The Plane is in Pakistan?

[Skipjack]

Please see section 15 in Appendix F for an explanation of the Targeting Process.
Please note the part of Force Application.
This entire document is a clue that your statement "in general" is not true.
There is no "in general" when doing Target Planning for nuclear employment.

So you are arguing that achieving the maximum blast area is generally not desirable when targeting a city? Or what?
I said earlier that you will want to change that if you attack a hardened target. Either way, you have not brought any sources to contradict me, other than "you are stupid, I know better", which sorry does not fly in a discussion.

You should be smart enough at this point to realize the maximised effect is determined by the effect sought, and that then drives the planning considerations for Weaponeering and Force Application. Given that you don't have access to true nuclear weaponeering and application guidance, I will grant that your little adventure will have to end here.
Again, there is no "in general". It is okay to admit you are wrong now.
Your are out of your depth, but at least I got you to learn about a new concept for you called, "The Targeting Process".

I don't know what exactly the issue is here. Are we talking about hardened targets, like bunkers and military installations? No, we are not. We are talking about a terrorist attack against a city. That would have two desired outcomes:
1. Maximum destruction.
2. Maximum fallout.
I did talk a bit about both. I even mentioned how a cloud of radioactive seawater would be really bad and could be a desirable outcome for a terrorist.
But if someone uses a plane, the best effect would be a maximized blast radius and that means an explosion above ground and not on the ground. It just makes no sense otherwise.

You should actually read the '79 study vice posting a link. One of the '79 study's biggest shortcomings is the assumption of scope of conflict. It has been built upon since. One thing in particular that has been significantly developed is the definitions and understandings of ranges of conflict both from Escalation Management and Descalation perspectives. There are other pubs that provide a wider range detailed study of types and dimensions of nuclear exchanges. Unfortunately, a number of them are not available to you, nor probably will they ever be.

Yeah, I am sure the contributors to the study all knew nothing of what they were talking about. I did actually look at that (quite impressive) list. Did you?
Also note that congress sure took it seriously.
I will admit thought that a few items have indeed changed since the late 70ies: Russian guidance systems got more precise, so they have more warheads and lower yields on those that are targeting hardened installations like missile silos. That will reduce the amount of severe fallout a bit, which will reduce the amount of people dying in the aftermath.
I do not quite understand what else you were vaguely hinting at. You think that once the nukes start going off, the Russians will exercise restraint? And once the nukes go off over bases in US cities, the US will use restraint on where to use the nukes? I don't think so.

[paperburn1]

Most probably both Russian and american forces will exercise considerable restraint as the action will most likely be over another country territory.

[JLawson]

I will admit thought that a few items have indeed changed since the late 70ies: Russian guidance systems got more precise, so they have more warheads and lower yields on those that are targeting hardened installations like missile silos. That will reduce the amount of severe fallout a bit, which will reduce the amount of people dying in the aftermath.
I do not quite understand what else you were vaguely hinting at. You think that once the nukes start going off, the Russians will exercise restraint? And once the nukes go off over bases in US cities, the US will use restraint on where to use the nukes? I don't think so.

Not that many bases in US cities any more - but I get your point. Once the nukes start flying, they'll probably keep going until there's none left.

Re effects of nuclear weapons - it's surprising what you can find on Ebay.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/THE-EFFECTS-OF- ... 3ce05c116f

I picked up a copy of this at the US Government Bookstore back in the '80s. They used to have them in major cities - outlets of the Government Publishing Office. Now they're mostly on-line, I think.

http://bookstore.gpo.gov/

Amazon they ain't - and they don't have that particular book in stock.

But Amazon apparently does - used copies, and one for the Kindle. Revised and expanded in 2011!

http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Weapons-E ... ar+weapons

[ladajo]

Skippy,
My point here fairly simple.
You made a generalization about weapon employment. I corrected you. You were not talking about a specific employment.
You said just after I pointed out your error:

I said generally as in "in most circumstances". This is unless you are aiming to penetrate deeply into a bunker or unless you want to have a shit load more fallout and a much more limited range of destruction.

This is a clear generalization of weapon employment.

