>Nuclear testing is mostly conducted underground
>nowadays, and I doubt that
>the military showcase their biggest
>nukes
Untrue. Russia detonated the largest nuclear weapon ever built and probably ever will be built. The largest nuclear (yield) bomb is/was the Tsar Bomb, a 100 megaton nuclear bomb, was built but never detonated. It's smaller cousin, the Tsar Bomba was actually detonated, and rated at 50mt. The largest nuclear weapon detonated by the USA was a 9mt bomb.
I believe those are the largest nuclear weapons ever created or detonated. After the 1960s both superpowers noted that it was pointless to built supersized nuclear weapons because they don't pack as much punch as many smaller ones, are extremely unstable, and tactically speaking, worthless in war.
The Tsar bombs were named "Tsar" in the same line as the Tsar Bell in Moscow (is that where?), which while Tsar means "king" (or Caesar), it has a double meaning, meaning that the "Tsar" object is too large to actually be useful. The Tsar Bell is so large it cannot and has not been rung, but just sits there.
>>Only the surfaces it touches are radioactive. Deep wells
>>and shielded foods would not be affected. Radiation would
>>probably not be a big factor.
>
>Ridiculous! I doubt that there's
>enough "shielded foods" and "deep
>wells" to prevent hundreds of
>thousands of people starving and
>dying of thirst, unless huge
>amounts of foreign or out
>of state aid is possible.
The United States alone has about enough surplus food to last the entire populace about a year. In that time the infrastructure can be rebuilt to levels high enough to support the populace.
There are many deep underwater wells. Water *with* radioactive particles can be filtered through earth or by traditional methods.
>If the weaponary is used
>for an all out strike,
>aid may not be forthcoming.
>Radiation would make much (if
>not practically all) land used
>for farming unviable. Why not
>predict famine and wholesale looting
>while you're at it?
You're overestimating the damage a fallout actually produces. Particles from a fallout only really affect the direct surface they contact. Fruits and vegitables can be peeled to remove the layer containing the potentially harmful fallout radiation and eaten with practically no danger.
The radiation levels would be low enough after about two weeks to be able to leave shelters or other hideouts to repair the infrastructure. Remember: Fallouts don't last very long.
You could clear off the fields of the first few layers of radioactive topsoil and resume farming. Furthermore, why would any nation target farming location? They wouldn't. Most of the farming infrastructure would still be in place. On modern farms, where most of the tasks are done by machines and automation, farming could resume as soon as it is safe to leave shelter.
Looting? Yeah, there'd be the few who would risk their health and venture into the streets to loot, but for the most part, most people would seek shelter, or there so little danger that the city-life would not be interrupted enough to allow looting.
>>>No once the first Nukes are fired everyone will fire theirs.
>>>In self defense if nothing else.
>
>>Not if the attack struck the enemy's arsenal first. The USA could've knocked out Russia's nuclear weapons before they ever
>>had a chance to strike.
>
>Cough! I don't think that the
>russians would have posted a
>list of their warhead sites
>outside their DC embassy.
You actually believe that? Russia had a very small arsenal at the time of the "Cuban Missile Crisis," *any* attack by the United States could've wiped out Russia with little retaliation. In fact the United States was *never* lagging behind the Russians despite the propaganda the United States government made up to boost the industry. We probably knew more of Russia's stock than we did of our own.
>Moreover,
>many warheads (used to) be
>located on mobile trains that
>were shunted all over the
>USSR in case of this
>eventuality.
At the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, most, if not all of Russia's nuclear arsenal could not even reach the United States. The United States on the other hand already had the tech necessary to take out the USSR at any time, including around 100 nuclear missiles positioned in Europe within range of Moscow and other military targets.
>Any anti-nuke covert activity
>by the US if detected,
>would immediately force the Russians
>to react. Far too risky,
>and hence too improbable
Oh do you actually think that we used ground spies? Most of the covert activity made use of spy planes which were out of range of practically any of Russia's anti-air or detection methods. The Russians knew we were spying anyway, but due to their inferior force and the precipate that they would be the loser in a nuclear battle, they probably chose to ignore it. Russia was never able to compete with the United States' nuclear program.
>That's debatable... I expect that a
>sizable minority of nukes will
>be aimed at all sorts
>of areas, to reduce the
>coverage of countermeasures,
"Countermeasures" do not include civilian targets. Why would a nation bother to waste one of their ICBMs to take out a dam when they could use it to take out a silo field or an air base?
>to take
>out numerous areas of infrastructure
>(eg dams, viaducts, ports etc)
>and to encourage terror in
>the target populace.
Terror in the populace? Really, what is the point? Do you think that the battle will be long? If anything a large portion of the weapons will be in the air the first moment an incoming one is detected. There's no *time* to strike fear into the populace. The populace already fears that a nuke will hit their hometown, but the fact is that it is a *waste* to spend a nuke on what could otherwise be a useful target, on a civilian target which has little or no tactical value.
> nuclear
>strike might be the first
>phase preparing for an invasion...
And indeed, why would the nation want to target what could be useful to the invaders? Wouldn't it be more useful to hit the army itself? Why blow up what you're going to conquer?
>Indeed, expect listening stations and
>satelites to be taken offline
Oh and that won't be noticed and countered? Most nukes are preprogrammed to hit their targets in the event their controller dies. Such tracking systems would be pretty useless to take offline.
>by the enemy in preparation
>for a strike, leaving the
>nukes to wreck havoc elsewhere...
And that "elsewhere" would be? Probably not cities. More likely a naval fleet, or an airbase. And who's to say that all the nuclear arms would be employed? The goal is not "total war" where the goal is to take out the entire nation, but rather to beat the nation into submission. I doubt that even half the arsenal would be employed in such a war, and most would be used to take out the other person's arsenals.
>>Also, remember that nuclear winters don't exist. Nuclear weapons >can't produce enough particulates to block out the sun for any
>>reasonable length of time.
>
>Ahem... I think you're underestimating the
>size of the world's modern
>nuclear arsenal... and its effects
>if fully employed.
Who would employ their entire arsenal?
The USA has about 6,750 deliverable and 12,000 stockpiled, Russia has about 5,500 deliverable and 21,000 stockpiled. Do you think either nation would fire them all? Many would be used for the remaining armies or fleets.
Even if all the nuclear weapons on the planet, ever made, were detonated at once, the sun would not be blocked or radiation levels raised to such a level that the human race would be exterminated (assuming the nukes don't target the humans themselves).
>The
>military has throughout time consistently
>understated its capability, especially when
>disarmament is a recurring theme.....
It's not how many, it's how you use them. A nation which targets cities is stupid, because those weapons could be used for other more useful targets.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
