Talk:Nuclear warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] (Early comments)

Uh... what? Why ever would you say this? There have been many, many studies that point to the real possibility of human extinction as a result of full-scale nuclear war, notably collected in the book "The Aftermath". Removing this bit. Graft

I'm going to contest this removal as soon as I've got more time to actually dig up sources. :) Bryan
That "common fear" idea should be attributed to a spokesman or advocate. --Ed Poor
It'll be hard to pick only one, I just did a websearch and found vast numbers. But I distinctly recall examining the numbers on these scenarios several years ago, and finding that it would be quite hard to exterminate humanity even if that were the objective and we tried hard. How would you clean humanity off of all those thousands of islands, or out of the depths of the rainforests, for example? The original predictions of nuclear winter turned out to be overblown. Bryan

There is the problem that neither scenario can be founded strongly in fact. All that can and should be said about hypothetical scenarios is what are the hypothetical scenarios and what are the degrees of uncertainty associated with each. --The Cunctator

Okay, I went and dug up some facts. According to the 1980 UN report General and complete disarmament: comprehensive study on nuclear weapons: report of the secretary-general, it was estimated that in total there were approximately 40,000 nuclear warheads in existance at that time with a total yield of approximately 13,000 megatons of TNT. It is pointed out that this is 3 tons of TNT for every person on Earth. However, it is important to note that there is no way that this explosive force could be evenly divided up and targetted like that; there were only 40,000 bombs, and they would be targetted in accordance with military priorities rather than with the primary goal of killing as many people as possible. The northern hemisphere would be much harder hit than the southern hemisphere.
By comparison, when Tambora erupted in 1815 with a force of roughly 1000 megatons, and Santorini in 1635 BC was even larger (couldn't find a figure with relatively brief websearching). While it was nasty, it was certainly nowhere near extinction-causing.
While I might agree that it's debateable whether a full-scale nuclear war would have ended human civilization, I don't think the numbers can support any reasonable concern that the human species was in danger. Unless someone comes up with some references to change my mind, or at least sustain debate, I'm going to reinsert some version of that deleted line into the article. Bryan 22:06 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)

I personally find it pretty hard to swallow the idea that even civilization could be threatened by all-out nuclear war. The "nuclear winter" nonsense has been pretty thoroughly discredited already, so you'd have to wipe out every population center individually, and there are more than 40,000 significant population centers on earth, so some would survive. And there would be plenty of arable land and fresh water left to sustain the survivors, and all they'd need to "reboot" civilization is a single copy of a few important books like a good physics text and some basic geology and biology. Even the knowledge in a few survivors' heads might be enough. --LDC

Unless everyone left were so demoralized that they felt no need to "reboot civilization", as you cheerily put it. Also, what about all that dust, ash, soot, and gas produced by entire cities burning for weeks? What about all the millions of unburied corpses? Cholera, typhus ... 68Kustom (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. When I mention the "end of civilization" I don't mean the permanent or universal end, just a period where most places really really suck compared to what they're like now. I guess the term covers a range of values of endedness. Bryan
Well, there's real concern that if civilization crashes now, we won't be able to re-start it. For example, the fossil fuels are largely gone.
There are other ways to power ones' vehicles, they'll just be somewhat less convenient than oil was. The synthesis of alcohol is one of our oldest industries, for example, so we could use that. We'll have the knowledge to skip straight to electrical motors for non-vehicular applications, too, so other types of power plants will also work. Pretty much every other resource is renewable; the bits left over from our previous civilization would form very high-quality "ore" deposits, if they couldn't be used directly. Bryan
I must respectfully question this. There is, quite simply, no substitute for fossil fuels. They have a uniquely high cost/benefit ratio. Alcohol is made from plants, which means that a great deal of cropland has to be devoted to alcohol fuel production. Electricity has to be produced by something. The only foreseeable competitor for fossil fuels in electricity production is nuclear power, on a much wider scale than now. Renewable energy sources are so diffuse as to be generally non-competitive. Modern intensive agricultural production depends heavily on fossil-fueled machines, and artificial fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.
I didn't say synthesizing liquid fuel would be as easy as it was the first time, in fact I explicitly said the opposite. But given the options "working somewhat harder to rebuild civilization than the first time" and "giving up completely and living in caves for the rest of our species' lifespan", why would we pick the second? Renewable energy sources are currently non-competitive against fossil fuels, yes. But they're quite useable to bootstrap our way up to nuclear power or whatever more practical substitute you choose. And keep in mind, many aspects of civilization-rebuilding will be easier this time, since we already have all the knowledge we need and oodles of refined materials lying around, along with all the intact cities that didn't get touched by the war. Bryan

