- Sep 28, 2001
- 8,464
- 155
- 106
I wanted to add something to the existing thread yesterday but then there was other information gathered in the meantime...which sort-of justifies its own thread. There is also some facts where I think it would be interesting to get people's opinion.
1st) The idea of the surviveability of a major WW3 which I think is utterly ridiculous.
I want to remind that back in the mid 80s we had one single accident (Chernobyl) which contaminated large parts of Europe for months/years. This was merely an accident in a nuclear facility, not from a bomb made to cause destruction.
Let me give some perspective here: The Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs were hideous compared to modern nuclear bombs which can have several thousands of kt TNT equivalent EACH. The biggest nuclear bomb had 50.000 kt TNT, with "average" modern nuclear bombs having "several thousands" kt TNT equivalent.
The Hiroshima bomb had 15kt of TNT equivalent.
A Trident sub carries 16 MISSILES where *each missile* on its own has 12 independent nuclear war heads, each with about 500kt of TNT equivalent.
So...imagine 12 of these warheads covering one particular area.....which makes the idea of survivrability a mere joke. I don't even take into account fallout (when wind and weather basically carries the shit all across country)...or the half-life of radiation. (I wonder whether the typical prepper from rural Kentucky would even know what those things mean....)
It's my opinion that a possible 2-3 bombs would be enough to make vast/most parts of the US inhabitable for years mainly due to fallout and radiation. What an actual, major nuclear war would mean with dozens let alone hundreds of exploded warheads...is already beyond imagination. But let's put it that way: Have fun "surviving" this.
* "Letter of last resort"
I just read, now in regards to the Trident subs in operation in/for the UK about this "letter of last resort" which is a secret letter by the UK PM to the cmd of a sub, stored in a safe and to be opened if it has been established that the UK gvt is incapacitated/wiped out. In such a case, the command of the sub opens and reads the letter, otherwise the letter is destroyed and a new letter of last resort by the PM is given to subs each time a new PM gets into office.
There is speculation what the letter contains, and some sources said it contains one/any of four alternatives, such as "Retaliate", "Not retaliate", "Go to Australia or the US, in case they still exist and give them control over the sub"
Now let's imagine a scenario where the UK (or US or whoever for that matter) has been destroyed, what would be a "sensible" action? Retaliate? Why? For me sort-of the definition of pointlessness.
Let's conjure some rather scary scenario with NYC, DC, London etc. wiped out...so what is to gain by, say, retaliating and destroying Moscow? While I absolutely understand the reasoning for the existence of these subs.. the value which this "threat" has, in a speculative scenario where "everything is already lost"..I personally would say that NOT retaliating is more reasonable than retaliating simply because it's pointless.
(Practically, if it's true what these speculations about the content of the "letter or last resort" are it would make most sense that the sub would then try to get under AUS or US control...I assume. It's also likely that each sub CMD has liberty in evaluating for themselves what the best action would be, depending, given that the HQ and the gvt is assumed to be wiped out. It is indeed on them alone then to decide what to do)
1st) The idea of the surviveability of a major WW3 which I think is utterly ridiculous.
I want to remind that back in the mid 80s we had one single accident (Chernobyl) which contaminated large parts of Europe for months/years. This was merely an accident in a nuclear facility, not from a bomb made to cause destruction.
Let me give some perspective here: The Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombs were hideous compared to modern nuclear bombs which can have several thousands of kt TNT equivalent EACH. The biggest nuclear bomb had 50.000 kt TNT, with "average" modern nuclear bombs having "several thousands" kt TNT equivalent.
The Hiroshima bomb had 15kt of TNT equivalent.
A Trident sub carries 16 MISSILES where *each missile* on its own has 12 independent nuclear war heads, each with about 500kt of TNT equivalent.
So...imagine 12 of these warheads covering one particular area.....which makes the idea of survivrability a mere joke. I don't even take into account fallout (when wind and weather basically carries the shit all across country)...or the half-life of radiation. (I wonder whether the typical prepper from rural Kentucky would even know what those things mean....)
It's my opinion that a possible 2-3 bombs would be enough to make vast/most parts of the US inhabitable for years mainly due to fallout and radiation. What an actual, major nuclear war would mean with dozens let alone hundreds of exploded warheads...is already beyond imagination. But let's put it that way: Have fun "surviving" this.
* "Letter of last resort"
I just read, now in regards to the Trident subs in operation in/for the UK about this "letter of last resort" which is a secret letter by the UK PM to the cmd of a sub, stored in a safe and to be opened if it has been established that the UK gvt is incapacitated/wiped out. In such a case, the command of the sub opens and reads the letter, otherwise the letter is destroyed and a new letter of last resort by the PM is given to subs each time a new PM gets into office.
There is speculation what the letter contains, and some sources said it contains one/any of four alternatives, such as "Retaliate", "Not retaliate", "Go to Australia or the US, in case they still exist and give them control over the sub"
Now let's imagine a scenario where the UK (or US or whoever for that matter) has been destroyed, what would be a "sensible" action? Retaliate? Why? For me sort-of the definition of pointlessness.
Let's conjure some rather scary scenario with NYC, DC, London etc. wiped out...so what is to gain by, say, retaliating and destroying Moscow? While I absolutely understand the reasoning for the existence of these subs.. the value which this "threat" has, in a speculative scenario where "everything is already lost"..I personally would say that NOT retaliating is more reasonable than retaliating simply because it's pointless.
(Practically, if it's true what these speculations about the content of the "letter or last resort" are it would make most sense that the sub would then try to get under AUS or US control...I assume. It's also likely that each sub CMD has liberty in evaluating for themselves what the best action would be, depending, given that the HQ and the gvt is assumed to be wiped out. It is indeed on them alone then to decide what to do)
Facebook
Twitter