Limited Nuclear War

[RedRalph]

Patroklos, two things

1), the fact that you believe NATO and the UK govt are the same thing (you means the Americans, not NATO, NATO is an organisation, you are a citizen of the UK), shows how low you will stoop to score a point, which nonetheless you havent scored

2) Go ahead and show me where I said that cities would be hit for the sake of it. Go ahead, show me, and then we can talk on. Otherwise, shut it, because as usual, you made an assumption about what I meant, instead of actually reading what I said. I said nearly all major cities would be hit, I never said they would be hit for simple malice... thats what you inferred, but it's not what I meant. now either prove your point, or admit you misinterpreted what I was saying (note that Winner didnt make this mistake, only you did).

Edit: Argghhh... this is why I said I wont be here so much nowadays... its so stupid when someone lies about what you have said, when the entire conversation is right there in script, so its obvious I never said cities would be destroyed for no good reason...

Now, last time: show me where I said cities would be destroyed for no good reason or stop making stuff up

 

[red_elk]

Actually, in general Winner and I are arguing that the Soviets wouldn't do that, RRW is the one who thinks the Soviets would.

In the specific case of crippling NATO in a US/Russia exchange, in the 1960s general nuclear bombardment was required because of the accuracy of missiles not because of any particular desire do destroy everything above ground level. This changed as the missiles became more accurate.

Well, military value of major cities doesn't limit to military installations nearby. They usually are big industrial centers, transport hubs (see Moscow for example), sources of manpower. IMO, in case of total nuclear war, cities like New Yourk, Moscow, Leningrad, Washington and many others would be destroyed no matter whether they have nuclear silos or troops nearby or not.

For Europe scenario, USSR had to be totally crazy to launch invasion with massive using of tactical nukes, if it wasn't attacked by NATO first. And it didn't.

 

[Patroklos]

1), the fact that you believe NATO and the UK govt are the same thing (you means the Americans, not NATO, NATO is an organisation, you are a citizen of the UK), shows how low you will stoop to score a point, which nonetheless you havent scored

Ummmm, you are aware that the UK government is a party to NATO, correct?

I actually said “we,” as in the West, specifically to point out that someone with the biases against the Soviets at the time came up with that estimate, and since you have provided nothing refuting this and the very wiki article on the topic points this out the fact that you even dared bring this back up just shows how clueless you are to the academic boot stomping you just received.

FACTS: That exercise is NOT what the Soviets were planning to do, but rather what SOME westerns THOUGHT they might do. It was then roundly criticized by contemporaries.

It is worth noting though that sence you have now based your whole ridiculous position on this one exercise that included targets that are neither counter value or counter force, you DO think the Soviets were murderous bastards killing millions for no apparent reason. Bravo.

2) Go ahead and show me where I said that cities would be hit for the sake of it. Go ahead, show me, and then we can talk on. Otherwise, shut it, because as usual, you made an assumption about what I meant, instead of actually reading what I said. I said nearly all major cities would be hit, I never said they would be hit for simple malice... thats what you inferred, but it's not what I meant. now either prove your point, or admit you misinterpreted what I was saying (note that Winner didnt make this mistake, only you did).

Quibbling yet again, shock. YOU GAVE NO REASON WHY THEY WOULD BE HIT. You continued to give no reason after being asked repeatedly to provide one. I don’t know about you, but to ever living breathing thinking being that is exactly what constitutes “for the hell of it.”

Nobody is to blame for you omission but yourself.

Edit: Argghhh... this is why I said I wont be here so much nowadays... its so stupid when someone lies about what you have said, when the entire conversation is right there in script, so its obvious I never said cities would be destroyed for no good reason...

That’s rich. It is nobody elses fault but your own that you post simplistic comments that you are completely incapable of following to their logical conclusion. If you don’t like being taken to task for saying things that make no sense of can in no way be supported spend a day or two before jumping into the deep in with people who know more and are capable of cognitive thought.