I challenge the notion that the idea of nuclear winter has been discredited. Can you cite a non-biased source? -- Zoe

I'd suggest taking it up on Talk:Nuclear winter. In any case, I wasn't claiming it was discredited; merely overblown (as in not human-extinction-causing).

Pessimistic study of nukewar results from Cato Institute at

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa009.html

Cato suggests decribing their position as "libertarianism" or "market liberalism" ( http://www.cato.org/about/about.html ), i.e. they are not bleeding-heart left-wing progressive-liberals.

I just skimmed through this report, and it doesn't seem to discuss a single thing outside of the United States. Sure, in the event of a big nuclear war between the U.S. and U.S.S.R., the U.S. would have been severely pounded. So would the U.S.S.R., and probably much of Europe and Canada too. But what about South America? Africa? Australia? Indonesia? China? India? Losing big chunks of the northern hemisphere's trade will be a blow to them, but I'm still not seeing anything suggesting that it would be the end of civilization in the long term. Bryan

If the author of the following..

* SUITCASE BOMB -- A suitcase bomb is exactly what it says. A nuclear weapon built inside of a suitcase able to be carried anywhere and dropped and set off. As of today there are over 100 of those suitcases missing.

... can inform us of his source or other verification, then perhaps it belongs in this article. But I doubt it Mintguy

I am not the author of that, but the Suitcase_bomb or Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition probably fit the bill.


there's no mention of submarine launched nuclear missiles. I thought this was a serious consideration in the last two or three decades. Does somebody want to write it up? Alex.tan 05:33 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Cold war joke

General: The United States has sufficient firepower to destroy the Soviet Union 90 times over.
Senator: Actually, General, once would be quite sufficient.

Perhaps some discussion of Star Wars et al. would be suitable in the arms race section of this article?

[edit] NATO Strategy 'critically flawed'?

"Even though after Soviet collapse investigations by historians and military analysts revealed that the effectiveness of Warsaw Pact forces was rated far higher than they really were, official NATO doctrine had been critically flawed from the onset and global thermonuclear war would have been a very real possibility had actual conflict occurred."

- That was the point, to make an invasion as inpalatable as possible to the Soviets, this wasn't a flaw in NATO strategy. The Soviets always made the point that the Americans were not willing to chance the destruction of Washington D.C. in order to defend Bonn, but they never put their chips behind that gamble. In essence the strategy that made nuclear war such a possibility in the event of a NATO / Warsaw Pact war ensured that neither side would chance taking on the other through conventional means because of the danger of such a conflict going nuclear. This was not a flaw in strategy, but a greater defense than any amount of American or Soviet troops in Germany. If no one objects I will remove the "flawed" line for this reason -Snap Davies

  • This change should be made -- assuming NATO conventional forces were inadequate to repel a commited Warsaw Pact conventional attack (something not established,) the fact that NATO would be forced to 'go nuclear' would serve as a very effective deterrent. (The fact that NATO may have lacked the political will to do so may have been a very serious flaw; but this does not appear to be what the author is getting at, so his claim of a flaw in strategy is itself flawed.) Jkp1187 15:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DU

