[Closed] Nuclear War

You're not alone in your memories or thinking. I'm not quite sure we can resolve it on a thread though

The film Threads scared the crap out of me when a kid in the 80's. I still think even an all-out war would stay conventional as anything else would be terrifying.

Agreed, there will be no winners.

Fancy a game of tic-tac-toe?

The 80s were shit. As kids we were going to die of a nuclear war, or heroin which screwed you up, or Aids. We had no chance. No wonder we all went hedonistic with raves.

You are not alone. My whole adult life has been coloured by the Cold War.

No wonder we all went hedonistic with raves.

True, I did.

Meh, a good ol' nuclear holocaust might just remind people that there's more to life than obsessing about property, going out for coffee at the weekend and looking for new things to be offended by. There might be some cracking post-apocalyptic raves,

Bring it on.

Anyone remember the animated film 'where the wind blows' ?
A cheery film about an elderly couple in the country trying to survive after a nuclear strike - and all brought to you by the mam behind the Snowman......

Good timing on this thread as my 11yo daughter was asking what the cold war was all about yesterday.

When I was a boy, we had TV ads showing how the Royal Observer Corps would be monitoring nuclear fallout and regular testing of air raid sirens. I can't honestly say that nuclear war seems any more imminent now than it did in the 1960s.

Anyone remember the animated film ‘when the wind blows’ ?

Yeah, I had the book. As I remember, the trick is to take off your front door and lean it up against a wall and shelter behind. Can't remember how it panned out though...

… everybody died.

As much as I dislike what Putin is up to I don't think he's mad enough to launch a first strike, ditto Bidan, Johnson, Macron.
President Kim on the other hand... But he could 'only' destroy SK/Japan, rather than the entire planet.

President Kim on the other hand… But he could ‘only’ destroy SK/Japan, rather than the entire planet.

I broadly agree, except…

The USA jumps in to help Japan or SK as they are bound to, then China jumps in because of some obligation to NK, then…

Boom. We’re back to the entire planet.

There’s simply no such thing as limited or regional nuclear conflict, as I see it.

Even if there was, though, I read somewhere that the nuclear winter from a mere six explosions from weapons the size they have now would be so bad that the destruction of crops would be such that billions would starve to death within a couple of years anyway.

We’ve really got to figure out a way to remove them from the menu.

… everybody died.

Or...

It all blew over, Jim and Hilda Bloggs were subsequently evicted from their home of fifty years by the council for removing the front door. The house was then sold at auction to a joyless, grasping young couple to add to their BTL HMO portfolio and filled with tenants six to a room for maximum housing benefit yield.

Yaaay!

Damn you scaring me with this thread title 😉

do world leaders actually believe that anyone could possibly win once nuclear weapons are deployed?

I doubt all of them will have given the question much thought, in particular our own PM.

I mean, how could there possibly be any way back from annihilating New York or Moscow or Washington or wherever? It’s not like the president of the USA is going to say, ‘Okay, that’s enough now. They took out Boston. Let’s call it a day.’

The side launching the first strike would win, if the receiving side decided not to respond. However there are/were doomsday devices designed to eliminate that possibility by automatically launching a non-abortable retaliation. The logic being, if your enemy knows you have this, the possibility of you blinking or thinking "it's not worth it for just 5M (Boston) of my 330M people" is eliminated, so it's a stronger deterrent to them launching that first strike.

For your bedtime reading: Status-6 long-range torpedo drone with cobalt-salted warhead.

Where is the global outcry against nuclear weaponry?

Hasn't that always been just a western thing? It'd be great to have them all gone, but the most I could hope to have even a microscopic influence on would be to have the UK ones gone. And I don't think I want that, given the nature of the other nations that do have them.

The USA jumps in to help Japan or SK as they are bound to

I think countries will take a flexible view of their commitments, political or legal, when the stakes are this high.

apparently I am a warmonger for nuking Moscow and sending my tanks into what was left. A few gifts to the rest of the world leaders and i'm cushty again. I hope real world leaders are a bit more restrained than my Civilization6 gameplay.

CND was funded indirectly by the KGB.

 It’s not like the president of the USA is going to say, ‘Okay, that’s enough now. They took out Boston. Let’s call it a day.’

The US had a system that basically said, lets make absolutely sure the weapons are going to do what we want and the targets we choose will be wiped from the map. Moscow for instance ended up eventually with something like fourteen or fifteen weapons aimed at it, with a payload of thousands of megatonnes, of ground burst air burst, aircraft delivered, ICBMs and so on and it was automated in such a way that even if the President said "lets stop, they took out Boston" it couldn't be stopped.