Since then, I have tossed you a couple of doctrinal term bones, that you have gone out and googled.
You won't admit that you didn't know about what I was saying until you looked it up after I said it.

You have also now tried to back track and claim you were only talking about a city target. "in most circumstances" are your words, as are "in general".

I have pointed out to you that each target is unique in regard to its physical properties and the effect desired given stated objectives and goals.
This uniqueness drives a decision process that not only determines the type of weapon choice, but also how it is applied.
You are stuck in a Curtiss LeMay mindset given your limited understanding of how these things are actually done.
In short, "you are stupid, I know better". If you haven't figured it out yet, I have a professional background that has exposed me to these concepts and processes. You do not.
Google away internet pundit.

By the way, Congress did not take the '79 paper seriously. But it was used by the Reagan administration as part of its marketing package for Star Wars. But what do I know.
The also have not taken the two recent studies on EMP and TREE seriously regarding national critical infrastructure. (Hint, I am throwing another bone here...)

And by the way;

Once the nukes start flying, they'll probably keep going until there's none left.

Probably not. Would you want to be the guy without ammo once the other guy is?
There is a term called "Strategic Reserve". Another bone if you will.

[DeltaV]

From 11 years ago...

Aborigines turn to Islam
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2902315.stm

Dry lake ground crew. They would know the best lake to use, better than anyone else.

Cover with a large camo net and proceed to Phase 2, whatever that is.

[Skipjack]

Skippy,
My point here fairly simple.
You made a generalization about weapon employment. I corrected you. You were not talking about a specific employment.
You said just after I pointed out your error:

I said generally as in "in most circumstances". This is unless you are aiming to penetrate deeply into a bunker or unless you want to have a shit load more fallout and a much more limited range of destruction.

This is a clear generalization of weapon employment.

Since then, I have tossed you a couple of doctrinal term bones, that you have gone out and googled.
You won't admit that you didn't know about what I was saying until you looked it up after I said it.

You have also now tried to back track and claim you were only talking about a city target. "in most circumstances" are your words, as are "in general".

Well, lets not discuss about how I meant things that I said. Because that is kinda silly. Either way, would you say that most nukes would be exploded on or below the ground, or above the ground?
The latter would actually be quite disturbing for me, because it means more severe fallout.

By the way, Congress did not take the '79 paper seriously.

Given the people that were involved with this paper, this just shows how retarded politicians are. This combined with the fact that some of them cant wait for the end of the world anyway makes me worried, A LOT!

But it was used by the Reagan administration as part of its marketing package for Star Wars. But what do I know.

Well Star Wars was the best bluff ever made and an actor like Reagan was the best possible president to deliver that bluff.

The also have not taken the two recent studies on EMP and TREE seriously regarding national critical infrastructure. (Hint, I am throwing another bone here...)

I do lean towards agreeing with you on that one, actually. I think that the EMP threat is being exaggerated by the sensationalist media.

And by the way;

Once the nukes start flying, they'll probably keep going until there's none left.

Probably not. Would you want to be the guy without ammo once the other guy is?
There is a term called "Strategic Reserve". Another bone if you will.

Well that is not really a valid argument, since both sides do have a large amount of nukes in stock in addition to the huge amount of nukes that they have currently deployed. The ones they have deployed would probably already bomb each other back to being a 3rd world country. The rest is just icing on the cake. But its all good. The top 0.1% of both countries will all be sitting somewhere on the Bahamas and enjoy the show from a distance cheering at each other with cocktails and we both know these are all who anyone really cares about...

[ladajo]

Well, lets not discuss about how I meant things that I said. Because that is kinda silly.

Words matter. You said what you said, and it meant what you wanted. It is not silly.
The problem here is that you won't come to terms with the idea that I have shown you (and you have shown yourself with some prodding) that your generalization was wrong.

Either way, would you say that most nukes would be exploded on or below the ground, or above the ground?