"The United States is the only nation to have actually used nuclear weapons in war, or on civilian populations, having in 1945 dropped two of them on cities in Japan – one on Hiroshima and another on Nagasaki." - This is allegedly not true. The United Kingdom has been accused of using shells with depleted uranium in the Iraq conflict. While these are not nuclear bombs, they are certainly nuclear weapons. Also, the statement is misleading, implying that the USA has only ever used nuclear weapons twice, whereas DU was used in the first Gulf War, in Bosnia and again in Iraq. But I thought I'd make sure everyone was okay with my definition of nuclear weapons as "Weapons where nuclear reactions are utilised". - User:Chewyman 30 Sep 2004, 15:35 (NZT)

Depleted uranium ammunition doesn't undergo any nuclear reactions worth mentioning; it's composed primarily of U-238, which has a half-life of almost five billion years. I don't think they should in any way be considered "nuclear weapons", it'd be silly. The reason uranium is used is simply because it's extremely dense. Bryan 04:18, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Depleted Uranium weapons are related to nuclear weapons but are not nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons require a nuclear reaction. WardHayesWilson 13:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, although as the weapons currently are, DU doesn't undergo nuclear reactions, but, having said that, DU does decay, it does emit alphas and betas and gamma. Whether that's the primary reason it's used for... is that relevant? Chewyman 15:11, 2 Oct 2004 (NZT)
It does decay, but it decays at such a slow rate that the radioactivity it produces is completely neglgible in its role as a bullet. Only its physical density matters for its intended function. If I were to fashion a club with a depleted uranium slug at the end to provide extra weight, and then I used it to bash someone's brains out, would it be reasonable to say that I've just used a nuclear weapon on him? :) Bryan 03:44, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
First of all: not everything that is radioactive is a nuclear weapon. Second of all: at best you'd be better trying to argue that DU is part of a radiological weapon -- a weapon intent on dispersing radioactive material. However even then I think you'd be barking up the wrong tree. --Fastfission 15:52, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

By some definitions of "nuclear weapon," weapons that use depleted uranium are nuclear weapons. [1], [2], [3]. So while I don't think it is proper to spend a huge amount of text on DU, I think it is useful to spell out that some people think that USA:s bombings in Serbia, Afganistan and Iraq constitutes a nuclear warfare. Palestine-info 14:29, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Only Helen Caldicott seems to want to call it that. I don't think her opinion on this is well known enough or prevalent enough to warrant a section in an article on "nuclear warfare." If an activist went around saying that all explosives contained atoms and are hence "atomic bombs", would it warrant inclusion? I don't think so. The definition of a "nuclear weapon" in the vast majority of all mainstream and even non-mainstream sources is a device which gets the majority of its energy from nuclear reactions, fission or fusion. DU warfare, whatever its toxicity and radioactive status, is not within that definition.--Fastfission 16:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Definitely not only Helen Caldicott. Left-wing newspapers and other media opposed to the war against Iraq and Serbia often equates use of DU to nuclear warfare. More links: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]... Palestine-info 16:44, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm extremely hesistant to even give even acknowledgment to such a purposeful misappropriation of a term for shock effect. If it were noted in the article at all it would have to be with extreme care as to acknowledge that this is a significantly questionable use of the term. --Fastfission 20:21, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the definition to remove the requirement that nuclear weapons be used on both sides of a conflict. I think a war in which one side used nuclear weapons against another would be called a nuclear war. If China used nuclear weapons to destroy Taiwan would we call that a conventional war? WardHayesWilson 13:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear warfare vs Nuclear history

This article seems a bit far-flung for "nuclear warfare", a good deal of it seems better placed in History of nuclear weapons. It would seem more sensible to me if this was focused more specifically on the issue of nuclear warfare itself, which I take generally to be an issue of nuclear strategy (which should probably redirect here). A proposed article structure would be a focus first on the use of the first two bombs in the wake of the firebombing raids of WWII, moving into the first stances on nuclear weapons use by Truman, easing into the first Soviet bomb and the ideas of deterrence, the game theory of the Cold War, the ideas about what the potential effects of nuclear warfare would be, etc. Does anyone object strongly? It would involve a lot of gutting of the article as it currently stands. It would focus more specifically on the projections associated with nuclear warfare and the organizations set up to wage it (i.e. SAC), rather than trying to give a thick description of the entire history of nuclear strategy. As it currently stands this article duplicates a lot of material and I don't think it is very useful or interesting to read. Thoughts? --Fastfission 01:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

