I had planned to post on survival today, but telecons and other delights are making that unlikely. More free ice cream soon.
Month: August 2022
Too Stupid to Govern, 3
The problem isn’t what the Press Secretary doesn’t know, it’s what she thinks she knows that ain’t so.
If I posted one of these every time someone said something stupid, I’d have to quit my day job. But this one was so egregious that I can’t help myself.
“There has been an urgency from this president from day one, when the Supreme Court made this extreme decision to take away a constitutional right, it was an unconstitutional action by them,” Jean-Pierre stated. She noted Roe created “a right that was around for almost 50 years, a right that women had to make a decision on their bodies and how they want to start their families.”
Yes, that’s our White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, speaking to the press about President Biden’s efforts to work around the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that there’s no Constitutional right to abortion.
Let me be clearer, too, since so many people have obfuscated or become confused about this point: The Supreme Court didn’t “take away” a Constitutional right “that was around for almost 50 years.” When SCOTUS overruled Roe, they were pointing out that Roe was wrongly decided, and that such a right had never existed. If you’re Catholic, it’s the difference between divorce and an annulment: They’re actually, really, truly different things.
Final point: I don’t think we’ve ever had a more incoherent Press Secretary.
Nuclear 101: Scenarios
NOTE: If you had problems getting to the site, thank you for persevering and I will simply state that my hosting provider, Dreamhost, sucks. If I had the time and money I’d switch immediately at this point. Don’t, so can’t, but suggestions on good hosting providers most welcome. Given that I usually have a short time in which to write these posts, if the occasional typo/autocorrect error makes you meltdown, you might want to skip. These posts are high-level overviews, and if you want to discuss details, special cases, one-offs, etc. feel free but keep it civil and don’t pretend non-inclusion is a world-ending mistake to give yourself ego-boo. For all those (the majority of you) making good, solid, and thoughtful comments: THANK YOU! Such are very much appreciated.
Well, I had planned to spend today discussing tactical weapons/atomic demolition munitions and then explore some scenarios. However, Winnie The Poo himself, Xi, has done something incredibly stupid even by his standards which sort of highlights that desperation thing I’ve talked about a few times.
In the epic temper-tantrum and meltdown being pitched by Xi and company over Granny WineBox’s visit to Taiwan, Xi approved the launch of several ballistic missiles: over Taiwan. Even better, according to reports now hitting the media, they landed in Japan’s Exclusive Economic Zone. Now, leaving aside the toddler-level histrionics of the tantrum, doing this would appear to be in violation of more than one international convention, possibly one or more treaties, and is ill-considered to say the least. It does, however, give a good intro to exploring a scenario of how a political leader being an idiot can start WWIII.
For all that it is a tired trope in fiction, I personally find it to be one of the more likely scenarios. Fact is, people make mistakes and sometimes those mistakes snowball. Ego gets in the way of rationality and you also have to consider the toddler-model of governmental interaction (short version: governments tend to behave like toddlers in a room full of toys).
Okay, let’s say one of the missiles had a malfunction, so that it went short and the warhead hit in a major city on Taiwan. Even if a dummy, it’s moving at speeds that start to make it a Kinetic Energy Vehicle (KEV) that could, potentially, have the impact of a small nuke. Safe to say, things are going to get tense and given that the Chinese military is already out acting like a bully having a tantrum and looking for a target, you get good odds of things escalating.
Now, let’s consider a malfunction that causes a missile to go long and off course. What if it hit actual Japanese territory, or say a passenger ship? Do you really think Japan’s going to be terribly understanding? Or that Xi and company might actually think and try to de-escalate the situation? Yeah, I don’t give good odds on that. And, for the record, this is a hypothetical and I know Japan is not a nuclear power and for obvious reasons doesn’t like nuclear weapons. That said, it does have allies who are, and Japan also knows it is on Xi’s list.
Given the amount of air traffic flying over Taiwan (that area is a MAJOR air corridor), let’s think about something that actually could have happened. Back when I was getting my pilot’s license many years ago, one of my cross country solo flights took me through military airspace. Had all the appropriate permissions and such, but as I was in that airspace traffic control came on and told me to turn to a new course immediately. I was making the turn even as I acknowledged the order (crazy I may be, stupid I try to avoid). As I made my turn, I saw artillery firing and could even see some of the shells as they rose up to and through the altitude I was flying.
Like those shells, ballistic missiles, warheads, re-entry vehicles, etc. don’t care that you are there. Unlike those shells, they are moving at speeds that make it almost impossible for them to be spotted and a plane maneuver out of the way. Now, imagine that through sheer bad luck one of those missiles had hit an American passenger jet as it flew through that heavily congested airspace. Shades of KAL007. Except that in this case, as we send in aircraft and ships for search and rescue/recovery efforts, one or more of them are attacked because someone on the Chinese side fucked up.
