US Must Plan for Nuke Wars

US Must Plan for Nuke Wars

Perhaps more than any other open-source outfit, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments has put serious intellectual muscle into examining the implications of waging war in an environment where potential enemies don’t just threaten to use nuclear weapons, they actually detonate a nuclear device.

While nuclear disarmament remains a noble aspiration, the world is going in the other direction, that is, more states with more nukes, says CSBA President Andrew Krepinevich in a new report, US Nuclear Forces: Meeting the Challenge of a Proliferated World. From four nuclear states in the 1960s, there are now double that number (adding China, Israel, India and Pakistan) and we may soon reach ten (North Korea and Iran). Potential enemies have learned they can’t survive a conventional war in the face of the U.S. precision strike arsenal. In their strategic calculus, the only means of deterring U.S. military action is a nuclear weapon.

He describes the “Second Nuclear Regime,” where proliferation has moved from advanced industrial powers, centered around the U.S. and Europe, to emerging Asian states, such as India, Pakistan and North Korea, with more to follow: Iran, Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria. A nuclear armed Iran would likely be a proliferation “tipping point,” where the barriers to proliferation disappear altogether, producing a domino-effect as Arab states wanting “peaceful” nuclear power, what Krepinevich calls the “starter kit” for nuclear weapons, accelerate weaponization efforts.

In such a world, strategists and military leaders must go further than just ruminating about how deterrence theory can be jerry rigged to fit a larger set of nuke wielding actors. Military planners must prepare to fight on a day-after-nuclear-explosion battlefield, he says, a warfighting environment (including radioactive contamination and potential second strike) of such complexity and potential cost, it renders obsolete many basic tenets of U.S. military power projection. How for example, do you locate your primary fighter strike force at bases in the Gulf, such as Doha, within easy range of Iran’s nuclear tipped missiles?

After having observed the importance American commanders placed on “force protection” when faced with guerrillas armed with roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s difficult to imagine a scenario where those same commanders would send troops into harms way against a nuclear armed opponent. Yet, as Krepinevich points out, if, as is likely, proliferation becomes reality, the U.S. cannot be frozen out of options by the threat of nuclear strike. Somehow, policymakers and military commanders must be provided options for strategic maneuver, even with the threat of nuclear attack hanging over their heads.

Planning for a campaign against a nuclear armed regional adversary must include some combinations of missile defenses, long range strike assets to take out nuclear weapons and special operations, or larger, forces that can seize and render a safe a hostile state’s nuclear arsenal. Of course, in a proliferated world, an added danger is that some terrorist group gets their hands on a nuke. In such a world, the ability to “track back” a nuclear detonation, to identify “nuclear fingerprints,” will be absolutely vital.

“Would the United States be confident that it could definitively identify the source of a nuclear-armed ballistic missile launched from along the Iranian-Pakistani border? Or that preparations for missile strikes under way along the Iranian-Pakistani border could be clearly identified as the actions of one state and not the other? What about a nuclear weapon aboard a transport ship that is detonated as the ship comes into port?”

Krepinevich describes a proliferated Middle East as a place of extreme instability as competing intelligence agencies constantly scour neighbor’s territory for weapons; since nuclear arsenals would be very small, the discovery of such weapons would likely invite a prompt attack to instantly shift in the strategic balance.

The report is intended to “raise awareness” of the need to reexamine many of the underlying assumptions of strategic logic regarding nuclear weapons that have not moved much beyond Cold War era thinking, Krepinevich says. The march to a world with zero nuclear weapons will not be a straight line. Making the right decisions during that long march demands a well-crafted strategy that does not currently exist.

Join the Conversation

How about this scenario — Iran gets a nuke (and following the logic of this article, they USE it via Hezbullah, Hamas, IRGC in order to delay attribution) and it detonates in a major Israeli city wiping out 1/10th their population (like killing 30 million Americans if you scale the numbers) and Israel then puts into effect its Samson option obliterating most populated centers in the Middle East. Now give me a war plan starting there, because that seems a hell of a lot more likely than any country launching a nuke against the US or our forces.