yeah sounds good

I agree. Something about the tactical aspects of nuclear warfare should be added. After the opening of the soviet archives material on how the soviets planned to use nuclar weapons in unsion with conventional weapons. Have not seen any books describing that aspect from a NATO perspective. Does anyone know of any good material on that aspect? How did military planners envision getting fuel for vehicles after a nuclear strike on refineries and fuel storage facilities? Most litterature on the subject of nuclear war seems written from a macro perspective, but what would the war look like from the point of view of an artillery officer? Something along the lines of this perhaps:

http://artsandscience.concordia.ca/poli419n/lectures/lecture16_txt.html

It is a compilation of notes on the subject of nuclear warfare and not fit for a wiki article. Any ideas? http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_1/texts/comment.htm http://www.isn.ethz.ch/php/documents/collection_1/docs/warplan1-engl.htm

-Pietas

I also strongly agree that this article seems to be not about nuclear warfare, but about nuclear history. To me, it seems that an article about nuclear warfare should include (Part 1, on nuclear history): actual uses of nuclear weapons by one nation against another, several references without long, detailed explanations about concepts such as deterrence, escalation, and cold wars, all with appropriate links to other pages, (Part 2, on the form a nuclear war between two nuclear powers might take): a detailed explanation of how and why a nuclear war might begin, a detailed explanation of what that beginning might be and why, a detailed explanation of how that war might escalate and why, a detailed explanation of strategy and tactics, a detailed explanation of what might happen in the war after a nuclear exchange (would the nations continue fighting conventionally? Would they still nuke one another in smaller amounts? Etc.), a detailed explanation of the possible political environment after such a war, (Part 3, on consequences)possible environmental and humanitarian consequences of nuclear war. Discussions of cold war histories should be in one or more separate pages. Discussions of the military practices and concepts of cold war might also warrant its own page. Christiangoth 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Where'd that old phrase "The Nuclear Age" come from? Might fit better for the present content, allowing for recreation of this page with a focus on tactics, et al. MrZaiustalk 03:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree because it is way to big to be placed in the Nuclear Warfare article in the first place. It also it the reason that there is nuclear warfare to begin with. Ktr101 (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Only the US ?

The United States is the only nation to have actually used nuclear weapons in war, or on civilian populations, infact they should have nuked IRAQ when they had the chance otherwise we would"nt have been stuck in this conflict for years and possibly years to come

Russia also has done at least one test on their own civilian population to see what the effects where

Can you cite a bit better information than that? I know Russia exposed its population to fallout accidentally (as did the U.S.) but that's not the same thing as testing a bomb on your civilian population "to see what the effects were." --Fastfission 29 June 2005 23:33 (UTC)
You have to be delusional to believe that the Cold War US and the Soviet Union didn't intentionally expose citizens (or, in the US' case, primarily non/semicitizens in the form of American Indians) to every stage of nuclear arms production, development and use in order to study the effects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eyelidlessness (talk • contribs) 04:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] India's "No First Use" policy

In the case of India, there had been several threats made by the former BJP government which claimed that pre-emptive nuclear strikes against Pakistan was necessary to assure India's safety. The plans for these strikes was later eliminated due to global pressure.

I had to remove this line. India has publicly stated its "No first use" policy. So I fail to see how the BJP government could have stated that pre-emptive nuclear strikes were necessary. --Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്)

[edit] See Also

no first use

[edit] US bias

SLBM were around long before the "The 1980's"

"However, it was soon realised that submarines could 'sneak up' close to enemy coastlines and decrease the 'warning time'- the time between detection of the launch and impact of the missile - from as much as half an hour to under three minutes." Washington Yes but not Moscow. The time for a Soviet missile from Eastern Europe to London or Paris was not much more than 3 minutes, it certainly was not anywhere near hald an hour.

