Global Thermonuclear War

[Exarch]

a coupla months back, i got a game from the discount bin at EB games called DEFCON, which is basically like the film 'Wargames' with ally sheedy
it got me thinking,
what're the best steps in a global thermonuclear war where you would win/lose less than your opponent(s)?
or, like the film 'Wargames', is there really no winner in a Global Thermonuclear War? is it akin to playing, 'tic-tac-toe'/noughts and crosses?

Given current technology like intercepting missile batteries like the patriot system, is a Global Thermonuclear War winnable?

PS forget/take into acocunt globalisation and intertwined economic ties.

[Sidmen]

It depends, who is fighting this war?

If the United States engaged in a Nuclear war with Britain (and Britain alone) we would win. America simply has enough defenses to withstand the small number of British missiles, and has enough missiles to punch through their defenses.

Larger nations, like russia, would be able to put enough missiles in the air to make our defenses worthless, but they too would be destroyed.

[NakedBarbarian2]

I think it depends on who the nuclear exchange is between;

Russia vs America i think no one would win

America vs China i think america could pull off a win - china might be able to land two or three nukes on the western coast and destroy two or three cities entirely but China would be utterly annihilated and millions upon millions killed

[Kiljan Arslan]

We could beat China in a Thermonuclear war, they have around 200 nukes, we've got enough to end the world.

Not that I advocate that kind a thing.

Also the patriot missle system is meant to deal with cruise missles not ICBMs which go into ing space.

[Sidmen]

ICBMs are slower and easier to hit than cruise missiles...

The Patriot system seems to have underperformed though, so there would still be a chance for us to take hits...

[Captain Blackadder]

Against Russia the film is write the only way to win is not to play at all. However when you start getting towards under 1000 then it is winnable to a degree.

[Dr. Croccer]

In a fight between

China, the US or/and Russia

No one would win.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Actually we could "win" against china "only" maybe 50 million dead, then everyone dead with russia.

[Caelius]

China only has 25-35 operational ICBMs (DF-5s and DF-31s), the former of which are liquid fueled (i.e. means US SIGINT would see the heat blooms from them being fueled for launch).

That number is easily within the interception envelope of the US' presently operational ABM Shield assets at Vandenberg AFB in California and Ft. Greely in Alaska.

Basically, with the exception of a nuclear exchange between the US and Russia, none of the other nuclear powers have large enough strategic nuclear arsenals for there to be a "Global Thermonuclear War" if their missiles were launched.

So....yes, under that context a nuclear war can be very winnable. It's all dependent on which countries are trying to nuke each other and how much "Strategic Depth" each one has to the point where one can soak up more damage then their opponent.

In a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan for instance Pakistan would lose because it's national infrastructure isn't as widely dispersed or decentralized as India's is.

I could go on, but hopefully that paints a nice picture of things.

[cfmonkey45]

a coupla months back, i got a game from the discount bin at EB games called DEFCON, which is basically like the film 'Wargames' with ally sheedy
it got me thinking,
what're the best steps in a global thermonuclear war where you would win/lose less than your opponent(s)?
or, like the film 'Wargames', is there really no winner in a Global Thermonuclear War? is it akin to playing, 'tic-tac-toe'/noughts and crosses?

Given current technology like intercepting missile batteries like the patriot system, is a Global Thermonuclear War winnable?

PS forget/take into acocunt globalisation and intertwined economic ties.

No, because the survivors will have to fight off the endless waves of mutants spawned from the millions of tons of radioactive fallout.

[Axeman]

The strategy for American war was to launch all nuclear missles *in the event of a first strike* at known soviet launch facilities, were as later we found out that the Soviet Union was opting for the opposite: to use thier massive ammount of nukes to hit most major population centers at once. This means that in the Event of a Soviet First Strike the USA would be worse off due to the drastically higher soviet nuclear arsenal.

basically:

if attacked with nukes:

hit major population / industry / military centers

if attacking :

hit launch sites / military / population centers / industry

in that order.