My point is and always has been that there is not a concept regarding, "most nukes". Every target is processed for desired target effect and target and weapon specifics to achieve the desired effect. What you do on one target has no bearing on what you do with another. They are all planned seperately. It is the same with conventional systems. You apply the best system in the best manner to achieve the desired target effect.
If your desired effect is for instance to maximize fallout, then you would analyze the target, perform some weaponeering (which at this point you don't know about), select a weapon with appropriate capabilities and delivery methods, and then you would deliver it. Perform BDA, determine if effects criteria of maximum fallout were met. If not, start the cycle again. In short, the answer to your question is a question; "What target effect do you need to accomplish your objective?"
And one city does not nuke the same as another. Every target is different. These are some of the reasons the process exists and carries the fidelity it does.

Well Star Wars was the best bluff ever made

Parts of Star Wars was no bluff. The Soviets were not that far off the ABM treaty to know that they could not support another magnitude in any measure or multiple of targeting complexity. Staw Wars was something that was a win win for the U.S. Putting it out there could not fail, the Soviets knew full well that any succesful implimentations of system components was not something they could overcome. They were tapped out. There is significant detail and complexity to this topic that I am not sure you are prepared to discuss meaningfully.

I think that the EMP threat is being exaggerated by the sensationalist media.

The media does not know what EMP is let alone TREE. They, in usual technical reporting fashion, go with what sounds cool. Accuracy is not relevent.

since both sides do have a large amount of nukes in stock in addition to the huge amount of nukes that they have currently deployed.

Having a weapon in inventory does not mean it can be delivered. And deliverability starts dropping dramatically once any shots are fired. You really don't have the depth to discuss this meaningfully.
It is not a simple as you wish to paint it. Try applying game theory to your argument and see how far you get. I would recommend you start with a Prisoner's Dilemma model, then adjust the pay-offs to more of a Stag Hunt. Once you have done that consider the implications of Reciprocity. You would quickly find your arugment of unending escalation quickly falls apart as the Nash Equilibrium settles to a Dove-Dove center. I have already explained models to you where it wouldn't. You didn't get it. It is all about objectives.

[Skipjack]

Either way, would you say that most nukes would be exploded on or below the ground, or above the ground?

My point is and always has been that there is not a concept regarding, "most nukes". Every target is processed for desired target effect and target and weapon specifics to achieve the desired effect. What you do on one target has no bearing on what you do with another. They are all planned seperately. It is the same with conventional systems. You apply the best system in the best manner to achieve the desired target effect.
If your desired effect is for instance to maximize fallout, then you would analyze the target, perform some weaponeering (which at this point you don't know about), select a weapon with appropriate capabilities and delivery methods, and then you would deliver it. Perform BDA, determine if effects criteria of maximum fallout were met. If not, start the cycle again. In short, the answer to your question is a question; "What target effect do you need to accomplish your objective?"
And one city does not nuke the same as another. Every target is different. These are some of the reasons the process exists and carries the fidelity it does..

But there are already plans for every main option in the SIOP. So it should be possible to tell what percentage is ground/below ground and what percentage is at an altitude above ground.
I also want to point out that for SIOP 63 compared to SIOP 62, a lot of targets were changed from ground burst to air burst to reduce fallout.

Well Star Wars was the best bluff ever made

Parts of Star Wars was no bluff. The Soviets were not that far off the ABM treaty to know that they could not support another magnitude in any measure or multiple of targeting complexity. Staw Wars was something that was a win win for the U.S.

I was not even a teenager when I first read about the ideas for star wars. They seemed ridiculous to me back then, they seem even more ridiculous today. I particularly remember laughing hard about the "umbrella" projectile thingy that was supposed to catch the warheads. The exploding laser satellite was also quite funny. It was a bluff, the Soviets bought it, the cold war was over, good!

since both sides do have a large amount of nukes in stock in addition to the huge amount of nukes that they have currently deployed.

Having a weapon in inventory does not mean it can be delivered. And deliverability starts dropping dramatically once any shots are fired.

