using delivery systems from decades ago the Russians currently field 3 systems from within the past decade as aforementioned and are developing their next super heavyweight missile if i remember rightly their fleet will be 80% brand new by 2020 ?

Reply 63

Aj12

Original post by Soldieroffortune

Indeed they have but given their history in the field I don't doubt their claims too much same goes for thermobaric weapons they have long led the field in that, being on the receiving end of one of the rocket artillery batteries that're more often than not armed with that kind of weapon would be unpalatable to say the least.

Ah yes I remember, it was Saddams hail Mary shot as it were if he could get the Israelis to appear to fight back with the coalition, I think the missiles tending not to land anywhere populated helped although didn't a few cause casualties?

Oh indeed but then again shooting down a plane is a piece of cake compared to taking out a warhead which is tiny in comparison the two U2 incidents spring to mind.

Can't say i've put much study into the Israeli defense network but isn't Iron Dome and Davids Sling two systems using the Arrow missile? Oh aye they've even made a name for themselves in international weapons dealing :L

Oh now that is amusing it's as bad as the Americans testing their first ICBMs well and the Russians for that matter when it went up about 100meters and then promptly fell back on them.
Not to my knowledge they rely on the warheads themselves getting through and as such they have countermeasures but the Russian Missiles are generally speaking chock full of decoys and other odds and sods the R-36 was the current ones such as Topol-M, Yars and Bulova all have some the new missile when it enters service has an astounding throw weight [assuming it works] 15 or so war heads with a huge number of decoys too so assuming an actual war a volley of those would over whelm any air defense. Bingo well its one of two in the Russian regard either fire as many missiles as possible or go nuclear and simply wipe out the battle group :L I would be interested to see how that works though as their ASM fleet generally employ plunging fire techniques.

I would be inclined to concur the Americans are using delivery systems from decades ago the Russians currently field 3 systems from within the past decade as aforementioned and are developing their next super heavyweight missile if i remember rightly their fleet will be 80% brand new by 2020 ?

You'd have to ask the Chechnya about themobaric weapons, they seemed to constantly end up on the receiving end. The point of them is to have the power of a nuke without all the nasty side effects. It'd be interesting to ask from a hypothetical perspective how a nuclear power would react to their use. Would they draw a distinction or see it as on the same page as a tactical nuke? It is always interesting to look at the grey areas of deterrence.

If I recall the Iraqi scuds had smaller than expected warheads in them. Likely due to the state of Iraq's military. I believe an apartment block was hit and may have hurt a few people.

Or the Nighthawk hit in the 90's. I believe they overcame the stealth technology of it through a mathematical formula that roughly predicted where the plane would be
and then shot a missile at that location.

I don't think it is the same missile but I could be wrong. Iron dome is for much smaller rockets and mortars.

There is a piece on Russian modernization efforts here. Haven't read it yet but it may answer your question.

I imagine the Americans will catch up. Especially if Clinton is elected, she is something of a hawk and a big believer in American power. Obama was a tad more naive and believed the status quo on nuclear weapons could be kept. Nuclear modernization is the biggest threat to global security since the Cold War. I don't think we far off a point where a decapitating strike will become a more attractive option. This may not apply to the US, Russia and China who tend to be rational actors in this field. But to India, Pakistan, North Korea and any other up and coming powers like Saudi and Iran. These technologies are percolating to them and if either India or Pakistan had reliable AMB tech it would not be long before someone tries something.

Reply 64

Soldieroffortune

Original post by Aj12

If I recall the Iraqi scuds had smaller than expected warheads in them. Likely due to the state of Iraq's military. I believe an apartment block was hit and may have hurt a few people.

Or the Nighthawk hit in the 90's. I believe they overcame the stealth technology of it through a mathematical formula that roughly predicted where the plane would be
and then shot a missile at that location.

Wasn't it the 3rd largest in the world at that point or something similar i might be thinking of a specific part though, investing all their money into the supergun projects didn't work out very well for them :L
Sounds more or less like what they do now when trying to shoot down HGV's or the like shoot and hope...

There is a piece on Russian modernization efforts here. Haven't read it yet but it may answer your question.

I imagine the Americans will catch up. Especially if Clinton is elected, she is something of a hawk and a big believer in American power. Obama was a tad more naive and believed the status quo on nuclear weapons could be kept. Nuclear modernization is the biggest threat to global security since the Cold War. I don't think we far off a point where a decapitating strike will become a more attractive option. This may not apply to the US, Russia and China who tend to be rational actors in this field. But to India, Pakistan, North Korea and any other up and coming powers like Saudi and Iran. These technologies are percolating to them and if either India or Pakistan had reliable AMB tech it would not be long before someone tries something.