 

[RedRalph]

Well, military value of major cities doesn't limit to military installations nearby. They usually are big industrial centers, transport hubs (see Moscow for example), sources of manpower. IMO, in case of total nuclear war, cities like New Yourk, Moscow, Leningrad, Washington and many others would be destroyed no matter whether they have nuclear silos or troops nearby or not.

For Europe scenario, USSR had to be totally crazy to launch invasion with massive using of tactical nukes, if it wasn't attacked by NATO first. And it didn't.

Exactly. Destoying a big city has in itself military value, its not a matter of doing it out of spite. any country on Earth is weakened by the destruction of its cities.

Apart form anything, there could be command bunkers etc in a city that you dont know about.

 

[amadeus]

Are we still discussing the prospect of a limited nuclear war? I don't think such a thing exists... that is, unless the two sides fighting have a limited stockpile.

 

[Patroklos]

Well, military value of major cities doesn't limit to military installations nearby. They usually are big industrial centers, transport hubs (see Moscow for example), sources of manpower. IMO, in case of total nuclear war, cities like New Yourk, Moscow, Leningrad, Washington and many others would be destroyed no matter whether they have nuclear silos or troops nearby or not.

You are talking about counter force (military assets) and counter value (economic assets). Certain assets can be both, like communications and transportation facilities. Command and Control includes quite a few civilian assets (leaders for one) and are also counter force.

The thing is, and what RRW is stuggling with, is that factories and corporate headquarters (as mentioned in the OP) are not relevant to a first strike. The sole purpose is to devestate the military assets of the opponent, primarily nuclear, to ensure there is no significant retaliatory strike. It doesn't matter if the enemies shoe and toilot factories are still standing if its organized military is in complete shambles. The simple fact is given the devestation coincidental to the destuction of military facilities will devestate the nation in general anyway. Its economic game over whether the soley counter value targets are hit or not, there is no purpose to killing those people (its also a waste of ordinance).

There isn't going to be any rebuilding of the military to continue the war (at least not between the US and Russia). If the war continues at all it will be with what both sides have on hand (which is actually what would happen in an entirely conventional war as well).

And thats the contention, that there is no reason to destroy entirely none military cities just becuase the are "important" in a general sense. It accomplishes nothing but inflicing needless death.

For Europe scenario, USSR had to be totally crazy to launch invasion with massive using of tactical nukes, if it wasn't attacked by NATO first. And it didn't.

Thats the essense of MAD. But this is not relevant.

 

[RedRalph]

Ummmm, you are aware that the UK government is a party to NATO, correct?

Ummmm you are aware that being party to =/= is the same thing as?

I actually said “we,” as in the West, specifically to point out that someone with the biases against the Soviets at the time came up with that estimate, and since you have provided nothing refuting this and the very wiki article on the topic points this out the fact that you even dared bring this back up just shows how clueless you are to the academic boot stomping you just received.

No, I didnt recieve a 'boot stomping', in fact though it seems to give you a litte thrill to use that phrase, that hasnt happened at all.

the report was criticised on a few minor points, which you have decided to pretend makes the entire thing completely invalid. A pathetic little tactic, but one I've come to expect form you. The substance of the report shows that every major city in the UK would be hit, no one has argued against that, other than you (note, not even Winner has agreed with you).

FACTS: That exercise is NOT what the Soviets were planning to do, but rather what SOME westerns THOUGHT they might do. It was then roundly criticized by contemporaries.

Really? Give us those criticisms so we can examine them. did they say the whole thing was invalid, or did they say a few points were off?

BTW, you do know that declassified Soviet documents have shown they did indeed plan to take out every major city, dont you? Even Winner has acknowledged that... So where is your point now? the USSR intended on taking out all (or most) of the cities, so whatever else you think really dosent matter, thats what would have happened.

It is worth noting though that sence you have now based your whole ridiculous position on this one exercise that included targets that are neither counter value or counter force, you DO think the Soviets were murderous bastards killing millions for no apparent reason. Bravo.

I find it pretty bizarre that you are suddenly attributing humanitarian qualities to the USSR that even I dont believe were there, is there nothing you wont do to try and score a point? and still you fail.