Earlier you just said that you would not want to fire all nukes at once to keep some to continue the threat (which is what I was responding to above). Now you say that the deliverability goes down dramatically once the shots are fired. Which one is it? I assume it is the latter, because that fits with the concerns that the leadership could be wiped out before the command for a nuclear counterstrike could be given. This is why the US has such an elaborate early warning system. In case of an attack with ICBMs, the warning would be 30 minutes and with SLBMs it would be much less. This is also why I find the idea of a restricted nuclear war improbable. The US has several preemptive strike plans against potential opponents in place. All of them involve taking out the leadership, communication networks and major nuclear bases and other important military targets. Paradoxically the counter strike option showed more restraint. I assume that Russia has a similar plan in place. All of them essentially assume that the president will just have enough time to initiate the nuclear attack before he gets hit. AFAIK, not even NORAD would survive a direct hit. So how would a limited nuclear war work? Clearly the leadership would always be the first target together with communications and of course the nuclear weapons themselves.

[Stubby]

Whatever happened to the General's 'sources', they be strangely silent after all this time.
Whatever happened to the General for that matter? He is also strangely silent.

[ladajo]

But there are already plans for every main option in the SIOP

You are trying to discuss something that is 50 years out of date.
I will not comment on current plans.

If anything you have helped make my point. Open your mind and ask yourself why they would adjust delivery methods? Would it be to change target effects? Like, maybe, "fallout"? At that point, someone made a decision to change target effects. So targeting methodology was adjusted.
If you assume that things are the same 50 years later, then I can not continue this converstation lane as you have not grasped even the basics that I have tried to present to you already.

So it should be possible to tell what percentage is ground/below ground and what percentage is at an altitude above ground.

Well, for the last time, it depends. What are your objectives and desired end state(s)?

you just said that you would not want to fire all nukes at once to keep some to continue the threat (which is what I was responding to above). Now you say that the deliverability goes down dramatically once the shots are fired.

Yes, and yes. These are not mutually exclusive. I do not get your confusion. They are very basic concepts. A weapon in storage is not neccessarily a weapon mounted in a delivery device. What is so hard about that idea? It is a very basic thing. Statements of yours like this are why I assess you are not prepared to have this discussion.

with the concerns that the leadership could be wiped out before the command for a nuclear counterstrike could be given.

This is very Hollywood. It is clear that you have no idea how Command and Control of strategic forces are maintained and managed. I will not comment further on this.

The US has several preemptive strike plans against potential opponents in place. All of them involve taking out the leadership, communication networks and major nuclear bases and other important military targets.

I am glad you are so sure of your assumptions which are based on internet hearsay. I will not comment further on this other than, again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

All of them essentially assume that the president will just have enough time to initiate the nuclear attack before he gets hit.

Very Hollywood. Love it.

So how would a limited nuclear war work? Clearly the leadership would always be the first target together with communications and of course the nuclear weapons themselves.

The answer, tediously again, to your question is a question. "What are your objectives and desired end state(s)?"

Last attempt: Any decision to employ the military component of national powers, is based in the concepts of objectives and end states. Some objectives and end states can only be reached with the military component. If you are unware of what all the components are, which at this point as you read this I am convinced you are not, then again you are out of very much out of your depth. The decisions to employ nuclear systems in conflict are made with essentially the same considerations as conventional weapons. It is about the best tool used the best way to achieve the effects you need in support of objectives and end states. It may be that a special weapon is just one of the answers. It may be that only a special weapon can be delivered. It may be many other considerations that drive this. It may be that the target is best serviced by a conventional weapon or other means.
Every targeting event is different. And yes, some targets are preplanned for certain effects in support of overall existing plans. But there may be different target effects for different plans or branches on the same target.

There is no "in general".

[Skipjack]

But there are already plans for every main option in the SIOP

You are trying to discuss something that is 50 years out of date.
I will not comment on current plans.

So you are saying the SIOPs and the "football" are a thing of the past, or what?
Also you are saying that the command structure would not be a nuclear target?
Of course the old SIOP that I showed is years out of date. All newer SIOPs are top secret. I had to bring something to bolster my argument. There was another really good document that I unfortunately can not find anymore. I am not disputing that the doctrines and strategies have changed. They did with almost every president, from McNarmas strategies that were used (IIRC) until Kennedy, then Nixon's new doctrines and followed by Carter and Reagans changes during the Soviet times.

with the concerns that the leadership could be wiped out before the command for a nuclear counterstrike could be given.

