Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

How many nukes does it take to cripple a country? Watch

    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lionheart96)
    Apparently those countermeasures are ineffective... possibly http://archive.news.softpedia.com/ne...t-164011.shtml
    Well, if GMD and THAAD don't work, the last roll of the dice would be to intercept the incoming nuke with an American nuke.

    Either that or some giant net that can catch the nuke and throw it back in the direction it came from.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stalin)
    Well, if GMD and THAAD don't work, the last roll of the dice would be to intercept the incoming nuke with an American nuke.

    Either that or some giant net that can catch the nuke and throw it back in the direction it came from.
    :P lets just hope we never have to use it.
    There are other things countries can do without resorting to nukes in order to cripple a country, e.g. economic warfare, cyber warfare, drone in the future too.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chlorophile)
    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.
    Absolutely agree with this comment. Took the words right out of my mouth.

    I would argue that it scales depending on the country. If a nuke where to hit LA (think '24') the United States would probably not be as crippled as say a nuke hitting London. To cripple the United States, it would probably take NYC, DC, Chicago amongst others to fall. Smaller countries with a high capital:rest ratio like the UK with London or France with Paris would be more affected by a single shot were the capital to be hit.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by "Wanted")
    Absolutely agree with this comment. Took the words right out of my mouth.

    I would argue that it scales depending on the country. If a nuke where to hit LA (think '24') the United States would probably not be as crippled as say a nuke hitting London. To cripple the United States, it would probably take NYC, DC, Chicago amongst others to fall. Smaller countries with a high capital:rest ratio like the UK with London or France with Paris would be more affected by a single shot were the capital to be hit.
    That's still like 10-20 max, which suggests that the US and Russia having thousands of nukes is ridiculous.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Tbh the real question is how many nudes does it take to cripple a country.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Just aim for the legs.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (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,
    The Soviets knew from before the start of Britain's 'independent' nuclear 'deterrent' in the mid-1950s that it it was built around the capability of destroying Moscow. If they failed to plan for surviving that, Khrushchev - who had had no problem with ordering executions of whole groups - would not have been happy.

    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    That's still like 10-20 max, which suggests that the US and Russia having thousands of nukes is ridiculous.
    You 'need' to have enough that a first strike from the other side will leave you with enough weapons to destroy them.

    See also: overkill. If you're going to end civilization as we know it, why take a chance you won't succeed?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    I agree. Two strategically well-placed ones should do it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Exactly all of our eggs are in one basket. God forbid London ever falls, the country would be finished
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
    AtCTs

    Ask the Community Team

    Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

    Welcome Lounge

    Welcome Lounge

    We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.