Quibbling yet again, shock. YOU GAVE NO REASON WHY THEY WOULD BE HIT. You continued to give no reason after being asked repeatedly to provide one. I don’t know about you, but to ever living breathing thinking being that is exactly what constitutes “for the hell of it.”

No, it dosent. I dont think they would do it for the hell of it (STOP MAKING THINGS UP JUST BECAUSE YOU CANT WIN THE ARGUMENT), I think they would because common sense dictates so

IN this very thread YOU YOURSELF Have acknowledged that at least the top 50 US cities would be destroyed, now you seem to be trying to argue that not many cities would be hit... you are directly contradicting yourself, its ridiculous.

That’s rich. It is nobody elses fault but your own that you post simplistic comments that you are completely incapable of following to their logical conclusion. If you don’t like being taken to task for saying things that make no sense of can in no way be supported spend a day or two before jumping into the deep in with people who know more and are capable of cognitive thought.

right, so in other words: Look everyone, Patroklos has just admitted he cant show where I said something I didnt, he made a stupid assumption and now cant back it up. thanks for admitting you cant support your position.

 

[RedRalph]

Are we still discussing the prospect of a limited nuclear war? I don't think such a thing exists... that is, unless the two sides fighting have a limited stockpile.

thats what I think too, despite the constant misrepresentation of my position. i think if it was India v Pakistan, for example, because nukes would be in relqatively short supply, military targets would take total priority, but because there wouldnt be so many nukes to use, all but the major cities would likely escape (apart fomr the ones with military targets right beside them).

 

[Patroklos]

Are we still discussing the prospect of a limited nuclear war? I don't think such a thing exists... that is, unless the two sides fighting have a limited stockpile.

If China nukes a CSG, we are not going to nuke a mainland civilian target in response. We are also not going to nuke their nuclear sites in response. The reasons for this are obvious.

Exactly. Destoying a big city has in itself military value, its not a matter of doing it out of spite. any country on Earth is weakened by the destruction of its cities.

You are wallowing in your WWII undertanding of warfare. Again, as has been asked of you dozens of times now, what real benefit is there to destroying Fargo ND if it has no military assets?

Apart form anything, there could be command bunkers etc in a city that you dont know about.

That would make it a counter force target.

 

[RedRalph]

You are wallowing in your WWII undertanding of warfare. Again, as has been asked of you dozens of times now, what real benefit is there to destroying Fargo ND if it has no military assests?

for the love of christ, you are just terrible at arguing...

Apart form anything, there could be command bunkers etc in a city that you dont know about.

That would make it a counter force target.

Understand? how does one side know exactly whats in every enemy city? I am not saying every single town, hamlet and villiage would be a target, I'm saying all the major cities and most of the towns would be. I just caanot comprehend why you are apparently hallucinating me saying things I havent said. It's all here, in the thread. Read back through it and actually read what I have typed.

 

[Patroklos]

Ummmm you are aware that being party to =/= is the same thing as?

I said "we" RRW, by definition that includes everyone contained within. I actually said it in reference to the West, not NATO, but then NATO is included in the West too, no?

the report was criticised on a few minor points, which you have decided to pretend makes the entire thing completely invalid. A pathetic little tactic, but one I've come to expect form you. The substance of the report shows that every major city in the UK would be hit, no one has argued against that, other than you (note, not even Winner has agreed with you).

Minor points like 1.) deliberatly falsifying the weapons that would be used in favor of the highest yeilds available or 2.) including targets that include not only no counter force targets but no counter value targets as well?

Minor eh? #2 is the crux of the debate and you have provided nothing explaining away this discrepency. Unless you want to admit the Soviets are murderous asses? No?

Really? Give us those criticisms so we can examine them. did they say the whole thing was invalid, or did they say a few points were off?

Already linked, and yes they said some very major and damning things.

BTW, you do know that declassified Soviet documents have shown they did indeed plan to take out every major city, dont you? Even Winner has acknowledged that... So where is your point now? the USSR intended on taking out all (or most) of the cities, so whatever else you think really dosent matter, thats what would have happened.