For the UK and France I do not see ow this is true "but the greatest cost came in the development of both sea- and land-based anti-submarine defenses and in improving and strengthening the chain of command. As a result, military spending skyrocketed." I an not even sure that it is true for the USSR or the USA.

If theses broad generalisations are not fixed the text ought to be removed --Philip Baird Shearer 01:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't only the USSR that started the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US had missiles in Turkey, right off the Soviet Union border. Soviet leaders probably saw and encirclement and responded to it by investing in Castro. Both the USA and USSR were almost responsibile for WWIII.

[edit] Nuclear strategy? or Nuclear warfare?

Though this article is well written, it contains little information on actual nuclear warfare. IMO the article should be transferred to the heading nuclear strategy. The article on nuclear warfare should seek to answer the question as to how a nuclear war would be fought. Eg. What kind of objectives would be targeted by nuclear weapons in a limited nuclear war? What would the role of conventional weapons be in such a war? How would(could?) large scale warfare take place in a theater were nuclear weapons had been used? How would the military cope with key civilian infrastructure destroyed? I realize that the answer to these questions would rest on a somewhat(highly?) speculative foundation. But the new availability of soviet sources should be able to answer some of the questions at least as envisioned from the perspective of soviet generals and strategists. -Pietas(Denmark)

If hit, strike back with everthing. I think that summarizes it. GangofOne 02:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a simplified version of the simplest MAD doctrine. There are a many more scenarios. I too am sceptical of the view that a small tactical nuclear war in Europe could have bin contained. At least from the late 1960s and onwards. Pietas 19:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)



This article claims that Iran and North Korea want to get nuclear weapons. This is completely biased about Iran. Some of the Western world says that they have suspicions, not proof, Iran seeks nuclear weapons. There is no proof of this. This is fact, not opinion, and as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, only fact should be put in there and this part must be removed

[edit] Nuclear Winter

The sentence about the Doomsday clock is not relevant. It is true that in the 40s, 50s and 60s the possibility of nuclear war created a sense of impending doom (see, for instance, "By the Bomb's Early Light" - Boyer). The Doomsday clock sentence is inconsequential except as an illustration of how some people felt or feel (fearful), and I don't think reporting feelings should be a part of the summary about nuclear war. We don't generally include how people feel about a topic in encyclopedia articles. [Article on Cuba: "People feel really positively about Cuba because the weather is warm and the people are friendly."] If you must say something about general feelings, I suggest you quote Boyer "Years before the world's nuclear arsenals made such a holocaust likely or even possible, the prospect of global annihilation already filled the national consciousness. This awareness and the bone-deep fear it engendered are the fundamental psychological realities underlying the broader intellectual and cultural responses of this period." He's referring to the 50s and 60s. Paul Boyer, By the Bomb's Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age (New York: Pantheon Books, 1985) p. 15.

The Nuclear Winter thing is very problematic. Sagan, Turco, et al. are all serious scientists and their research was careful and largely unrefuted. But the topic is difficult to report as fact. "Some scientists predict . . ." is the best you can do.

I'm sympathetic with the desire to state the dangers of all-out nuclear war emphatically but theories posited by a few guys about an event that has never occurred (nuclear war) dealing with a topic that is notoriously complex (as if trying to predict weather weren't bad enough, this is about global weather), about a phenomenon which has never (or only rarely and then on a much smaller scale) occurred before (global climate catastrophe) is just too speculative to report as fact.

The only historical case that might serve as an analog, the Plague, actually points in the other direction. Europe, despite losing 30% of its population in the three years from 1347 to 1350 to the Black Plague, experienced growth and prosperity for several centuries thereafter. So the only comparable historical event militates against a prediction of human extinction. Human extinction is a possibility, but you cannot talk about the likely extinction of the human species as the result of a nuclear war as a fact.

I intend to edit the Nuclear War section heavily unless there are persuasive reasons not to. WardHayesWilson 04:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I dont think you can even BEGIN to compare the plague to the effects of a large scale strike. Did the plauge kill 70-90% of the population instantly? Did it render the land unuseable for years? Did it vapourise the majority of resoures? Your example is like saying that landing on the sun should be close in cost/effort/risk to landing on the moon.