Sounds about right although im curious with what though some have said the ICBM race has had its day and the Hypersonic interceptors are the way forward since they can strike in the same time frame give or take without removing entire cities.
True plus we can thank the Chines for the Pakistanis getting the bomb handing over the blue prints, idiots. I was only in India a couple of years ago and half the place was still under a nuclear alert from their nut job neighbour... India more trustworthy Pakistan is likely to sell the damn thing and go along the lines of 'allahs will' like Saudis on the road never mix religion and the ability to slaughter millions at the touch of a button.
That being said though i wonder what PK VS. IN would be like America backs pakistan and Russia is allies with India..

Reply 65

ExcitedPup

Original post by Soldieroffortune

What a hilarious little rant.

So far all that angry, futile posturing, you're still unable to tell us what the R-36's Pk would be in respect of a Minuteman silo?

As to your childish whining about how a 750 kiloton warhead would bust a silo, you do realise that MIRV warheads do not hit exactly on target? And this is why CEP, maximum error and overpressure calculations are important?

Mate, your frustrated, juvenile mentality shines through in every comment you make. Where you lack knowledge, you simply fill the gap with laughable insults like "little girl".

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 66

Aj12

Original post by Soldieroffortune

Oh they still do :L I stand by bloody nasty weapons though designed to quite literally liquify the victims or worse, nice to own not nice to have one land anywhere near you...
More or less yes the FOAB basically [and MOAB/Daisy Cutter] acted like small tactical nuclear weapons then again the Americans did come up with their Neutron bomb the ultimate in capitalist weaponry obliterate the enemy but leave as much standing as possible...
Mmm true i guess it would on how they were used, If someone dropped a MOAB on Kaliningrad it would probably elicit the same response as dropping a nuke on it.

Wasn't it the 3rd largest in the world at that point or something similar i might be thinking of a specific part though, investing all their money into the supergun projects didn't work out very well for them :L
Sounds more or less like what they do now when trying to shoot down HGV's or the like shoot and hope...

Sounds about right although im curious with what though some have said the ICBM race has had its day and the Hypersonic interceptors are the way forward since they can strike in the same time frame give or take without removing entire cities.
True plus we can thank the Chines for the Pakistanis getting the bomb handing over the blue prints, idiots. I was only in India a couple of years ago and half the place was still under a nuclear alert from their nut job neighbour... India more trustworthy Pakistan is likely to sell the damn thing and go along the lines of 'allahs will' like Saudis on the road never mix religion and the ability to slaughter millions at the touch of a button.
That being said though i wonder what PK VS. IN would be like America backs pakistan and Russia is allies with India..

Yeah it was but the Iran-Iraq war decimated it and Saddam's misleadership made things worse. Saddam wanted to fight a simple world war one esque battle against the Americans. Static warfare was hit by the combined arms of the West like a train through a cow.

I doubt ICBM's will ever truly have their day. We constantly predict the end of whatever weapon and it usually takes decades if not centuries more for it to happen. Calvary only truly died a death after the first world war.

Pakistan is a hand grenade China can keep in its pocket. If it ever is challenged by India it can just throw that and whistle on by. There are many things wrong with China's backing of Pakistan, but from their perspective it makes perfect sense.

America would back India I think. They would have nothing to gain from backing Pakistan and everything to lose. America's wet dream is India on side, it gives them the perfect counterweight to China.

Reply 67

ExcitedPup

Original post by Soldieroffortune

Im not at QMUL

Errr...

Original post by Soldieroffortune

I'm studying... BA International Relations [Hons] QMUL I'm interested in... Diplomatics, war studies, politics, nuclear physics, medicine, chemistry, history, smoking, drinking, living the fine life, education, travel and hell everything really if I had the life i wanted i'd study everything [more or less] travel the world and just live.My study level is... University undergraduate

Anyway, I'm happy to be a gentleman and reset things, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and lay out some facts. You said

Who cares as none of said warheads were a 500Kt variant they're 750Kt

They weren't. The final R-36M2 deployment was of 800 kiloton warheads, but the most numerous configuration, the R-36MUTTH which had ten 500 kiloton warheads.

That isn't nuclear strategy that's building design

Dismissing it as just building design is a little bit silly. The hardening of silos are critical to nuclear strategy; the level of hardening determines how much overpressure you need to bring to bear on the silo, which itself is determined by the interplay of the yield vs how close the warhead hits.

I'll walk you through it, looking at the time period we were talking about (late 1970s, early 1980s), and provide you with the kind of specific data I was asking you for.

