Trump vs Kim-Jong Un: War or Bluster?

[fowler9]

Reading a ridiculous numbers of declassified studies on the strategy of nuclear war.

Like the insane estimation that by the 90s the Soviet ICBM force would be able to kill a significant number of missile submarines by pattern attacking the ocean.
Obviously the arms limitation treaties of the 70s onwards put a stop to that insanity.

Not exactly Sun Tzu though? You aren't playing with the lives of some people on a battlefield, you are playing with civilization as we know it. Its not like where if you mess up the Iraq war you end up with ISIS, more like if you mess it up you end up with a global massacre.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

I always wondered about the whole mad MAD thing.

If the US and CCCP decided to get nukey, they would both fire an inital salvo at their main targets - capital cities, known launch sites and major military bases in the US, Russia and presumably Northern Europe. Then what next?

With millions dead, probably including most of the main politicans and military staff, the ability to launch weapons would be in the hands of the senior military in the nuclear bunkers, but what would they fire at? Random civilian targets in the other countries? It depends on their pysche, but I suspect not, I think it would very quickly become a standoff again, with neither side knowing what the other side was able, willing or capable of doing.

In which case, there would be vast areas of the globe untouched by the war - Africa, much of Asia, Oceania and South America might be completely untouched. Would the radiation eventually kill them a la On the Beach or would they just have to get on with a new world without the troublemakers of the Northern Hemisphere?

 

[HSTEd]

Not exactly Sun Tzu though? You aren't playing with the lives of some people on a battlefield, you are playing with civilization as we know it. Its not like where if you mess up the Iraq war you end up with ISIS, more like if you mess it up you end up with a global massacre.

Sun Tzu is not actually very useful in modern combat.
And really I would not like to have lived in a world where nuclear weapons had never been invented.

I would likely be wearing camouflage, if I was even still alive, and getting ready to fight in whatever the next global bloodbath was going to be.
Forget World War 3, we would be on 5 or 6 by now.

I always wondered about the whole mad MAD thing.

If the US and CCCP decided to get nukey, they would both fire an inital salvo at their main targets - capital cities, known launch sites and major military bases in the US, Russia and presumably Northern Europe. Then what next?

With millions dead, probably including most of the main politicans and military staff, the ability to launch weapons would be in the hands of the senior military in the nuclear bunkers, but what would they fire at? Random civilian targets in the other countries? It depends on their pysche, but I suspect not, I think it would very quickly become a standoff again, with neither side knowing what the other side was able, willing or capable of doing.

Most depictions of Nuclear War in informed-media or in case studies indicate that the war would just kind of peter out.
Neither side wants to go all in without good reason, and once the first salvoes of missiles are gone, the reality of the shear number of casualties would set in.

Also I really recommend By the Dawn's Early Light - it was a HBO TV film made just before the end of the Cold War and its an interesting depiction of a nuclear war. Especially of the confusion in the higher levels of government caused by massive casualties. Also it has James Earl Jones. It's on Youtube in its entirity.

 

[fowler9]

Sun Tzu is not actually very useful in modern combat.
And really I would not like to have lived in a world where nuclear weapons had never been invented.

I would likely be wearing camouflage, if I was even still alive, and getting ready to fight in whatever the next global bloodbath was going to be.
Forget World War 3, we would be on 5 or 6 by now.



Most depictions of Nuclear War in informed-media or in case studies indicate that the war would just kind of peter out.
Neither side wants to go all in without good reason, and once the first salvoes of missiles are gone, the reality of the shear number of casualties would set in.

Also I really recommend By the Dawn's Early Light - it was a HBO TV film made just before the end of the Cold War and its an interesting depiction of a nuclear war. Especially of the confusion in the higher levels of government caused by massive casualties. Also it has James Earl Jones. It's on Youtube in its entirity.

If this is all so obvious to military strategists why did they not foresee ISIS when we went messing around in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan in our war against terror.

I am quite taken aback that you write off Sun Tzu and then recommend By Dawns Early Light. One was a military strategist, the other is a B movie.

 

[HSTEd]

I am quite taken aback that you write off Sun Tzu and then recommend By Dawns Early Light. One was a military strategist, the other is a B movie.

Sun Tzu is a military strategist from two and a half millenia ago.
Even Clausewitz is hard to apply to modern warfare, let alone a man who not only predates gunpowder, he predates the invention of the stirrup!

 

[fowler9]

Sun Tzu is a military strategist from two and a half millenia ago.
Even Clausewitz is hard to apply to modern warfare, let alone a man who not only predates gunpowder, he predates the invention of the stirrup!

And you recommended "By Dawns Early Light".

 

[fowler9]

Sun Tzu is a military strategist from two and a half millenia ago.
Even Clausewitz is hard to apply to modern warfare, let alone a man who not only predates gunpowder, he predates the invention of the stirrup!