I don’t think that’s a very likely scenario at all. I think Iran wants nukes not so that it can attack Israel, but to protect itself from invasion. It now has US forces on both its eastern and western borders, and prior to that was surrounded by hostile Sunni regimes. It has studied the example of North Korea very carefully, and seen how differently the world treats that country because it has nuclear weapons.

Oh, yes, and when exactly is Israel planning to give up its nuclear weapons? Just wondering…

Port Security, Maritime Defense Force structure and battalion embedded nuclear detection teams are a necessity. One problem is the reduction of TACN from the vocabulary of offensive capabilities. What happened to all that “stuff”? Enemies of the state would do what is easy for them to do, that is smuggle small hard to detect devices of low grade distribution, that would cause a localized panic for a distraction tactic.

It seems to me that a TACN pre-emptive strike plan on an immediate verifiable nuclear threat in the process of fueling the bird is in order, under this new awareness. Some fires you have to put out with fire. This in my opinion, is the only reason we should be in AFPAK, to eliminate this threat. It is nice to have a stable state for both these countries, but the priority is to kill anything that resembles a verifiable NTHREAT .

For those of us who wonder what the interest in vulnerability to the CONUS is, you might want to take a peak at “America, the Vulnerable, by Stephen Flynn.” Hopefully we have our eyes and ears open and are reducing these vulnerabilities.

I would like to add to dosentliketoshare analogy that it may not be just Israel. It could be Russia, or Pakistan or China being drawn into the mix. And what about countries in South America wanting to acquire nukes? Venezuela comes to mind, along with Brazil.

And I forgot to mention,what about attacks on our own soil by nukes transported from abroad?

The US needs a robust and modernized Triad and fully modernized nuclear weapons research, development and production enterprise. Further reductions beyond the Moscow Treaty are not required and are dangerous. The US should send a strong message “This nation will be defended!”

Maybe when they get some strategic depth to their country.… or when all their neighbors stop thinking it’s their holy duty to wipe out the Jews?

During the cold war, we had a military that trained to operate in a nuclear environment. Then we pretended that threat went away. Krepinevich is dishing out a dose of reality and the US needs to think about it. That includes the US population. Our electrical grid is not hardened against EMP nor robust against the physical effects of a nuclear strike. This will be exacerbated with the smart grid unless it is hardened. We are highly reliant upon communication and computational devices that don’t stand a chance against EMP. Add to that an administration that appears to be reluctant wrt nuclear deterrence (e.g. would hesitate to use) and it’s a recipe for disaster.

Yeah, like it was defended in 2001.….

But Israel’s neighbors don’t want to wipe out the Jews. That’s just absurd. And the “strategic depth” issue is just stupid. It might have meant something when Israel was facing the threat of invasion from Arab armies. But that threat is a thing of the past. No one is going to invade Israel now. Israel’s only real issue is domestic unrest, caused by their own apartheid policies. So they can give the nukes up. As I said, the Iranians want nuclear weapons because of their experience with the Iraqi invasion of their country, and the current geostrategic fact that they are encircled by US military forces.

Our electrical grid will never be hardened against EMP. That’s just too big and too expensive a job. It also seems irrelevant unless we are talking about a massive ICBM attack against all of North America. But I don’t think that’s the scenario the report is addressing. It is addressing a localized nuclear attack, and not necessarily in the US. To me the insurmountable problem in this scenario is how to do you fight a war in a zone subject to a second strike? Why would you commit any forces in the first place in such a situation, knowing they would just be destroyed?

I agree with Niall. A nuclear strike executed by a soveriegn nation seems unlukely. The fact that nations such as Iran may be seeking to develop a nuclear arsenal is in response to their unique strategic situation as a way of having some bargaining chips at the table. However, as more emerging nations develop weapons of this sort, it could be much easier for a terrorist orginization to develop their own weapon.

I believe that US, commanders, that includes you Mr. President, need to address the elephant in the room and start asking those tough “what if” quetsions. I believe that one of the main problems facing our military today is this; how do we deal with a counterinsurgency type of conflict, as in Iraq, and at the same time stay trained and ready to meet all the other threats across the spectrum of conflict up to and including nuclear war?