For a 2,000psi silo (lI'm sorry but that is a matter of common knowledge that the Minuteman silos were upgraded in the 1970s to 2000), a 500 kiloton warheads needs to hit within 1000 feet, or a little over 300 meters,

According to the Kataev papers showing the distribution of MIRV shots for MR-UR-100 tests (which was comparable to the Mod 3 and Mod 4 SS-18s), five out of thirty-three warheads hit within about 300 meters of ground zero, which means you would need a six-on-one targeting scheme. This becomes highly complex to plan when you are considering cross-range, fratricide and reliability. For 1,000 Minuteman sillos you need 6,000 warheads.

At the height of SS-18 deployment in 1980, there were 18 R-36ORB (FOBS), 148 R-36M (in 4 x 1 megaton warheads + 4 x 100 kiloton configuration), 30 R-36M (in 1 x 20 megaton configuration), 10 R-36M (in 10 x 400 kiloton configuration) and 136 R-36MUTTH (in 10 x 500 kiloton configuration).

Between them they don't have nearly enough firepower to knock out 1,000 silos, you would need to bring in other types and essentially use up all the heavy land--based ICBMs like UR-100NUTTH (6 x 400 kiloton warheads - there were 110 of them deployed in 1980) and the UR-100N (550 kiloton to 5 megaton depending on configuration). But there you have the problem that they are way outside the performance envelope you need for silo busting; both the 100NUTTH and 100N had a CEP around or over 1 kilometer. Statistically speaking, you would not hit close enough, often enough, to make it worthwhile (though the 100Ns in the 5 megaton configuration would be usable for busting silos).

All the recent projections and think tank simulations in light of the material that has come out of the Soviet Union since the end of the Cold War suggests that the Soviet Union could probably knock out around 700 to 800 of the one thousand Minuteman silos, and that is using all of their land-based ICBMs against the Minuteman force. In such a situation, the Americans would still have a substantial Minuteman force, what was left of the bomber force and the Polaris/Poseidon/Trident I subs.

Also, it would be difficult for the Soviet Union to get the jump on the Americans completely; DSP worked and, despite some problems, firing over a thousand ballistic missiles is an infrared signature it wouldn't miss. Many of the Minuteman missiles would be out of their tubes while the Soviet missiles were re-entering the atmosphere, and thus the attack would destroy empty silos.

But I am happy to hear your ideas about what strategems and targeting schemes the Soviet Union could have used to obtain complete surprise over the Americans and destroy the entire Minuteman force.

750Kt would blow the silo out of the ground as you well know

750kt can obviously bust a silo if it hits close enough. But MIRV warheads do not hit exactly on target (or are statistically unlikely to do so), hence the importance of CEP, maximum error and overpressure calculations (and hardening). Even a 20 kiloton warhead can bust a silo if it lands right on top of it; the huge complications around nuclear targeting are in large part due to the fact that warheads do not just conveniently land right on top of their target.

But of course you're still missing the point that the P-36 was the most advanced missile of its day still is the most powerful until the

Сармат comes into service, a missile with at least 15 MIRVs and enough penetration aids to blanket any ABM system of which the Americans is faulty any way

The R-36 was nothing like the most advanced missile of its day if you are looking at CEP. It had the best throw-weight (as Soviet rockets did generally; their tech was better in terms of creating thrust-to-weight), and it was a considerable threat to the US strategic arsenal. But as I've pointed out above, they were not an all-encompassing threat that could completely knock out the US Minuteman force.

The yield of the warhead, which you keep alluding to, is important (particularly where you suffer from lower accuracy as Soviet ICBMs did) but yields are a misleading measure of destructive power in a counterforce targeting scenario because the inverse square law means every meter of extra accuracy pays off more than every extra kiloton, so to speak.

And the number of warheads they can pack onto a warhead bus is not a definitive measure of the usefulness of a strategic weapons system given the problems of crossrange and fratricide.

and this is of course forgetting that you don't even know the most basic part of Nuclear doctrine, aside avoiding it, every one looses the aim is to loose least and either way Russia would loose least

Russia's vastness would not be any protection if things deteriorated into a countervalue conflict. If the Soviet Union had every one of their major cities flattened, they would be just as ****ed as the Americans. Hence deterrence.

But then you wouldn't know what that is would you? Nasty ignorant little Pom you epitomize why the world despises this country and your American bumchum.

I'm not British.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 68

ExcitedPup

Original post by Aj12

America would back India I think. They would have nothing to gain from backing Pakistan and everything to lose. America's wet dream is India on side, it gives them the perfect counterweight to China.

Precisely, and they have been trying to prise them away from Russia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%E2%80%93United_States_Civil_Nuclear_Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_MRCA_competition#Boeing_F.2FA-18E.2FF_Super_Hornet

The difficulty, of course, is how to pivot away from Pakistan without causing them to pull out all the stops and go for broke in undermining the Afghan government.