This is very Hollywood. It is clear that you have no idea how Command and Control of strategic forces are maintained and managed. I will not comment further on this.

No, it is not Hollywood. It is the reason why we have such things as early warning systems, deep bunkers like NORAD (which would not survive a direct hit anyway unfortunately), the football and Airforce one. Together with a somewhat complex distributed command system (some of it was unfortunately never fully implemented). All of this is meant to give the leadership enough time to implement a counter attack in case of an opponent launching a preemptive strike against the US using ICBMs and SLBMs. That is according to any document and implementation that I have found and not just internet rumors.

The US has several preemptive strike plans against potential opponents in place. All of them involve taking out the leadership, communication networks and major nuclear bases and other important military targets.

I am glad you are so sure of your assumptions which are based on internet hearsay. I will not comment further on this other than, again, you have no idea what you are talking about.

All of them essentially assume that the president will just have enough time to initiate the nuclear attack before he gets hit.

Very Hollywood. Love it.

So, remind me again, how much time is there between the launch of a Russian SLBM and its impact on US soil?

And yes, some targets are preplanned for certain effects in support of overall existing plans. But there may be different target effects for different plans or branches on the same target.

I agree with that. I remember that between SIOP 62 and SIOP63 a lot of targets were broadly changed from ground bursts to air bursts to reduce fallout. This was to prevent too much heavy fallout which could have even reached NATO allies in Europe and even the US. Similarly the Russians were able to change some of their largest nukes to smaller ones with better guidance systems (source "nuclear survival handbook").

[paperburn1]

These talks seem to becoming too specific to be discussed with a foreign national.

[ladajo]

Of course the old SIOP that I showed is years out of date.

Yup, so why bother? Citing something decades out of date made you look silly.

There was another really good document

What?

They did with almost every president

Presidents have nothing to do with it. Another layer of lacking knowledge on your part. Do you really think that some guy that could come from no-where with no background for these types of topics is going to make fundamental changes to doctrine, procedures and systems? If so, you have serious misunderstandings for how these things actually work. Presidents are hired to enact the law. They do not make it (contrary to what Obama Inc. may think). Guys like him go away, and four to eight years later get branded and recorded as abberant idiots. He may well get himself impeached. He certainly is flaunting an ignorance of constitutional law these last couple of years. It would not surprise me that if the Republicans take control of the Senate (they will maintain the House), Congress initiates impeachment proceedings against him for usurping Congressional and Supreme Court constitutional authority. But that is another topic.

No, it is not Hollywood.

Yes it is. Just like thinking Top Gun, The Hunt for Red October, Days of Glory or Backdraft and any number of other "reality films" had anything to do with reality.

how much time is there between the launch of a Russian SLBM and its impact on US soil?

You tell me. While you are at it, tell me why it matters. There is this thing, publically acknowledged and even marketed called, "The Nuclear Triad". Think about it before you answer. I'll throw you a bone, "MAD".

You seem stuck on "fallout". Fallout is a target effect. Sometimes you may want it, other times you may not. Remember, it is about Objectives and End States. Stop thinking Hollywood.

Please accept that there is no "in general". And this applies to any targeting process, be it nuclear or conventional. You resource a target based on needs and capabilities. This changes every time you seek to service a target, be it first time, or a re-strike.

There is no "in general". This is a fundametal point that you persist in refusing to acknowledge. My understanding so far is that your refusal is based in ignorance.
If you are asking me that by increasing burst altitude (to a point, and weapon system dependant), it increases ground pressure transients (your "blast effects"), then my answer is a qualified yes. I believe there are many things that would make it 'qualified'. Anything I have discussed here is something you can look up in open source.
The issue here is that you have not. You have bits and pieces, mixed with mass media mythology, and you think that makes you qualified to discuss it. It does not.
And that is my second point.

So back to basics one more time:
There is no such thing as "in general".
You don't know what you are talking about.
Please accept these and move on.

Paperburn,
Appreciate the concern. No lines have been crossed in the education of said non-citizen that he does not know what he is talking about. Everything discussed is open source. But you are correct, this discussion should end. At a minimum, to protect said non-citizen from federal attention he does not want.