If anything, i think it is safe to say that our world today is not black and white. There are plenty of shades of gray. Our leadership needs to develop robust, flexible, and proactive war plans that deter and pre-empt as well as react in the aftermath of an attack. I hope Krepinivich’s report helps us wake up and smell the new world order.

Look at what happened when a group blew up our buildings and killed our own people. We invaded countries, killed, and dominated. They used two explosions, we’ve used thousands. I think that if anyone wanting to blow us up thought about it, they must know that we would stop at nothing to find them and kill them. And chances are we wouldn’t make as much of an effort to be as precise in our targeting. Or, at that rate, keep them alive. Methinks if someone nuked us, all this whining about torture would end immediately…
The real threat to a large body is a small body. We can fight a country. What’s been proven is it’s much harder (nearly impossible) to fight a belief and a small group that claims no geographical borders. And our enemies are keenly aware of this. No country or large group would attack us with nuclear weapons. It would be a small group.

Good Evening Greg,

First off could the buzz with all of it’s vast resources please find another photo the this old photo shopped post card.

The old inflammatory issue of nuclear weapons, well lets just see what we reality is. According to Rand reports going back to the 1950’s the estimated number of nuclear devices to CRIPPLE but not knock out the United States was estimated to be about 250 in the 1950’s. It must be assumed that it would be more 60 years later.

The only two powers that could possibly launch a nuclear attack on the US are China and Russia. India and Pakistan are regional powers and not threat to the US. The British and French have limited nuclear weapons on board their SSBN’s but are not and never have been in the US’s nuclear defense equations.

Right now Russia may have about 1500 usable nuclear warheads. The delivery vehicle for nearly all are either Cruise Missiles or Short, Medium or Long Range Tactical Ballistic Missiles max range about 1500 Km. ICMB’s on SSBN’s zero at sea (their are 7 Delta IV’s tied up at the pier probably with out crews , 39 silos that are empty and 6 mobile carriers that may be able to carry and launch the Topil M, when it ever goes into production. Ability to launch a strike on the US, zip, zero.

China. The PLA has somewhere between 300–500 nuclear devices. They have 18–20 ICBM’s that are not fueled and in storage and at seperate facilities are the single warheads for these missiles, none of the Chinese devices are MIRVed. They have about 1500 Short, Medium and Long range Ballistic missiles, again 1500 Km max range and about 200 Cruise Missiles (mostly un tested and not ready for deployment) that may have nuclear ability. On the SSBN’s one Xia Class in the water w/o missiles it uses the Jl-1 which had only one successful launch in March 1988 and that it. The Jl-1 has been out of service ever sense. Th first of the Type 094 SSBN is in a sea cave on Hainan Island with the South Seas Fleet. The Kulb ASCM is still in development it is an anti ship missile and is not deployed by the PLAN. The chinese have a small number like less the 20 Sun Burn Soviet era ASCM’s that could be fitted with nuclear devices but their has been no indication that the PLAN has done this, the Sun Burns are not deployed on either submarines or surface ships.

Now the US, during the Bush W. administration the US arsenal of nucs has been reduced for over 3500 to somewhat less then 1500. We are the only country in the world to have land based nuclear missiles deployed and combat ready and only one of three countries (UK and France being the others) to have SSBN’s that are armed and deployable and the only country to have SSBN’s on combat patrols 365 days a year.

There is no other country that has combat deployed nuclear missiles then the United States. There is no country that has the nuclear arsenal that could CRIPPLE the United States let alone destroy our capacity to defend ourselves. Why this senseless argument about mo’ nuc’s.

Sorry Greg but your whole argument just doesn’t make sense, unless of course if you are a contractor who works for the DOE. The US has taken over 1100 nuclear explosions since 1945, how many do you need to see that nuclear weapons have no military value, you can’t bring down a country with nuclear weapons.