[edit] What about bin Laden's nuclear fatwa?

Shouldn't we include somewhere in this article the fact that Osama bin Laden obtained a fatwa to use nuclear arms? (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/12/60minutes/main655407.shtml) I would think so, unless it is thought by experts that it is highly unlikely for him to obtain a nuke.

[edit] Nuclear war - Not terrorism! (Not a slogan)

Even though USA wages "war" on terror, drugs and poverty, war is (still?) usually defined as an armed conflict between states. The part about terrorism should IMO be erased or placed in the article on nuclear terrorism. A link to the article might be appropriate though. Pietas 22:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unattributed interpretation

<quote>This was a savvy political ploy as the US administration almost certainly knew better and also knew that they could not be corrected without violating military security. (Though it should be pointed out, Eisenhower's own Gaither panel had also overestimated Soviet nuclear capabilities in their 1957 report). [9] [10] One result of this, however, was that the Soviets believed the vulnerability actually existed, with resulting temptation; luckily cooler heads prevailed. After Kennedy won the 1960 Presidential election, the "missile gap" conveniently went away.</quote>

Generally when it comes to politics on Wikipedia, it's not NPOV to just state a particular political interpretation as fact. It sounds like an accusation to say that the gap "conveniently went away", and it's certainly POV to allege that a statement is a "savvy political ploy" rather than simply a statement. Perhaps it was, but the allegation can't be made by Wikipedia contributors. I've <!--hidden--> the text until the section is fixed. I'll try to find sources and make the section neutral. --Mr. Billion 05:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] citation and ellaboration needed

"A number of interesting concepts were developed. Early ICBMs were inaccurate which led to the concept of counter-city strikes -- attacks directly on the enemy population leading to a collapse of the enemy's will to fight. However, it appears that this was the American interpretation of the Soviet stance while the Soviet strategy was never clearly anti-population." What dose "never clarly anti-population" mean? That they aimed at destroying some population centers? A few population centers? Or none? Please cite a reliable source. If someone here at wikipedia has access to hitherto classified warzaw pact operational plans, I(as well as the Pentagon) would be very interested in studying them. ;-)Pietas 19:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm fairly sure there are sources about 1960s Soviet nuclear strategy (publically stated versions, of course). But I don't know of it myself. --Fastfission 23:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] facts not verifiable

...region as a whole is considered highly volatile, with conflicts in Afghanistan and the Middle East considerably influencing policy, and several assassinations of high-ranking government officials and continuing Hindu-Muslim incidents in India heightening both national and international tension.

...In India's case, it has often warned of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Pakistan, which was condemned by the international community.


Assinations of high-ranking government officials???

India warning of pre-emptive nuclear strike against Pakistan????

Someone clearly is using this site as a slate for writing their political believes rather than verifying the facts and presenting them neutrally.

1. Assassinations of high-ranking government officials... have you verified the facts? If so, please name them and also name the high-ranking officials who have been assassinated to destabilise Indian government's nuclear arsenal... what the hell is this guy talking about?

2. India has a NO FIRST USE POLICY.

I think this article biased... neutrality disputed. Hence, I have deleted unverifiable facts. You can undo the unchanges, but only after comfirming the facts and pasting and confirming the same on the talk page.


[edit] Focusing needed

This article is currently mostly the same sort of content which is at History of nuclear weapons. It would seem more sensible to me if it was less "historical" and focused in specifically on different doctrines of nuclear warfare, the effects of nuclear warfare, etc., and had the historical content routed into another article. Any thoughts on this? --Fastfission 16:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

For several years after World War II, the US developed and maintained a strategic force based on the Convair B-36 bomber that would be able to attack any potential aggressor from bomber bases in the US. The possibility of an actual nuclear attack on the US was considered somewhat remote because of the nuclear disparity between itself and other nations. Instead, many strategists were fearful that a rogue general would launch an unauthorized attack on the Soviet Union as suggested in the novel and Red Alert. To assuage this fear, the US placed its nuclear weapons under the control of a new, separate agency named The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). In the event of a war, the Strategic Air Command (or SAC) bombers would be moved to AEC bases to be loaded with bombs in a process that would likely have taken several days.