[Problem Sleuth]

No one wins. If we nuke the out of China, we win - and then we get a nuclear winter. Maybe not apocalyptic, but disastrous nonetheless. If we attack other nations, same result. Not to mention the fact our international status would drop overnight - we would be doing something that makes the Holocaust and Stalin's regime seem positively benevolent. Meaning even if we survive without too much damage, we'll still be screwed by what's essentially a giant trade embargo. Or all-out war, concievably.

[Senno]

No one wins. If we nuke the out of China, we win - and then we get a nuclear winter.

Sounds like a cure for global warming.

Nuclear war would be a nightmare.

[Exarch]

No one wins. If we nuke the out of China, we win - and then we get a nuclear winter. Maybe not apocalyptic, but disastrous nonetheless. If we attack other nations, same result. Not to mention the fact our international status would drop overnight - we would be doing something that makes the Holocaust and Stalin's regime seem positively benevolent. Meaning even if we survive without too much damage, we'll still be screwed by what's essentially a giant trade embargo. Or all-out war, concievably.

but if u held a valuable resource-oil-then noone could afford to embargo you.
u could nuke to your heart's content...that is until mutiny places your head on top of a pointy stick

[Senno]

[quote=Exarch;3020710that is until mutiny places your head on top of a pointy stick[/quote]

Ohhh, is that what is holding up the glorious revolution? The right "trigger" hasn't happened yet.

[Cúchulainn]

but if u held a valuable resource-oil-then noone could afford to embargo you.
u could nuke to your heart's content...that is until mutiny places your head on top of a pointy stick

The problem is your own people will quickly turn against the government that is making them out to be vicious, psychopathic monsters.

Also for how long would the rest of the world stand idly while you just ethically cleanse your enemies?

As well it would never happen.

You attack China, no more cheap materials.

And that will not only piss off China, but also the 90% of the rest of the world that isn't America.

So you attack China, then you have to deal with the rest of the world.

[Sidmen]

Nuclear winter is actually fake... Studies have shown that the annihilation of fifty cities (more than would be needed to being china to their knees) wouldn't put enough debris into the atmosphere to affect the earth much.

Furthermore, if the US did nuke china.. It wouldn't be a first strike, and while international backlash would exist, we'd shake it off as everyone everywhere is dependent on the US economy to maintain their 1st world status.

[Cluny the Scourge]

A thermonuclear exchange will become necessary in the war with Atlantis that, as I expect you all know, is seeming ever more likely these days. SSNs equipped with tac-nuke-tipped torpedoes will be America's only line of defence - the best defence being a good offence - against this by launches against suspected locations of that hidden sunken city. But they would only get one chance, so the launch would have to be simultaneous - if a hit wasn't scored on the real site then the Elders would unleash every super-surface missile they have against US cities. And as you know from the recent spy scandal last week Atlantean shape-shifters have been discovered to have infiltrated much of the US domestic intelligence network (their diplomatic immunity is now revoked and they have been deported) and will have supplied coordinates for all major cities and military installations to the Oceanic High Command.

[LSJ]

Even if the US is not hit with a single nuke in a thermonuclear war, they still lose. They gain nothing by destroying a country, and lose so much in terms of economy and international relations.

No one can win in such a conflict...
Militarily, yes, but that sense is so limited and does not measure the conflict properly.

Winning a nuke war is like winning in a Jew-burning contest right before your trial at Nuremburg.

[Joker85]

Even if the US is not hit with a single nuke in a thermonuclear war, they still lose. They gain nothing by destroying a country, and lose so much in terms of economy and international relations.

No one can win in such a conflict...
Militarily, yes, but that sense is so limited and does not measure the conflict properly.

Winning a nuke war is like winning in a Jew-burning contest right before your trial at Nuremburg.

Depends who launched the first strike. If, say, China was losing a conventional war and launched out of desperation, they would have no one to blame for their destruction but themselves.