Situations like that can get out of hand fast. The late Fred Thompson’s line in the Hunt For Red October is true and prophetic. It’s one reason for having tight control of nuclear weapons, and things like Permissive Action Links (PALs, sometimes referred to in older documents/fiction as Presidential Initiative Device, PID) and release codes. Problem is, the smaller the weapon the more likely someone at a lower level could do something like staging it for ready use if they think the order might come. Let’s say the skipper of an attack sub thinks that a release order is coming or that war has already started. He then uses a torpedo (or more) with nuclear warhead(s) to attack one or more U.S. ships coming in for search and rescue/recovery efforts. That whole “least stable” thing I keep talking about with leaders? It goes down the chain as well, and it can fall on a simple seaman hitting the button when they shouldn’t just like in the fictional The Bedford Incident.
In fact, since continuing to think on the imbecilic bone-headed (insert more choice words here) actions of Xi and company is not helping my blood pressure, let’s turn to a potentially fun way of exploring different scenarios. Let’s look at fiction, good and bad.
One of the first books I ever read on nuclear war and surviving afterwards is the highly recommended Alas Babylon by Pat Frank. It is one book I recommend having as a paper copy as it is not just a good story but an excellent primer on on preparedness. It is fairly realistic (esp. for its time) and optimistic.
If you want to get into more nihilistic fantasy with the fanatical commies willing to live underground for 50+ years to take over the world (except for the U.S. which will be a radioactive wasteland with no life of any type), go for Triumph by Philip Wylie. The concepts of special nuclear weapons discussed is interesting, as are the aspects of bunker/shelter design raised. I’m not a fan of the book, to be honest, though it did help inspire a high school science fair project on designing a shelter to keep X number of people alive and communicating for at least five years.
In the same vein, you have On The Beach by Nevil Shute. If emotions are your thing, enjoy. If a thoughtful and realistic novel is your desire, this is about as realistic IMO as Triumph, which is to say not at all.
To get back to books I can recommend, you need a paper copy of Pulling Through by Dean Ing. If you have not read his fiction, I highly recommend it. If you have not read his non-fiction, including his work on preparedness, I HIGHLY recommend it. He and the late Jerry Pournelle wrote a lot of very good material on preparedness and related topics. Get it. If you have to, get it electronic and print it out. Pulling Through is half fiction and half non-fiction, and both halves are chock full of good and important information. Get this book!
When it comes to movies, there’s just not a lot out there that looks realistically at preparedness and survival in the aftermath. Most, IMO, tend to be rather nihilistic and pessimistic as well as heavily political. If inevitable death is your thing, go for The Bedford Incident, Fail-Safe, and a host of lesser movies. Even the enjoyable Dr. Strangelove has the world end. I will note that the movie Damnation Alley shared only a title and a couple of character names with Roger Zelazny’s good novel.
Two movies I do/did enjoy, though realistic is not necessarily a word I would associate with them, are WarGames and By Dawn’s Early Light. WarGames frankly was just some good, fun, escapism in which I could ignore the politics and not have to deal with suspension of disbelief issues because it was so unrealistic. The Mad magazine satire of it was excellent, with everyone including the computer asking Matthew Broderick’s character why he was playing with the computer instead of Ally Sheedy. At the end of the movie, you see the computer going through a variety of scenarios and playing them out. And, yes, the category for these articles is a play on the “Would you like to play a game?” from the movie.
By Dawn’s Early Light is one of those movies I almost hate to like. For certain values of correct, it actually got a few things right. The performances by Powers Boothe, James Earl Jones, and Martin Landau were such that I could/can ignore the anti-Christian, evil Army colonel, grrrlllll power, and one-dimensional patriot aspects as well as some massive plot holes. I admit that I tend to hear Peter MacNicol’s repeated line as ‘Mr. President, please don’t torture yourself, that’s my job!’ All that said, it does offer a more optimistic take on things, and reminds us that people can dial it back under the right circumstances.
The only thing on television that I can even halfway recommend was The Day After. Sorta.
With that, I will call it a day. Tomorrow I plan to start talking about preparedness and survival.
Some Previous Posts:
Answers, Ramblings, And A Bit More On Vladimir And The Ukraine
Your Must Read For The Day On Russia
The Puzzles In Play, And The Missing Pieces
Quick Thoughts On Ukraine/Putin
Missing Pieces And Surprise Pieces
Accuracy, Reliability, And More
Putin, Trump, And The Coming Storm
War, Ag, Demographics, And The Worst Is Yet To Come
Past, Present, And A Hungry Future
If It’s Wednesday, This Must Be Moldova
*****
Nuclear War Posts In Order:
*****
If you would like to help me in my recovery efforts, feel free to hit the tip jar in the upper right or the fundraiser at A New Life on GiveSendGo. Getting hit by lightning is not fun, and it is thanks to your help and prayers that I am still going. Thank you.
Nuclear 101: Targeting
NOTE: If you had problems getting to the site, thank you for persevering and I will simply state that my hosting provider, Dreamhost, sucks. If I had the time and money I’d switch immediately at this point. Don’t, so can’t, but suggestions on good hosting providers most welcome. Given that I usually have a short time in which to write these posts, if the occasional typo/autocorrect error makes you meltdown, you might want to skip. Same for anyone melting down about the number of spaces after a period: I was raised two, WordPress keeps trying to change that to one, and so far the battle between us is a draw. These posts are high-level overviews, and if you want to discuss details, special cases, one-offs, etc. feel free but keep it civil and don’t pretend non-inclusion is a world-ending mistake to give yourself ego-boo. For all those (the majority of you) making good, solid, and thoughtful comments: THANK YOU! Such are very much appreciated.