And you recommend By Dawns Early Light? I recommend War Games. The only way to win is not to play.

 

[HSTEd]

And you recommended "By Dawns Early Light".

Yes, because it is actually composed in a time where the situation is fairly similar to the one that pervades now.

Do you really think Sun Tzu would really be very useful in a situation where a war could be fought without armies ever actually meeting in the field, or even in a siege type situation?

If you prefer an academic text - Hermann Kahn's On Thermonuclear War.

And you recommend By Dawns Early Light? I recommend War Games. The only way to win is not to play.

Those without swords can still die upon them - Lord of the Rings.

We have to be ready to fight, not only with the right weapons, but also with the strategic understanding to use them to achieve maximum effect.
If we do not, our opponents will have little reason not to strike first and forever remove the threat that we might become aggressive in the future.

After all
Si vis pacem, para bellum

 

[najaB]

An interesting set of opinion pieces on what 2019 might bring for the relationship between DPRK and the rest of the world.

North Korea: We Asked 27 Experts What They Think Will Happen in 2019

What happens next when it comes to the North Korea challenge?

Your guess is as good as mine, but by looking at how far we have come from the tense days of 2017, from “fire and fury” to President Trump declaring his “love” for Chairman Kim Jong Un just recently to now what appears to be an impasse, we know 2019 will keep all Korea watchers quite busy for sure.

Considering the stakes when it comes to Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program we asked 27 experts from around the world to give us their best predictions on what they think will happen in 2019. As you will see, the range of opinions varies widely. The National Interest has sought out a wide-range of experts, from those who consider engagement with the north to be vital to those who disagree and wants a tougher line going into next year.

The takeaway for me was that even the experts' have no idea how things are going to play out.

 

[najaB]

We have to be ready to fight, not only with the right weapons, but also with the strategic understanding to use them to achieve maximum effect.

Ready, yes. Willing, no. Whomever turns the launch key first loses, since in an all-out thermonuclear war there's no way to win.

 

[HSTEd]

Ready, yes. Willing, no. Whomever turns the launch key first loses, since in an all-out thermonuclear war there's no way to win.

That is only true if you accept that nuclear wars are unwinnable and that your opponent will actually retaliate - ie that they are willing to fight a thermonuclear war.

If we are not willing to fight, then we will lose when our opponent turns the keys and we are annihilated for negligible loss to the aggressor. Which means they won.

The will to retaliate is just as important as the capability to do so.

 

[Jonny]

Is this the same Donald Trump who has just effectively pulled the US Army out of Syria and made a massive draw-down in Afghanistan?

 

[najaB]

That is only true if you accept that nuclear wars are unwinnable and that your opponent will actually retaliate - ie that they are willing to fight a thermonuclear war.

Assuming that you're talking about two nuclear major powers (eg. Russia v USA) then the only rational option is to retaliate en-masse if the alert comes in that warheads are flying. Since the point of a first strike is to destroy your strategic assets on the ground doing otherwise risks losing the capability to respond later.

There were wargamed scenarios around limited nuclear war, and if it's only tactical battlefield weapons being deployed and if the principals are able to speak very quickly then it might be possible to talk things down. But strategic weapons are a different kettle of fish - while bombers might be recalled, once ICBM/SLBMs are launched then all bets are off.

Thermonuclear war will result in two losers, though I suppose one might lose slightly less than the other.

 

[fowler9]

That is only true if you accept that nuclear wars are unwinnable and that your opponent will actually retaliate - ie that they are willing to fight a thermonuclear war.

If we are not willing to fight, then we will lose when our opponent turns the keys and we are annihilated for negligible loss to the aggressor. Which means they won.

The will to retaliate is just as important as the capability to do so.

Once we start launching SLBM's it is game over. A small tactical exchange may be survivable. We aren't going to launch first (I hope). If China or Russia launch against us first it makes no difference if we retaliate or not to me. We won't win. The rest of the world will be a mess. No one wins .

 

[HSTEd]

Once we start launching SLBM's it is game over. A small tactical exchange may be survivable. We aren't going to launch first (I hope). If China or Russia launch against us first it makes no difference if we retaliate or not to me. We won't win. The rest of the world will be a mess. No one wins .

If we don't retaliate the murderers of the British people will be free to do it again and again until the entire world is dead or subjugated.

If we retaliate the world can rebuild free of the threat of such tyrants

 

[Jonny]

If we don't retaliate the murderers of the British people will be free to do it again and again until the entire world is dead or subjugated.

If we retaliate the world can rebuild free of the threat of such tyrants

Nice idea in principle, not so good if the whole planet is covered in radioactive fallout.

