How many nukes does it take to cripple a country?

I say 2: one for the governmental capital, and another for the biggest city or the city with the financial district.

Some countries have thousands of nukes (see USA and Russia), but it seems pointless.

Note: I say cripple a country, not cripple a military. You could fire 200 nukes at Britain but we would still have Trident submarines somewhere ready to retaliate.

Reply 1

temporary_user

1

one in the capital city would do enough damage to cripple a country

Reply 2

517340

16

[[sounds the alarms]]

Reply 3

username1560589

20

Original post by Lady Comstock

I say 2: one for the governmental capital, and another for the biggest city or the city with the financial district.

Some countries have thousands of nukes (see USA and Russia), but it seems pointless.

Note: I say cripple a country, not cripple a military. You could fire 200 nukes at Britain but we would still have Trident submarines somewhere ready to retaliate.

In general I don't give advice on where to target WMDs.

Reply 4

unprinted

19

Depends on the country and what you mean by 'cripple'.

If London suddenly goes up in a nuclear fireball, what's the captain of whichever Trident is on patrol going to do about it?

In the cold war, you could be pretty sure that it was the Soviets whodunnit rather than the French or Chinese, and attempt to wipe out Moscow in retaliation... and in the process ensure that the Soviets would launch a strike against the US - the one reason you could be reasonably sure it wasn't the Americans who took out London.

But now what are they supposed to do?

Reply 5

ThatPerson

18

Original post by unprinted

Depends on the country and what you mean by 'cripple'.

If London suddenly goes up in a nuclear fireball, what's the captain of whichever Trident is on patrol going to do about it?

In the cold war, you could be pretty sure that it was the Soviets whodunnit rather than the French or Chinese, and attempt to wipe out Moscow in retaliation... and in the process ensure that the Soviets would launch a strike against the US - the one reason you could be reasonably sure it wasn't the Americans who took out London.

But now what are they supposed to do?

If the Submarine Commanders are unable to reach either the Prime Minister and the designated "second person" (basically the person who has authority after the Prime Minister) because they have either been killed or incapacitated as a result of a Nuclear attack then they open the so-called "Letters of last resort", which contain instructions from the Prime Minister.

Reply 6

ubisoft

3

Depends on the country. For most countries, one. Few countries could still be standing after multiple strikes (US, China, Russia).

Reply 7

james22

16

Depends on the country. Modern nukes could totally cripple Britain in 2 shots, but it would take dozens to cripple the USA due to sheer size and number of large cities.

Reply 8

Lady Comstock

OP

14

Original post by ubisoft

Depends on the country. For most countries, one. Few countries could still be standing after multiple strikes (US, China, Russia).

Kinda shows how it's foolish to have a city like London that contains the financial district, all of the government, the head of state, the parliament, the supreme court, etc.

Reply 9

ubisoft

3

Original post by Lady Comstock

Kinda shows how it's foolish to have a city like London that contains the financial district, all of the government, the head of state, the parliament, the supreme court, etc.

Yup, but pretty sure the UK has capable defence capabilities, and nuclear retaliation will deter anyone from attempting such a thing.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 10

Chlorophile

20

One. Cripple doesn't mean completely annihilate, a tactical strike in central London would be completely crippling and even a strike in a large city like Manchester or Birmingham (or even somewhere smaller possibly) would be financially and socially devastating. It doesn't have to just be the capital - obviously that would probably be the worst, but you have to bear in mind that whilst the direct damage of a nuclear weapon is limited, the radiation makes huge tracts of land uninhabitable. So a nuclear strike in any major built up area would be catastrophic.

Reply 11

username358506

20

Original post by Lady Comstock

I say 2: one for the governmental capital, and another for the biggest city or the city with the financial district.

Some countries have thousands of nukes (see USA and Russia), but it seems pointless.

Note: I say cripple a country, not cripple a military. You could fire 200 nukes at Britain but we would still have Trident submarines somewhere ready to retaliate.

That's assuming the nation under nuclear attack has no means of defending itself from such an attack: the U.S., for example, has numerous counter measures that, in theory, should prevent most nukes from hitting its territory.

It also depends on the size of the country: I agree that if Vienna was hit, Austria would be finished; but the U.S. wouldn't be damaged in the same way if New York City was hit because it still has so many other major cities.

It really boils down to whether or not the country is centralised: Russia, for example, would be finished if Moscow was hit, and the same goes for every single country in Europe.

Here's France's economic output:

Here's the UK's:

And here's the USA's:

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 12

unprinted

19

Original post by Stalin

It really boils down to whether or not the country is centralised: Russia, for example, would be finished if Moscow was hit

Dear hero and leader,

The man who single-handedly enabled us to beat the fascist invaders in the Great Patriotic War must have ensured that our motherland could survive Moscow being destroyed by the warmongering weapons of the evil imperialist Yankees and their British lapdogs!

Obviously, now you have personally helped us to develop our own peaceful nuclear weapons, it would lead to their total annihilation, but even before then when you ordered the evacuation of much of the glorious Soviet industry from the areas we allowed the fascist invaders to temporarily occupy, there was the ability to survive the loss of Moscow.

Your loyal..

.. hang on, what's that knock at the door? I'll be back in a....

Reply 13

username358506

20

Original post by unprinted

Dear hero and leader,

The man who single-handedly enabled us to beat the fascist invaders in the Great Patriotic War must have ensured that our motherland could survive Moscow being destroyed by the warmongering weapons of the evil imperialist Yankees and their British lapdogs!

Obviously, now you have personally helped us to develop our own peaceful nuclear weapons, it would lead to their total annihilation, but even before then when you ordered the evacuation of much of the glorious Soviet industry from the areas we allowed the fascist invaders to temporarily occupy, there was the ability to survive the loss of Moscow.

Your loyal..

.. hang on, what's that knock at the door? I'll be back in a....

That made me chuckle.

Well done, good Sir.

+1

Reply 14

unprinted

19

Original post by ThatPerson

If the Submarine Commanders are unable to reach either the Prime Minister and the designated "second person" (basically the person who has authority after the Prime Minister) because they have either been killed or incapacitated as a result of a Nuclear attack then they open the so-called "Letters of last resort", which contain instructions from the Prime Minister.

Oh, I know what the process is, but who'd be the target? Anyone who could retaliate is going to ensure the destruction of the rest of the UK plus, as they couldn't be sure it wasn't US submarines who did it, major damage to the USA = global nuclear war.

That leaves people who couldn't and a long list of them.

Reply 15

Lionheart96

11

Original post by Stalin

That made me chuckle.

Well done, good Sir.

+1

What were the countermeasures you were speaking of?

Reply 16

Messiah Complex

3

Nah the next major attack will be an EMP to take out national grid leaving a mass blackout.

Reply 17

Lionheart96

11

Original post by Messiah Complex

Nah the next major attack will be an EMP to take out national grid leaving a mass blackout.

I'd imagine it will be cyber and space warfare, things like taking out satellites and disrupting communications and attacking Internet communications and systems compromising national security.
I heard that hitting a few generators in the USA would take out the entire national gird for like a month.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-08/u-s-power-grid-vulnerable-to-attack-congressional-research-service.html

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 18

username358506

20

Original post by Lionheart96

What were the countermeasures you were speaking of?

Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (only for long and short range ballistic missiles), and U.S. Navy AEGIS combat system (RIM-161 Standard Missile 3) are able to intercept most missiles, but not ICBMs.

Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) are the backbone of America's ICBM interception system.