So, we’ve scratched the surface (barely) on weapons, means of delivery, and philosophy. Today, we will focus on the philosophy of reality: targeting. Again, I’m not planning to get into the weeds on this and I’m also, for now, probably only going to focus on a few of the thousands of possible scenarios. While not exhaustive, it will provide enough understanding to help people make decision on preparedness and survival.
While it can be sort of fun in a war game (or if you are trying to create panic in the public) to have an Oprah moment and declare ‘you’re a target, you’re a target, everything’s a target’ it doesn’t really work that way. At least not now, though some do argue that was the case a few decades back. So, what does make a good target for a full-scale attack?
First up, your enemy’s command and control systems. Yep the systems that control the nukes are indeed a prime target, as if you can take them out, it will limit, or possibly, maybe, prevent retaliation. No leaders, no means to communicate, huge amounts of confusion, and you should have time to act with a degree of impunity.
Second, your enemy’s atomic weapons and delivery systems. The emphasis is going to be on getting the first strike weapons such as missiles, boomers/missile subs, cruise missile launchers/launch sites, etc. Within that, you are going to target bomber and other bases to try and take out those nuclear weapons as well. You also want to prevent fighters from launching to prevent them from shooting down your bombers and you don’t want the tankers to launch as they can keep fighters, command planes, and other platforms fueled and up.
What makes a good secondary target? Going back to the days of the Soviet Union, that could/would/did include state capitols, manufacturing centers, ground-force bases, harbors, naval bases that weren’t first strike targets, and other delights.
The basic idea is to use your missiles (cruise missiles, etc.) to take out your enemy’s ability to use their nuclear weapons on you. You do this by getting inside their communications loops (in terms of time and, if possible, the actual signals) or outright eliminating their leadership and those communication systems and loops before they can be used. You do this by destroying the missiles, bombs, and weapon depots before they can be used/utilized. With those systems removed, you go in and attack the secondary targets using aircraft and other means.
Can you have a less-than-full-scale exchange? Theoretically, yes. One class of scenarios involves having a weak-willed enemy who for various reasons chooses not to retaliate at all to a limited strike. Another class involves someone who agrees to limit retaliation to the same level of damage. Yet another class of scenarios is based off having your enemy fuck up by the numbers and give you clear targets that also eliminate the means of retaliation. Could happen. Maybe. Has happened conventionally, so…
The most likely form of limited attack, in my opinion, is likely to be a terrorist or rogue state attack. For a number of good reasons, they are not likely to have/have access to a large number of weapons. In such a case, odds are pretty good they will go after more symbolic targets though some scenarios look at them hitting targets that have a chance of creating situations messier than a nuclear device alone. No, not going to get into more details on that, they have enough ideas as it is and I may have been banned from being OPFOR more than once.
Actually, the scariest scenario out there — to my mind–involves only a single weapon. It’s a scenario that is often associated with surprise first strikes, but just by itself has the potential to put us back to a 1600s level of technology and food production. That scenario is a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) attack.
This version of a FOBS attack essentially has a large warhead (possibly a special warhead to boot) masquerade as a harmless satellite launch. As the device heads up towards orbit, it passes over the center of the United States, and detonates. The resulting Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) will take out not only the electrical grid, but fry every computer and/or electronic device in the continental United States. Only shielded systems will survive. Hate to break it to you, but your car with multiple computers (the newer the more it has), your cell phone, your radio, your stove, your microwave, your toaster, your computer/laptop/tablet, even a large number of medical devices are not shielded. Say bye to them and to your heating/cooling, municipal water, well pumps, sump pumps, and all the features of modern life.
For a nation dependent on just-in-time shipping, it means stores will be rapidly out of food, medicines, clothing, and anything else not locally made. The food in your freezer or refrigerator? Cook and eat it fast, as even if there was power they are still controlled by electronics that are now fried. Even if every train in every museum could be brought back on line and wood/coal/other fuel for them obtained, it’s not even a fraction of one percent of what is carried by train and truck today.
Now, really want to lose sleep? Think about Iran having not only a bomb (courtesy of a lot of help from Pakistan and China apparently) but a proven ability to launch a satellite (again, word is you can thank the CCP, the assholes). Yep, did it a while back and if corporate media covered the story, it tended to be along the lines of ‘nuclear ambitions thwarted, Iran has joined the peaceful use of space club’ type story. Think about the fact that the Mullahs are facing the strongest opposition and uprisings since the revolution; and, that they are committed to bringing about the return of the hidden Imam to Earth — which happens to require an apocalypse. Remember yesterday when I mentioned how MAD placed the safety of the world in the hands of the least stable leader? Can you really look at Putin, Xi, Biden, and the Mullahs and say any of them are in a secure position such that they feel safe and secure about remaining in power? You’re welcome.