Reply 69

Aj12

Original post by ExcitedPup

You got any links to the think tank simulations of a nuclear exchange you mentioned earlier? Would't mind reading up on it

Reply 70

ExcitedPup

Original post by Aj12

You got any links to the think tank simulations of a nuclear exchange you mentioned earlier? Would't mind reading up on it

Sure, most definitely.

There was a simulation run called Magic Missile that showed that, assuming 2,000psi hardening (which is the level to which Minuteman was upgraded in the Upgrade Silo programme in the 1970s), the minimum number of reteliatory shots in a second-strike from the remaining Minuteman missiles was 46 warhead detonations.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OmuPBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=magic+missile+icbm&source=bl&ots=XrNDN_7DMm&sig=z1glwkC77KIeAr4o9cwqG0zZ0OI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uB1yVYGhIoGhUoGzglg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=magic%20missile%20icbm&f=false

The best article I've seen that assesses the so-called US "window of vulnerability" that opened up viz. their land-based missiles is this article below, for which the author had access to the Kataev papers (Kataev was a Soviet ballistic missile engineer who brought truckloads of documents to the West). It assesses that with a Soviet pre-emptive first strike, hundreds of Minuteman missiles would remain operational

It has a graph of the distribution of MIRV warhead landings in MR-UR-100 tests in terms of downrange and crossrange error, or how far it landed from ground zero. It gives you a very good sense of how ICBMs are not sniper rifles, it is a long-range bombardment weapon which is why any nuclear planner would have to take into account very complex statistical models encompassing the Circular Error Probable, maximum error, yield, number of warheads, reliability (the number of missiles that malfunction in the air etc remember the blue screen of death? And then remember this is 1970s/80s Soviet technology), fratricide, silo hardening, etc

The article also has extremely precise deployment numbers for all the types of Soviet ICBMs every year, and also precise data on the performance envelope and technical characteristics of each Soviet ICBM system. It shows that even the relatively advanced R-36M, which formed the bulk of the SS-18 force and came online in 1976, had a CEP of 700 meters. Given a 500 kiloton warhead needs to hit within 1000 feet to bust a 2,000psi silo, 700 meters is double that and CEP means it will only hit within that radius 50% of the time, you begin to get a sense of the scale of the targeting problem (i.e. you need to throw more warheads at the problem to bring up the kill probability, or Pk). This graphic below shows calculations of how many Minuteman warheads would survive a Soviet counterforce strike

http://russianforces.org/podvig/WindowsLiveWriter/TheWindowofVulnerabilityThat

http://russianforces.org/podvig/2008/06/the_window_of_vulnerability_that_wasnt.shtml

When you start throwing more warheads at the problem, you then encounter issues of timing and fratricide; when a nuclear warhead bursts, it destroys other warheads in the vicinity. The amount of computational power it would require to plan such an attack, keeping in mind the requirement to synchronise flight-time of missiles with different thrusts, launching from different places, ejecting up to ten warheads each, having to statistically cover your bases but ensure the warheads didn't arrive too close together.... that is a monumental task of military planning. The United States Single Integrated Operational Plan (the dataset that calculated all the aimpoints and assigned the warheads required supercomputers). You have to even take into account the weather; if there are huge storms with strong winds raging over the American midwest the day you launch your attack, that will effect the accuracy of your warheads which requires a recalculation of your statistical variables and the targeting scheme (i.e. is it two warheads per silo, three warheads per silo, etc)

I know it's a bit morbid, but I love this stuff; the interplay of the technology, the game theory, the psychology. Anyway, you get the picture. I'm not sure "enjoy" is the right word re the articles, but you know what I mean

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 71

ExcitedPup

Original post by Aj12

You got any links to the think tank simulations of a nuclear exchange you mentioned earlier? Would't mind reading up on it

Sorry, just a quick clarification; Magic Missile simulated a reduced force on each side, off the top of my head its 450 Minutemen instead of 1,000 and a proportional reduction in Soviet nuclear forces (it also simulates late Soviet hardware like the R-36M2 which only came online in 1988)

With 450 Minuteman to 2,000psi hardening, the minimum retaliatory strike was 46 bursts. A little over double that would give you the right minimum figure for 1000 silos, which is a credible deterrent capability for a force required to "ride out" the attack, even leaving aside the bomber force and the subs

Reply 72

Aj12

Original post by ExcitedPup

It is interesting looking at this stuff. With nuclear weapons its really easy to assume that given their power you would just throw as much at your enemy as you can and hope for the best. I know a bit about this stuff and did not realize it was quite that difficult to take out a minutemen field. Needing supercomputers to form a proper firing plan and the sheer number of variables is shocking.

Thanks for the detailed post.