 

[Jonny]

I came across this little gem of an article in the Daily Mirror about using nuclear warheads to initiate tsunamis:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/huge-tsunamis-caused-nuke-strikes-13782708
Huge tsunamis caused by nuke strikes 'will wipe out West', Russian media claims
Military media in Moscow say the chilling schemes could wipe out western Europe, Britain and Washington DC but experts in Russia dismissed claims as 'nonsense'
A wave of super-tsunamis caused by a Russian nuke attack could 'wipe out the West', according to military media reports in Moscow.
The claims were made in the Russian military weekly-newspaper 'Military Industrial Courier' in its latest issue which also feature Vladimir Putin on its front page.
According to the publication, Russia has the capability to blast the Snæfellsjökull volcano in Iceland with a thermonuclear weapon.
The paper says the attack on the 4,744ft peak would create a tsunami so large it could sink the American capital Washington DC.
In another bleak scenario, the paper claims Russia could also strike the island of Jan Mayen in the Arctic Ocean swamping western Europe.
But the article has been condemned by many experts in the main news outlets in Russia saying the proposals were scandalous, not based on scientific evidence and irresponsible.
(article continues)

The original article is at https://vpk-news.ru/articles/47228 (in Russian).

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://vpk-news.ru/articles/47228
(from computer-generated translation)
Tsunami with a sight on Washington
Why North America awaits the fate of Atlantis
The response to the article "Hwason" - an example for "Sarmat"
Studies on shallow water equations with seismic phenomena, including those initiated by underwater nuclear explosions, were highlighted as far back as the 1980s (Murty, TS, “Tsunami Seismic Waves”. L., Hydrometeoizdat, 1981. N. Voltsinger “Long-wave dynamics of the coastal zone.” L., Gidrometeoizdat, 1989). Consider the oceanological factors contributing to the occurrence of a tsunami, depending on the location and orientation of deep-sea basins.
They define natural channels, called oceanic waveguides, since they have a relief for tsunami transport. Their dynamics are described by the 1D-equations of shallow water, and the analytical and numerical solutions are well developed. The occurrence of long waves capable of generating catastrophic tsunamis is explained by the relief of the oceanic bottom, seismic phenomena and underwater nuclear explosions.
(article continues)

The worst thing about that scenario is that it need not be done using conventional missiles - either boring holes or sending the warhead in an autonomous vehicle.

 

[trash80]

If we don't retaliate the murderers of the British people will be free to do it again and again until the entire world is dead or subjugated.

If we retaliate the world can rebuild free of the threat of such tyrants

No one is going to launch nukes against just the UK, unless they are a Bond villain.

The nukes would be launched against the whole "west", and a full exchange would include Australia too, other major infrastructure like ports in Asia and Africa. Few places would be that safe to be honest. Though it is unsure if there would be the "nuclear winter" many feared, weren't those fears exaggerated by KGB agents to fuel anti-nuclear sentiments in the West?

 

[Groningen]

It is quiet on that peninsula!

 

[Jonny]

It is quiet on that peninsula!

Very quiet... I think 2019 will be the critical year...

 

[Groningen]

My message from #163 and #199 are almost the same with 15 months in between.

About a created tsunami. If Russia should to that, do you not think that there is a response? WW3 maybe?

 

[Drogba11CFC]

I came across this little gem of an article in the Daily Mirror about using nuclear warheads to initiate tsunamis:



The original article is at https://vpk-news.ru/articles/47228 (in Russian).


The worst thing about that scenario is that it need not be done using conventional missiles - either boring holes or sending the warhead in an autonomous vehicle.

Detonating nuclear bombs in the sea to cause tsunamis has been proposed by Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who also proposed setting up large fans on the border to blow radioactive waste into the Baltic States.

 

[najaB]

The worst thing about that scenario is that it need not be done using conventional missiles - either boring holes or sending the warhead in an autonomous vehicle.

The signature of a detonation would be unmistakable, so it would be treated as an act of war.

 

[trash80]

Detonating nuclear bombs in the sea to cause tsunamis has been proposed by Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who also proposed setting up large fans on the border to blow radioactive waste into the Baltic States.

He has a track record of saying ridiculous things to get press coverage, hmm sounds like a few politicians from over here...

 

[Esker-pades]

Trump's famous negotiating skills have got us backwards.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47504723

Satellite images of a facility near Pyongyang suggest that North Korea may be preparing to launch a missile or a satellite.

The increase in activity is around a site known as Sanumdong, where North Korea assembled most of its ballistic missiles and rockets.

It comes after reports earlier this week that North Korea's main rocket launch site at Sohae had been rebuilt.

Work to dismantle Sohae began last year but stopped as US talks stalled.

On Friday US President Donald Trump said he would be disappointed if North Korea was to resume weapons testing.

"I would be surprised in a negative way if he did anything that was not per our understanding. But we'll see what happens," he said.

"I would be very disappointed if I saw testing."

 

[najaB]

Trump's famous negotiating skills have got us backwards.

Almost as good as his business skills - I remind everyone that he went bankrupt running a casino.