No RRW, Winner said that in the course of taking out every major military installation every major city would be devestated. That is not the same thing as the Soviets deliberatly taking out every major city. This is the mental block your flailing has rendered you to accept. Winner and I both have since even before you disgraced this threat with your presence accepted that major damage would occur throughout such a conflict.

The ONLY thing that we both said was that in the process of upgrading weapons from inaccurate to accurate and thus high yeild to low yeild weapons from the 60s to the 80s many cities could avoid being destroyed entirely. This is patently true, there is nothing you can say that will change this basic fact.

And then here you come "OMFG NO WAY THEY WILL BE DESTOYED ANYWAYS, THEY ARE IMPORTANT!!!"

I find it pretty bizarre that you are suddenly attributing humanitarian qualities to the USSR that even I dont believe were there, is there nothing you wont do to try and score a point? and still you fail.

Ah, so I guess you were forshadowing an insult to yourself when you made this statement assuming I believed those things about the Soviets?

"As for the rest of your anti-Soviet rant, I cant tell whether its either you being ironic (given that your country is the only one who ever used juclear weapons on cities) or just stupid, or not serious, so I'm going to go ahead and ignore it til you clear that up."

The Soviets were many things, but they were not on a quest to murder hundreds of millions of human beings for no logical reason. But now that we have established that you think this, through your own admission, it calls in to question your basic humanity. Again, Bravo.

No, it dosent. I dont think they would do it for the hell of it (STOP MAKING THINGS UP JUST BECAUSE YOU CANT WIN THE ARGUMENT), I think they would because common sense dictates so

Ah, so by giving no reason after being asked to give one you are in fact saying there is a reason? Are you posting from pre school?

IN this very thread YOU YOURSELF Have acknowledged that at least the top 50 US cities would be destroyed, now you seem to be trying to argue that not many cities would be hit... you are directly contradicting yourself, its ridiculous.

I want you to look up the difference between targeted and destroyed. You will note in your research that the words have drastically different meanings.

Then I want you to look up the difference between "less" and "not that many." You will note in your research that the words have drastically different meanings. While you are at it, you can actually search the forum and find out if I ever said "not that many" in regards to the topic. Most poeple would realize that me asking you this is actually me pointing out that no such thing ever happened, but you can't be trusted with such basic understanding conversation so go ahead and do the search anyway.

right, so in other words: Look everyone, Patroklos has just admitted he cant show where I said something I didnt, he made a stupid assumption and now cant back it up. thanks for admitting you cant support your position.

Ah, requesting someone prove a negative. We can just leave this gem at that

 

[Patroklos]

Apart form anything, there could be command bunkers etc in a city that you dont know about.

Oh, there COULD be bunkers. I guess thats why Pickens SC gets a nuke too, right? Athens, GA? Allegash, ME?

Actually, just to be sure, we better hit every square mile with a multi mega ton warhead just to be sure. Actually, just one every square mile leaves a lot to chance...

Understand? how does one side know exactly whats in every enemy city? I am not saying every single town, hamlet and villiage would be a target, I'm saying all the major cities and most of the towns would be. I just caanot comprehend why you are apparently hallucinating me saying things I havent said. It's all here, in the thread. Read back through it and actually read what I have typed.

Then you have removed any validation for nuking any place without knowledge of a valid target. Why is Fargo more prone to have a command bunker than Pickens? You know nuclear assets (especially the retaliatory kind) are not kept near population centers if it can be helped, right?

The point RRW, is you didn't say anything. Giving no reason is, obviously, giving no reason. But now you have, and apparently it is just to kill everyone and ask questions later. Very enlightened.

 

[El_Machinae]

Moderator Action: Stop this argument as to whether not providing reasons is the same as 'for the hell of it'. As we've seen, this can get people frustrated.

 

[Winner]

Actually, in general Winner and I are arguing that the Soviets wouldn't do that, RRW is the one who thinks the Soviets would.

In the specific case of crippling NATO in a US/Russia exchange, in the 1960s general nuclear bombardment was required because of the accuracy of missiles not because of any particular desire do destroy everything above ground level. This changed as the missiles became more accurate.