Eric Schlosser's book Command and Control is worth a read if you're interested in the system design of the weapons that successive US govts all realised was completely bonkers, yet could do little to change.

OP is right it will be terrible if Putin goes nuclear and pulls the plug to the internet, what will the world do without social media and porn

I'm old enough to remember a time when not wanting to push the big red button on world destruction was a reason not to vote for someone.

As a fifteen year old I remember the tension back in 1962 and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Things got very close to disaster then.

Took daughter to the Imperial War Museum North yesterday. There's a Cold War section playing a nuclear warning ad on loop, and I explained that was the background to my teenage years.

I’m old enough to remember a time when not wanting to push the big red button on world destruction was a reason not to vote for someone.

IIRC that was still trotted out against Corbyn.

do world leaders actually believe that anyone could possibly win once nuclear weapons are deployed?

There are a group of military advisors / war hawks that believe in the concept of a limited nuclear war thet their country would "win"  Loons the lot of them

CND was funded indirectly by the KGB.

citation because to the best of my knowledge this is not true at all.  Its a right wing slur / piece of propaganda

I’m old enough to remember a time when not wanting to push the big red button on world destruction was a reason not to vote for someone.

"Ms Sturgeon said: “No I wouldn’t. I oppose nuclear weapons.

“Whenever that question is asked, it should be pointed out that anybody who used nuclear weapons would be doing something that would potentially lead to the deaths of millions, perhaps tens of millions of people.
<div id="piano-container-inside-article"></div>
“I think nuclear weapons are immoral, I think they’re ineffective and I think they’re a waste of money.

“I would not countenance their use and I look forward to the day where not just Scotland is free of nuclear weapons, but the world is free of nuclear weapons.”

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18052067.nicola-sturgeon-confirms-not-use-nuclear-weapons/

In some instances refusal to use nuclear weapons is a vote winner.  This clear statement from Sturgeon was

CND was funded indirectly by the KGB.

Don't forget the other old populist meme, that the cnd badge was a symbol of witchcraft, which worked on my christian parents and their friends.

“I think nuclear weapons are immoral

It's instructive, I think when modern politicians say those sorts of things, to go back and read the diary entry of so far, the only politician who's actually used them.

Potsdam
July 25, 1945

We met at 11 a.m. today. That is Stalin, Churchill and the U.S. President. But I had a most important session with Lord Mountbatten & General Marshall before that. We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.

Anyway we "think" we have found the way to cause the disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling — to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.

This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec[retary]. of War, Mr. [Henry] Stimson to use so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old Capitol [Kyoto] or the new [Tokyo].

He & I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover the atomic bomb. It seems to me to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful.

There are a group of military advisors / war hawks that believe in the concept of a limited nuclear war thet their country would “win”  Loons the lot of them

I think there may have been one or two, a handful even  certainly you could level that accusation at Curtis LeMay for instance - and even he understood what it meant, but he was prepared to use them. In most of the material that I've read regarding great wars or battles, certainly for say, The US Civil War and Vietnam, Gulf War of 2003 the military are the ones largely saying "This is not going to be as easy as you think"

I grew up in South Africa, we had our own problems and we didn't really pay much attention to those types of world problems. Although, unknown to many we were a proxy in a bigger conflict in the Angola war.

The problem as I see it with disarmament is it has to be all sides. It does not help one side unilaterally removing all nuclear weapons if the other continues. This then brings about basic human failings in that people want power and influence over others, so there will never be any meaningful reduction in numbers until there is a way to guarantee all sides cannot make any more, which is impossible. Take a look at bio/chemical weapons, which have restrictions on them, yet development has undoubtedly continued on all sides as "if we don't keep up, the other side will have a huge advantage".

Scotland deciding it no longer wants nuclear weapons on its soil would be its choice if the independence vote goes through, although IMO, it can choose that as there are other countries providing the balance of power in the world.
Right or wrong, politics, religion, us vs them aside, if there is a massive imbalance in power in the world, it will cause massive issues.

Human beings are the problem basically.

Or…

It all blew over, Jim and Hilda Bloggs were subsequently evicted from their home of fifty years by the council for removing the front door. The house was then sold at auction to a joyless, grasping young couple to add to their BTL HMO portfolio and filled with tenants six to a room for maximum housing benefit yield.

Yaaay!

Nope, slow painful death from radiation sickness. The 80’s, what a time to be alive!