[Skipjack]

Of course the old SIOP that I showed is years out of date.

Yup, so why bother? Citing something decades out of date made you look silly.

Because it provided context, something that you seem to have trouble getting.

They did with almost every president

Presidents have nothing to do with it. Another layer of lacking knowledge on your part. Do you really think that some guy that could come from no-where with no background for these types of topics is going to make fundamental changes to doctrine, procedures and systems?

They do certainly influence the general direction. Naturally, they are not doing the details. That would be silly.

No, it is not Hollywood.

Yes it is. Just like thinking Top Gun, The Hunt for Red October, Days of Glory or Backdraft and any number of other "reality films" had anything to do with reality.

I agree that these were just movies and had nothing to do with reality. I would never base anything on those movies. What a silly thought.

how much time is there between the launch of a Russian SLBM and its impact on US soil?

You tell me. While you are at it, tell me why it matters. There is this thing, publically acknowledged and even marketed called, "The Nuclear Triad". Think about it before you answer. I'll throw you a bone, "MAD"

First of all, an answer would have been nice. Second, I am very familiar with the concepts of MAD (mutually assured destruction) and with NUTS too (I assume that you are one of those that think that NUTS is possible). I was actually going to mention them (thought I had in an earlier post somewhere, but this forum keeps timing out on me sometimes also when I make a post). MAD actually makes my point. It is a doctrine that basically states that you can not win a nuclear war. NUTS is IMHO just that, nuts. It assumes that the opponent will exercise restraint and will not allow escalation from his side. This would give humans more credit than I am willing to give them. I think that NUTS (which AFAIK is only even considered by US strategists), is the brainchild of those in the US that cant wait for the end of the world (bornagain Christians and such). They would just love such a thing and it turns them on to think about it.

You seem stuck on "fallout". Fallout is a target effect. Sometimes you may want it, other times you may not. Remember, it is about Objectives and End States. Stop thinking Hollywood.

I understand that fallout is a target effect. I also understand that it is a problem if you
1. Want to avoid hurting civilians in nearby cities.
2. Want to move your troops into the area quickly
3. Want to avoid harming nearby allies.
I also understand that fallout is much heavier after ground bursts than it is after airbursts because more material gets blown from the ground into the atmosphere.
It is a historic fact that the US replaced many ground bursts in SIOP 62 with air bursts for these very reasons. I agree that fallout may sometimes be desirable, but the situations I can imagine are few (slowing enemy advances, or the complete ruin of the enemies ability to recover after the war, which was IIRC one of the things Nixon introduced).

There is no "in general". This is a fundametal point that you persist in refusing to acknowledge. My understanding so far is that your refusal is based in ignorance.
If you are asking me that by increasing burst altitude (to a point, and weapon system dependant), it increases ground pressure transients (your "blast effects"), then my answer is a qualified yes. I believe there are many things that would make it 'qualified'. Anything I have discussed here is something you can look up in open source.

Uhm not sure are you agreeing or not?

Paperburn,
Appreciate the concern. No lines have been crossed in the education of said non-citizen that he does not know what he is talking about. Everything discussed is open source. But you are correct, this discussion should end. At a minimum, to protect said non-citizen from federal attention he does not want.

Wow, we have come that far, hu? It is not even possible anymore to have a discussion about information that is in the public domain without becoming suspicious.
Terrorists definitely won that one!

[ladajo]

Skippy,
You don't want to get it.
There is no "in general".
You don't know what you are talking about. You even think 50 year old documents have relevance to today. Seriously, do you think that the government would declassify something so sensitive in its day, if it had any bearing on how things are done now?

I have explained and introduced many concepts to you that you didn't know about.
Now you are running around like you learned them in grade school. It is clear that you did not.
You still don't understand them, or how they interrelate. If you did, you would not persist in saying the silly things you are.
You also, without even knowing it, are asking specifics about things that are sensitive. In context, it is another symptom of you not knowing what you are discussing.

I am going to stop here. I will not provide more opportunity for you to look like a google-ass on this.
Proceed calmly. Don't panic.