A few more points need to be brought up in regards targeting. These are factors that planners (and those seeking to thwart said plans) have to consider.
First up, where do you explode the bomb? Exploding it above ground is going to allow the weapon to destroy or damage a larger area. It also tends to produce less fallout, making it a cleaner weapon.
If you really need to take out a particular structure or location for whatever reason, a ground burst may be the better option to ensure total destruction of that target. Because it is a ground burst, there is going to be a larger amount of fallout since the bomb will be vaporizing/pulverizing soil, structures, etc. and sending it up into the atmosphere and on its way.
The final option is a sub-surface burst. Hardened structures such as bunkers, or even some surface structures, are designed to withstand direct hits and/or near misses. Using ground-penetrating systems increases the chance that even a deeply buried bunker, or massive surface structure, can be destroyed or at least taken off line. Nasty fallout, but I’m also told that it is more limited, at least in terms of the spread. If the boffins from whom I got that information are wrong, I hope it’s on the nastiness of the fallout.
Now, there are two things to consider in regards the statement “How much do you hate that target?” The first is technical in nature, the second one is political in nature.
Your enemy, like you, has a primary control center located well away from other targets like the capital city. It may or may not be a “secret” base or center, but it is likely to be solidly built and deep underground or even inside a mountain. Since The Hole and the Cheyenne Mountain Complex are far from secret and have had their exteriors star on film and television (and rumor is those who worked at both wish the interiors had been as nice as Hollywood portrayed), I’m going to use them for examples. Yes, they did shut down the Cheyenne Mountain Complex for a while, and the Stargate program (annoyed about that still) in the dummy missile silo below the NORAD center (cough, choke, wheeze). While it is not what it was, still makes a good example.
Let’s face it, anyone who wants to attack the United States of America hates The Hole. They don’t just want to knock it offline, they want to destroy it. When first constructed, it was extremely survivable given the accuracy of the times. Now, I don’t know anyone who truly considers it to be survivable. A shaped nuclear charge in a ground penetrator on the most accurate delivery vehicle possible… Think the movies in this case have it right: the orders have to be given and command delegated before it gets hit.
Now, let’s look at the Mountain. Again, when it was built the design was amazingly good. For those who aren’t familiar, the tunnel opening you always see on television and in the movies runs all the way through the mountain. The idea was that if a bomb went off nearby, the blast would go through and not directly impact the doors and such inside. Net result was that the Mountain could ride out even very large blasts.
While there are a couple of tricks that could be tried to simply collapse any and all chambers in the Mountain, I think changing times could easily turn a key defense into an Achilles heel. If you used a cruise missile or hypersonic glide vehicle to put a warhead into the tunnel, the complex is not designed to withstand that. Now, I can think of a couple of ways to prevent that, but…
Now for the political considerations. By and large, the U.S. has focused on developing “clean” weapons. There are a number of reasons for that including but not limited to the fact that I have yet to meet anyone on our side who wants to live underground for a few decades. As long as the weapons are relatively clean, I don’t think it will come to that or any other bad science fiction nihilistic apocalyptic trope.
But, not everyone feels that way about cleaner is better. In fact, an argument can be made that some targets require a dirty weapon because you don’t want ANYONE going into that area for decades. Someone completely unhinged could even desire to make every bomb a dirty bomb to make an enemy the new Carthage. Doing so is easier than many would care for: simply jacket the bomb in cobalt (nasty radiation, long lasting) or some other element or elements that give the desired level of radiation and a decay rate that meets your plan. Someone brought the cobalt bomb up in comments, my thanks to them.
I didn’t cover special weapons in detail the other day as this series is primarily intended for people who have thought little or not at all about the unthinkable. I really don’t want to overwhelm, as my hope is that they will then want to start digging into things and that is when you can start getting into details and precision. Right now, accurate and high-level works. Getting into extreme details on weapons design, orbital mechanics, polar launches, and the many variables on FOBS is counter-productive to the reasons and goals for this series. Feel free to add details and even trivia in the comments, just keep it polite and unclassified.
However, I do feel that I need to mention the nuclear “torpedo” that Russia is allegedly developing as the warhead and the delivery vehicle itself can be considered to fall into the special category. According to the marketing hype, the warhead is massive and dirty, which puts it into the special weapons category. The delivery vehicle, which from the marketing hype would appear to be the size of a small submarine, may either be a form of underwater cruise missile or a drone. Detecting such a vehicle before it hits Norfolk, Pearl Harbor, or other major base could be a challenge. Something to keep an eye on.
The final thing I’m going to bring up in targeting today is the need for multiple attacks on major targets. Why? Simple. When was the last time you saw a complex distributed system where everything worked perfectly when cut on?
Planners tend to be a pessimistic bunch, with good reason, when it comes to reliability. What do you think the odds are of every missile we have igniting, launching successfully, and sending every one of those independent re-entry vehicles on their way with no problems? Planners have to plan for rockets not to launch, problems with the re-entry vehicles, and the fact that a number of the bombs are not going to detonate. They have to plan on planes not starting, having maintenance issues in flight, and that some of their bombs may be duds. Same considerations apply to submarines as well. Also don’t forget that they do have to plan for anti-missile defenses as well.