Shouldn’t have bought the doors from IKEA. Should’ve posted on here asking about bespoke handmade doors that could survive a couple of megaton of warhead

Anyone remember the animated film ‘where the wind blows’ ?

I remember it. A strong contender for darkest children's movie. A rare breed of genuinely thought provoking content for kids, like Watership Down.

To be honest, as a small child in the 80s, the Cold War just seemed like a whole lot of bravado that culminated in Rocky Balboa beating Ivan Drago, and that was the end. I don't remember any genuine concern. That film was probably the closest thing that described the possibility in detail.

I remember it. A strong contender for darkest children’s movie.

Despite being a cartoon, I don't think it was for kids is it?

As a kid in the 70s and teenager in the eighties we genuinely believed that nuclear war and annihilation were genuine possibilities. Threads etc really didn't help. Nobody worries about it now so much as it's not reported and with the fall of the Soviet Bloc the bogeyman shifted.

Interesting

I never had the fear of nuclear war at all thru the cold war and I remember that time well

I spent most of my childhood growing up on military bases, and being aware from quite an early age that if it did come, at least there was one directed at us - at whatever air base we were stationed at, and we'd be spared survival

I do remember drills, and being shown films about it at school.

CND was funded indirectly by the KGB.

Oooh, I didn’t know that, (but it makes sense) there absolute evidence?

I never had  drill at school nor was shown any films.  I did leave school in 78.  I really never thought that the nuclear was was even a vague possibility.  I do not remember the Cuba crisis tho which is probably when it came closest

I think that what's also scary is the number of close calls that have come to light over the years. I vaguely remember something in the 80s whereby nuclear armed bombers made it out onto runways following computer glitches.

Some sobering reading here - List of nuclear close calls - Wikipedia

Grew up in the 70s slap bang between the nuclear bunkers at raf strike command and usaf daws Hill, remember the air raid sirens going off in a storm once, was pretty scary. I'm with TJ on this, anyone actually prepared to use (not just say they would) nuclear weapons must be certifiable.

Oooh, I didn’t know that, (but it makes sense) there absolute evidence?

Makes no sense at all and is not true I believe

there absolute evidence?

I think MI5 regarded them as "communist penetrated" and I think there was a documentary waaaay back at the fall of the berlin wall that suggested that someone passed information to the Stasi about CND. There was loads of rumours and the sorts of daft nonsense that went on in the cold war - I think the chairman at one point was living with some-one who was a member of the British Communist Party so was watched frantically.

But no, I don't think there's any evidence.

Edit. I remember an apocryphal? story about the chairman of CND saying something like, "Are the Russians funding us? Have you seen how shabby our office is? I'd love to spend some money on paint"

Despite being a cartoon, I don’t think it was for kids is it?

Interesting point. I would have been about 8 or 9 when I watched it and never considered it to be anything else. Google suggests it was a PG, so I guess a family movie.

Some sobering reading here

Hah, completely misses that time a Titan Missile actually exploded

I read somewhere that the nuclear winter from a mere six explosions from weapons the size they have now would be so bad that the destruction of crops would be such that billions would starve to death within a couple of years anyway

I think that's a myth. The current US weapons have a maximum yield of 1.2 megatonnes (I don't know about the Russian and others) compared to the 15 megatonnes of 1950's atmospheric tests like Castle Bravo and the Russian 50 megatonne Tsar. There would be more fallout, I guess, if bombs were exploded over land rather than mostly water (eg, Bikini) but not enough for six bombs to have that effect. Not that I'm suggesting six bombs would be acceptable, and I hope nobody suggests it a fix for global warming.

If you read any of the books from military pilots (in particular) who were active from the 60's to the 90's, most of their training was based on getting airborne before the Soviet hordes came over the horizon, shoot down as many of them as possible and then eject into the sea (the assumption being that there wouldn't be the support to have air to air refuelling).

The bombers were either already on patrol (certainly the Americans ran 24/7 bomber sorties for a while - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chrome_Dome) or ready and waiting to get airborne with the hope that at least some would get through to drop their weapon. The return journey wasn't part of the exercise - there'd be nothing to come back to.

Sobering stuff.

I think that the Soviet threat was exaggerated during the cold war, certainly post Cuban Missile Crisis. It suited both sides politically.

I think the risk from now is different - the threat us smaller nations getting nuclear weapons and someone insane like Nk using them. It would be the end of NK if they did ,- American lead coalition would be straight in after destroying all nuclear capability