First of all, both Red Alert and Fail Safe were written long after the AEC had been formed, and Fail Safe has nothing to do with rogue generals (it is about mechanical failure leading to an accidental launch). Second of all, the creation of the AEC was not motivated by a fear of rogue generals, but a desire to consolidate atomic energy development under a single civilian agency. Third, SAC maintained the weapons on its own bases; there were no "AEC bases". Even before Russia had the bomb nuclear weapons were stored in regular military bases, and the AEC had responsibility for the development of weapons, not their usage. This paragraph is all very confused... --Fastfission 15:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] NOFU policy

The article states: "So, while official US policy was a clearly stated 'non first-use policy'" I'd like to ask for an authoritative citation on this. My sources tell me that throughout the Cold War the United States referred to nuclear weapons as "weapons of last resort" but never formally adopted a NOFU policy before 1991. Am I wrong? Ggbroad 20:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to follow up on my own comments above the no first use policy page expressly states that the United States has never endorsed such a policy. Ggbroad 21:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of doomsday scenarios

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources?

This article is in a desperate need of in-line citations of sources, as it deals with something that may or may not happen in the future. As Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I believe articles on the future should - if found notable enough to exist in the first place - cite its sources thoroughly. I'll see if I can find any. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient nuclear warfare

Hi! I've wrote the section "Ancient nuclear warfare", and I don't know very well how to wikify, and the template doesn't fit very well. 201.74.185.102 19:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since it is sort of a poem, it probably doesn't need to be changed. I will remove the tag.J.delanoy 23:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude but: the accompanying text is barely literate and, second, this is an encyclopedia, not a clearing house for crackpot nonsense. There was no nuclear warfare in ancient times. I removed it.--Ggbroad 01:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear winter myth

"According to the 1980 United Nations report General and Complete Disarmament: Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons: Report of the Secretary-General, it was estimated that in total there were approximately 40,000 nuclear warheads in existence at that time with a total yield of approximately 13,000 megatons of TNT. By comparison, when the volcano Mount Tambora erupted in 1815 (turning 1816 into the Year Without A Summer due to the levels of ash expelled), it exploded with a force of roughly 1000 megatons of TNT. Many people believed that a full-scale nuclear war could result in the extinction of the human species, though not all analysts agreed on the assumptions required for these models."

you fail to take into acount most detonations would be airbursts resulting in little ash and fallout save for post fires, I think theyve dispelled the nuclear winter myth years ago —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.122.3 (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2007

[edit] Radiation as a consequence of a nuclear war?

I am under the impression that a fatal consequence of a nuclear conflict of any dimension would be the release of significant amounts of radiation on a global scale. I am a bit surprised to not see this discussed on this page, what am I missing? 88.66.60.192 21:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Penis???

Uh... is the first sentence of the main text supposed to say "the penis of using nuclear weapons"? Well, I guess that this is some kind of vandalims and I would love to correct this but unfortunately I do not know which word has been replaced by "penis". Is someone going to fix this?

Fixed. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
In the future, just look back through the "history' section of the page, it will probably have the correct sentence in there somewhere.98.212.211.163 (talk) 04:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Approximately ten percent

. . . of this article deals with how and why a nuclear war would be fought. Most of it is USA-USSR foreign policy regarding nuclear weapons from 1945-200.

There are books about the subject which describe scenaria leading up to nuclear exchange. One, The Day After Midnight, is a most useful source in that it decribes four types of warfare: single-city demonstration, military counterforce, attack on oil production capacity, and all-out war.

I think this article should describe how and which weapons--yields, air- or groundburst, etc.--would be used in a given scenario. Also, the powers waging such war should be examined. What is China's policy on a war between the USA and Russia, or indeed any combination thereof? How would Britain, France, India, and Pakistan act?

I suppose that's all too speculative. But the article right now isn't really about warfare. 68Kustom (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)