So, as you look at targets and targeting, keep in mind that a target may get hit multiple times to be sure it is taken out. Trick is, making sure that all the weapons don’t hit too close together, as that tends to work in the targets favor courtesy of one presentation of nuclear fratricide. Multiple hits by multiple means ensures that the target is hit at least once, and odds favor more than once. For example, Washington D.C. could be hit by a sea-launched missile, which if launched off the coast could arrive in 8-15 minutes — not a lot of time. Yes, I’m ignoring for now that DC actually has multiple targets within it. The DC area even more. Sea launched, ground-launched, and aircraft will be headed there. Let’s get people thinking about the unthinkable, then add in the details later when they are better able to handle it.
To end this on a somewhat lighter note, I’m going to bring up a point that may have been rather injudiciously brought up around those who were, possibly, easily offended.
In military operations, there is a concept of selective elimination, to be blunt assassination. The idea is to take out the enemy’s effective commanders and leave the less competent (complete incompetents) alone. However amusing, or true, it is not diplomatic to suggest that Vladimir wants to hurt us, not help us, and as such has elected not to destroy Washington D.C. and state capitals like Albany, Sacramento, Indianapolis, Olympia, Salem, or a few others. Thus concludes both targeting and today’s free diplomacy lesson.
Some Previous Posts:
Answers, Ramblings, And A Bit More On Vladimir And The Ukraine
Your Must Read For The Day On Russia
The Puzzles In Play, And The Missing Pieces
Quick Thoughts On Ukraine/Putin
Missing Pieces And Surprise Pieces
Accuracy, Reliability, And More
Putin, Trump, And The Coming Storm
War, Ag, Demographics, And The Worst Is Yet To Come
Past, Present, And A Hungry Future
If It’s Wednesday, This Must Be Moldova
*****
Nuclear War Posts In Order:
*****
If you would like to help me in my recovery efforts, feel free to hit the tip jar in the upper right or the fundraiser at A New Life on GiveSendGo. Getting hit by lightning is not fun, and it is thanks to your help and prayers that I am still going. Thank you.
Nuclear 101: Now What?
It truly is the eternal question: Now What? In 1945, it was the question asked as we realized we were on the back of the bull/tiger/dragon/colorful metaphor of your choice and needed to hang on. It’s still the question today, and we will get to it here in time.
In 1945, the United States was the most powerful nation on Earth, with a temporary monopoly on the power of the atomic bomb. While some felt that we could hold onto that power indefinitely, reality as always intruded. The Soviets had known about the Manhattan Project from the start and were already at work on creating their own bombs. This was spurred along, no doubt, by reports that some were pushing to use the bomb to take out the Soviet Union, nip Mao in the bud, and do other world-cleaning events. There were indeed such pushes, given that both politicians and generals had been quite vocal about the need to go ahead and take on the Soviet Union with the conventional forces already in place in Europe.
In those early days, there was what we would now consider an amazing lack of knowledge about atomic weapons. Radiation, contamination, fallout, and more were learned about somewhat on the fly. Aside from the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, U.S. and Soviet troops were exposed to blasts, marched through blast zones within hours, and treated to other delights. A surprising number of military and civilian leadership/elites apparently truly thought there would be little to no effect on the troops, despite what was being seen in Japan with survivors. Yet others simply saw this as an opportunity to learn what would happen.
As it began to sink in that atomic munitions were not something to be used like extra-powerful conventional bombs, there came a spate of serious proposals that read like bad science fiction. Of course they wanted atomic-powered planes, rockets, and more. There were also serious proposals for armored/shielded land crawlers that would dwarf a Jawa sand crawler, giant robots, and more. It can be a lot of fun to go back and look at some of these proposals.
At the same time, strategic concepts were being developed for the use of atomic weapons. The ridiculous idea that they would pre-empt and prevent conventional war was quickly disproven by Korea and a host of smaller conflicts around the world. At the same time, people began to realize that as more countries got more and more bombs, that a nuclear war would be/could be devastating on a scale never before seen. Pretty much every country of any significance began upgrading its air defenses as planes were the primary means of delivery at that time. As rockets and missiles came to the fore, work began on anti-missile defenses.
As things progressed, concepts were developed for the use of weapons and fighting an atomic war. In some respects, the focus was on preventing the use of atomic weapons and limiting exchanges between parties (really between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.). Thus was developed the moral abomination of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) which simply was that if the U.S. were attacked, we might be destroyed but we guarantee you will as well. Both sides had the means to destroy the other, potentially a few times over, and would do so at need. Since each side could do so, neither would attack the other. At least that was the theory, though it really didn’t consider independent powers that weren’t part of the two major power blocks. Worst, it put the safety of the world in the hands of the least stable leader with nukes.