^-- This...

 

[RedRalph]

^-- This...

but you posted an article saying the USSR did plan to hit most major European cities, didnt you? I'm not arguing the reasons why they would, I'm saying they would.

 

[RedRalph]

Oh, there COULD be bunkers. I guess thats why Pickens SC gets a nuke too, right? Athens, GA? Allegash, ME?

Actually, just to be sure, we better hit every square mile with a multi mega ton warhead just to be sure. Actually, just one every square mile leaves a lot to chance...

No, because that wouldn't be possible. it would on the other hand, be very possible to hit the top, say 100 or so cities. By the law of averages, that would certaintly take out many worthy targets.

Then you have removed any validation for nuking any place without knowledge of a valid target. Why is Fargo more prone to have a command bunker than Pickens? You know nuclear assets (especially the retaliatory kind) are not kept near population centers if it can be helped, right?

Oh I do indeed know that. Of course, you cannot know the unknowble, you cannot be sure every city has a worthy target in it. however, if you can take out the biggest populations centres, and you have thousands and thousands of nukes, it'd be crazy not to. you might get a decent target in 10% of them, so why not? it would be crazy not to. you already know the enemy is going to inflict millions of casualties on you, do you think people would seriously hesitate on humanitarian grounds because they might destroy a city with no legit targets when you know the enemy is definitely going to kill millions of your own civilians?

The point RRW, is you didn't say anything. Giving no reason is, obviously, giving no reason. But now you have, and apparently it is just to kill everyone and ask questions later. Very enlightened.

Again, you drew a conclusion, but lets leave that topic. The reasons I give are because taking out most of the major cities is of inherent value. Like i said in the PM, transports hubs, manpower, economic value, killing essential personnel (possibly reducing retaliation) etc etc.

We could go on and on, but I'm going to leave it for the moment.

 

[amadeus]

You are wallowing in your WWII undertanding of warfare. Again, as has been asked of you dozens of times now, what real benefit is there to destroying Fargo ND if it has no military assets?

I think you're misrepresenting RRW's position in this; Fargo is not a major metropolitan area and is not integral to the overall functioning of the economy.

Fargo is the 214th largest statistical metropolitan area in the United States, behind such dazzling areas as Appleton, Wisconsin and Cedar Rapids, Iowa. What RRW is referring to, I believe, in this regard is those cities which are essential to the supply and maintenance of a modern military; New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Miami, Houston, Dallas, San Francisco, Boston, and Minneapolis.

Destroying economic assets can cripple the war efforts of a major industrial power; Germany and Japan exemplified this.

 

[RedRalph]

I think you're misrepresenting RRW's position in this; Fargo is not a major metropolitan area and is not integral to the overall functioning of the economy.

Fargo is the 214th largest statistical metropolitan area in the United States, behind such dazzling areas as Appleton, Wisconsin and Cedar Rapids, Iowa. What RRW is referring to, I believe, in this regard is those cities which are essential to the supply and maintenance of a modern military; New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Miami, Houston, Dallas, San Francisco, Boston, and Minneapolis.

Destroying economic assets can cripple the war efforts of a major industrial power; Germany and Japan exemplified this.

Yup, that is what I am saying. Apparently because i didnt state my reasons in the first few posts (even though we werent discussing the reasons), this got misinterpreted. I never thought towns and cities would be nuked for fun, I thought (or said, if anyone wants to read the thread they can verify this) they would be because it helps one side win a war.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

If i was a military strategist i would target miltary objectives first obviously, since that would limit enemy´s retaliation. However that would be the first hours of the war only and i would think in longer terms. I mean, if you spend all your nukes destroying enemy´s nukes and army leaving cities intact, even if you are successful, you would find yourself immersed in a much longer war of attrition, both conventional and nuclear. OTOH, the cities could be nuked even in the first hours of the war, because any side would not know if the enemy was going to nuke his cities, so they would do so, just in case. So i think that cities would be doomed in any case.

 

[GoodGame]

Got one of those for PA?

Plan to be on a hunting vacation for the rest of your life.