Yet, planning continued on “limited” nuclear war and, to be honest, how to get around MAD and various treaties. After all, if you could come up with a way to take out your enemy’s atomic arms and/or the command and control of same, you’d win, wouldn’t you?
To get a better idea of the ideas involved, allow me to recommend reading Herman Kahn’s Thinking About The Unthinkable and Thinking About The Unthinkable In The 80s. There are other books out there, some of which are quite good, but these two capture a great deal of the philosophies of nuclear war, and avoiding same. NOTE: This is not an endorsement of or agreement with everything espoused by Herman Kahn. Agree or disagree, it is a fascinating window to this world.
They also provide a window into the concept of limited nuclear war. In such an event, only a small number of weapons — perhaps even only one — would be used and then both sides would stand down from further use of atomic weapons. Two problems, IMO, with that are human nature and clarity. Human nature says that even if a limited strike is executed on Country A by Country B, Country A is going to want to strike back and if they feel an existential threat they are going to be inclined to strike back as hard as possible. Clarity, in this case means that you know what you are doing and that you want to limit things, but the country you are attacking, and any allies, aren’t mind readers and are likely to be taking any announcements from you with a grain of salt. To be polite.
Is a single missile being launched a harmless weather sounding mission? Is it a satellite launch? Or, is it a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS) that will detonate over the target country and take out pretty much all electronics with a burst of EMP so a surprise attack can be launched? Even the use of tactical devices on the battlefield runs a real risk of escalation. If one uses such against a city with military and political headquarters, you have just put your cities at risk.
It was the U.S. position for decades that the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons would be regarded as first use of nuclear weapons, and would be responded to in kind. Those particular red lines have been severely eroded, which may have unfortunately emboldened enemies and given the concept of “escalate to de-escalate” an undeserved air of legitimacy. For those who are not regular readers, this is a Russian concept that they could use a special weapons/tactical device or devices on the battlefield and prevent retaliation by threatening to go strategic (full exchange) if anyone fires back. Sort of a ‘you know I’m crazy because I’ve used a nuke, if you retaliate I’m crazy enough to launch them all’ scenario. I have my doubts about how well that’s going to work…
Tomorrow, I think we discuss targeting and may start looking at some scenarios; but, for today, let’s close out with two very important considerations: Command and Control, and defenses.
Command and Control is how the President (or civilian authority in line of succession) gives orders to our nuclear forces. It’s also how the military shares information with the President, so he can make the decision(s) on how to respond to an event or events. There are such command and control systems/structures for every atomic power.
In the case of the U.S. we have bases, airborne command posts, and perhaps some other things devoted to detecting threats and responding to them. There are dedicated communications networks for these purposes, for all that the Chinese seem to be potentially trying to spoke them. No, I’m not happy about those Chinese land purchases that also seem to come with all sorts of interesting electronics, though I expect little to be done for now. Just keep in mind, as I’ve noted before, the majority of our detection systems are older tech and focused pretty much entirely on ballistic missiles. Much broader threat envelope today…
The Russians also have detection, command posts, and airborne command posts. However, the Soviet Union back in the day realized the communications nets sucked so they devised a system to work around it. For all that we joke about the President pushing the button, the Soviet-now-Russian system is pretty close to that. It has an official name (Perimeter) but is best known as “Dead Hand.” The idea being that a dead hand can still launch a retaliatory strike.
I wrote about the system before at Blackfive years back (can’t find the link, sadly) but the basics are that the system monitors cities, seismic data, and more and if it detects information indicating an attack on Russia, a duty officer is notified and they can decide next steps. Also, if they get the launch orders from the special control system that is usually near Putin (or previous leaders), they can act. Either way, they make a decision on target packages and then launch a missile that as it rises up broadcasts a radio signal to the nuclear armed forces that gives them the launch orders. Once that rocket goes up, the Russian missiles will launch. Which is why we should all celebrate Col. Stanislav Petrov, who when a major warning system malfunctioned, made the decision to ignore the false information and prevented 1983 from being the year of WWIII. The system also came close to being activated by Boris Yeltsin when a weather rocket launched from Norway was mistaken for a first strike.
The British, French, Chinese, and others all have their systems and those systems reflect their governments. With the British, we have a good deal of sharing and it used to be fairly common to see British liaison officers at NORAD and other facilities I’m told.
Now, a little on defense. While Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) systems get a lot of play, there are a variety of options. Passive defenses include bunkers, such as The Hole or Cheyenne Mountain Complex. Active defenses can include ABMs, projectile systems, or potentially space-based systems. Work on lasers and other directed energy devices is advancing according to industry publications and RUMINT. For a number of reasons, I’m not able to comment on a lot on this work, but will admit I find it frustrating when told (usually by an over-educated idiot) that some or all of it won’t work. You might look up Dean Ing’s discussion on accidentally directly intercepting a missile in flight. It was decades ago, and the idea apparently was to have a near miss so they could get the data to allow a direct hit. Ooops.
Sadly, a lot of our defensive efforts have been prevented/gutted/etc. by people who seem to feel it is immoral and improper to defend yourself. Or possibly because they agree with the enemy. I do wonder some days. And, yes, there is a group that feels that because of MAD we have a moral duty to die without defending ourselves since that might undermine MAD. My thoughts on them I leave to your imaginations.
Some Previous Posts:
Answers, Ramblings, And A Bit More On Vladimir And The Ukraine
Your Must Read For The Day On Russia
The Puzzles In Play, And The Missing Pieces
Quick Thoughts On Ukraine/Putin
Missing Pieces And Surprise Pieces
Accuracy, Reliability, And More
Putin, Trump, And The Coming Storm
War, Ag, Demographics, And The Worst Is Yet To Come
Past, Present, And A Hungry Future
If It’s Wednesday, This Must Be Moldova
*****
Nuclear War Posts In Order:
*****
If you would like to help me in my recovery efforts, feel free to hit the tip jar in the upper right or the fundraiser at A New Life on GiveSendGo. Getting hit by lightning is not fun, and it is thanks to your help and prayers that I am still going. Thank you.
Nuclear 101: Delivery
Once again, this is a high-level overview. Part of that is because the only means of delivery I’ve never heard seriously discussed (over adult beverages may be a different issue) is using a kite. Everything from balloons to human assets has been discussed, proposed, and possibly even implemented.
Given the size and weight, the original bombs were designed to be delivered by aircraft. To get the bombs to the airfield, however, required ships. My father actually slept on top of the Hiroshima bomb, not knowing what it was, onboard the Indianapolis. Story for another day, but the first bombs were huge, crude (by today’s standards) and low-yield compared to modern thermonuclear devices.
As size and weight came down, the types of planes that could be used for delivery increased. While the big bombers (B-52, etc.) are still the primary delivery vehicle, even fighter bombers and small aircraft can technically carry a bomb. A fact that tends to give planning staff ulcers given some of the scenarios that enables.
Outside of suicide scenarios, the key is the ability to support the bomb and bombing run, and the ability for the plane to be a safe distance away when the bomb goes off. This can mean anything from bombing at high altitude to ensure enough distance; coming in at high speed and lower altitude; or doing a lob toss (idiot’s loop) where the pilot flies a course that releases the bomb onto a ballistic arc to the target while the pilot does a 180 and redlines the engine(s) to get to a safe distance before it goes off.
Rather, those used to be the only options for aircraft. Today, however, you have the ability to use Air-Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCM), glide vehicles, and RUMINT has it other options (loitering systems?) are either here or in work. The key to all of these from the U.S. perspective is protecting the expensive highly-trained crew for future use by sending in unmanned systems from a distance. Not every country/power shares that concern.
For years, bombing was the only real option and it remained the most accurate option once the Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) became an option. The rocket attacks on London by Germany in WWII were the first use of modern ballistic missiles in war. While they did a good deal of damage and killed a fair number of civilians, they anything but precise and were aimed only in the crudest sense of the word. Even if targeted at a specific landmark, you were doing good just to have it hit in the greater-London area. The inertial navigation systems used on the rockets were not very good, which is not surprising in a first generation system. Yes, yes, they were in use on planes, but no one had ever designed one that could be fitted in a rocket.
When the ICBM came into the picture as a means of nuclear delivery, there had been some improvements to the system, but you still had a Circular Error Probability (CEP) measured in miles. As in the warhead would impact up to several miles off target. As a hypothetical, a U.S. warhead might hit up to a mile off target, while Soviet systems of the day may have had a tendency to hit 10 or so miles off target.
The U.S. response to this was to improve the guidance systems to reduce the CEP such that it was measured in yards, then feet. As seen in non-nuclear use in Iraq and elsewhere, modern guidance systems for missiles, cruise missiles, drones, and loitering munitions can in a number of cases be measured in inches. The problem is that the Minuteman system, our ground-based launch component, is mid-1960s tech. Our Trident Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) are newer than that, but still are based on technology that is 40-50 years old. More on this as we get into strategies and related discussions in the days ahead.
The Soviet response to having such large CEPs was typical. Given problems with manufacturing and technology, they simply made their nuclear weapons more powerful. Didn’t matter if they were a few miles off target, if the bomb was large enough to take it out anyway, along with a hell of a lot of additional real-estate. One of the terms for them you may come across is “city busters.” Even after they stole, bought, or developed improved guidance systems, they have retained that tendency to go for larger warheads — which may say something about the real accuracy of their systems as opposed to what the marketing brochures say…
A brief aside: their problems with technology still persist, and it is telling that the Russians are heavily dependent upon Western companies (looking at you Germany. Though they are not the only government turning a blind eye to companies providing such to Russia, they are the leading one) to provide the components needed for precision guidance in every type of munition.
A couple of other important points to keep in mind when discussing ICBMs. First, they require silos or other launch support. Silos are fixed, expensive, and a target. Mobile launch systems are not as robust but are harder to find/keep track of by an enemy. Silos, because such are very precisely surveyed locations, offer a higher degree of initial accuracy to the guidance system. Mobile launchers tend not to have that precision on launch point since planners rarely count on GPS and other systems being available. Great if it is available, but never count on it.
The second point is that there are two types of missile: solid fueled and liquid fueled. While it is technically possible to make a solid propellant engine I’m told, it’s not a thing with ICBMs.
Solid propellants are limited for the most part to motors: you can start it and it goes until all the fuel is gone. You have no start/stop capability. The advantages to solid fuel pretty much comes down to instant use capability. The disadvantages are that solid motors have a definite lifetime, and require inspection and testing during that time to be sure problems haven’t developed. Cracks and voids are very bad things.
Liquid fuel engines are the alternative to solid motors. While there are arguments to be made over thrust, specific impulse, and other things near and dear to rocket people, the key from an ICBM viewpoint is that they are reliable, easy to maintain, and have a very different inspection and testing regime. Theoretically you also have the ability to start/stop the engines as an additional means of flying an evasive course. A downside to them is that you don’t have instant launch capability, as you have to load the fuel just before launch.
And, yes, you do want to do it just before launch. Attempts to keep them fueled constantly have not worked out well for anyone in the past, just as attempts to use hypergolic fuels have ended badly. In Saturday’s discussion on weapons, remember the comments on designing weapons so that fire, explosions, and other things don’t accidentally set off the weapon? There are good reasons for that other than planes crashing, as it’s quite the faux pas to nuke your own silo(s). Even though having a missile cook off inside it while closed up pretty well takes it out anyway.
It is worth noting that the U.S. has gone with solid motors for pretty much all its missiles. The Soviet Union, then the Russians, have primarily gone with liquid engines for ground-launch. With proper maintenance and testing, both work just fine and can do the job. The key is the maintenance and testing, and I’m trying to decide if I should start in on the history of nuclear war theories tomorrow or do a discussion/rant on the need for testing and what I regard as the abysmal state of America’s nuclear preparedness.
Aside from missiles and aircraft, nuclear weapons can be delivered via glide vehicles, cruise missiles, drones, artillery, and other means. At various points the U.S. and others have explored shoulder-launched systems, human strike teams, and even more far-fetched ideas.
Glide vehicles are not new, and may have even originated as far back as the days of balloons. The idea is simple: create something that has wings/surfaces that will induce motion even as the object drops. Light the fuse and drop it so it heads towards the enemy. Glide bombs were used during WWII, and modern versions can be used for bombing and (one-way primarily) recon. I’m not aware of anyone seriously using them, but they are an option where advanced tech may be limited. The exception to this is the idea of a hypersonic glide vehicle, which is an option reportedly being pursued by the Russians. If successful, it would be a major game changer.
Cruise missiles have been around a while (see the Navaho, aka NeverGo, cruise missile for an early attempt) and with the advent of the drone revolution, have continued to advance. For purposes of our discussions, cruise missiles differ from drones because they operate independent of human control. Drones are flown and while they may have (depending on model) some auto-pilot capability there is usually a human in the loop. Cruise missiles have the ability to come in low and fast, thus evading early warning systems which were (on both sides) primarily developed to detect ballistic missiles. Drones are often stealthy, which opens some interesting possibilities.
Artillery can be used to deliver nuclear weapons. While mostly reserved for tactical weapons, it is theoretically possible for modern systems to launch a strategic weapon. The trick, as always, is to ensure that the launch system is OUTSIDE the blast radius of the device being launched. And, yes, that actually was an issue early on.
While not in use anywhere that I know of, pretty much everyone around the world has looked into some form of man-portable launch system, with at least one shoulder-fired system developed. Problem was, such systems had issues including the slight downside of the person launching the weapon being inside (potentially well inside) the blast zone. Oddly, not a favorite with the troops.
Also, pretty much everyone has looked into the idea of small teams who can be inserted with a weapon into an area (most often by air) who will then place the weapon where needed and then high-tail it out of Dodge with the weapon timed to go off after they are safe. If all goes well.
Finally, you can put a bomb in a van or small truck (might want to beef up the suspension), and drive it to a target that can be reached via roads. Tom Clancy, John Ringo, and others have covered this quite well. Not great for a mass attack, but when we get into strategies it is another concept that can give planners ulcers. Same holds true for large boats/small ships.
So, that concludes a very quick, high-level overview of common, not so common, and even a couple of improbable delivery systems. I wasn’t joking when I said the only delivery system I haven’t heard seriously discussed was kites…
Some Previous Posts:
Answers, Ramblings, And A Bit More On Vladimir And The Ukraine
Your Must Read For The Day On Russia
The Puzzles In Play, And The Missing Pieces
Quick Thoughts On Ukraine/Putin
Missing Pieces And Surprise Pieces
Accuracy, Reliability, And More
Putin, Trump, And The Coming Storm
War, Ag, Demographics, And The Worst Is Yet To Come
Past, Present, And A Hungry Future
If It’s Wednesday, This Must Be Moldova
*****
Nuclear War Posts In Order:
*****
If you would like to help me in my recovery efforts, feel free to hit the tip jar in the upper right or the fundraiser at A New Life on GiveSendGo. Getting hit by lightning is not fun, and it is thanks to your help and prayers that I am still going. Thank you.