Byron Skinner

Niall Lynch October 29th, 2009 at 12:03 am

But Israel’s neighbors don’t want to wipe out the Jews. That’s just absurd. And the “strategic depth” issue is just stupid. It might have meant something when Israel was facing the threat of invasion from Arab armies. But that threat is a thing of the past. No one is going to invade Israel now. Israel’s only real issue is domestic unrest, caused by their own apartheid policies. So they can give the nukes up. As I said, the Iranians want nuclear weapons because of their experience with the Iraqi invasion of their country, and the current geostrategic fact that they are encircled by US military forces.
Why would we invade Iran? We’re in a war with the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We’re not just gonna pick up our gear and roll on into Iran. You’re paranoid. Plus Iran’s president has said that he will wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

One problem with your assumption about our response to an attack. You’re assuming we’ll have a CIC with the guts to respond the way you assume. Sorry to say I don’t see any leaders from either party that I think can/will get it done. I hope to GOD we never have to find out

i could only find nine comments from both of your posts that have me convinced that you are positively ignorant of the situation from US / ISRAEL point of view. I conclude that there is not much room in your heart for my people?

Offhand a small nuke in one of our major population centers or in WA DC could inconvenience us considerably for a fair length of time.

Except as an act of desperation or terrorism a nuclear weapon would very unlikely be used directly against the US. Any nuclear attack on a nuclear power would simply result in a retaliatory strike. So any power contemplating such a nuclear strike against a nuclear power has to believe they can win on the first move and eliminate the command structure to fire a retaliation strike, or the eliminate the actual nuclear assets of their enemy.

I believe the point of this military discussion is to look more at the likely scenario of nuclear weapons being used on staging areas and beach heads where US soldiers are gathered. A strike on localized logistical assets would cripple supply chains. Also in the field, where the enemy may use tactical rather than strategic nuclear bombs. Imagine a roadside nuke, detonating near an armored column. For the politically concious totalitarian state, they might try to use a nuke in a non-directed method for area of denial to saturate an area with radiation to make it that much more difficult for US ground forces to operate, while warning of their capability.

After reading and thinking about this we are at war with countries that have been in war since hundreds of years and are darn good at it, now that some or near all are getting nuclear weapons they no longer have the great fear of the U.S.A. or UK. The World is now at a greater level of threat of nuclear war or distruction now than we ever have been and the peace keeper are not of the caliber to do anything or capable to do anything, they are to busy bickering as always on capital hill both parties have forgotten why and who they represent I know some of these people and I will most likely be put on their black list if I am not on it already.

That’s a hilirious, and ignorant, comment. We have already supported one invasion of Iran, through our proxy Saddam Hussein (remember him?). The IRanians have never forgotten this. Having supported an invasion of them once, why wouldn’t we again? Piling up US troops on their borders does nothing to dispel this fear.

Eather it will or will not happen. we must always be ready! But again with BozObama in office we don’t stand a change.

Well, we’ve already fully supported one invasion of Iran, carried out by our proxy Saddam Hussein (remember him?). Given that recent history, why wouldn’t the Iranians think we were capable of doing it again? Particularly when we now have troops on both their eastern and western borders? They in fact have every right to be paranoid about our intentions.

What’s your real name, Niall? Mohammed?

Good Morning Folks,

Lets see Iran and nuclear weapons, if I recall since 1979 Iran has only been about 5 years away from going nuclear. It’s still 5 years away, isn’t it?

North Korea, not with out a lot of help from China and China sees that stability in the Koreas is to their benefit since they trade with the North and are heavily invested in the South.

Terrorists “suitcase bomb”, any nation state that might be able to miniaturize the components of a nuclear into that of a foot locker are not very friendly to such a project. Regarding the old Soviet made suitcase bomb, has anyone ever scene one? I never have. Sonce the smallest diameter of the Plutonium ball to make a nuclear weapon is 280mm that would be a very bid suit case.

Terrorist stealing a weapon. Most likely place would be Russia and since it’s been 20 years and counting that the Soviet arsenal has been maintained, all that they might be able to get is some fissionable materials, they would still have to construct their own weapon which they are a long way from being able to do.

Byron Skinner

Nuclear Weapons no longer have any use as a deterrent or deterrence to war.
The concept of Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is obsolete.

No. I’m just explaining why, given US actions in the past and present, it would not seem impossible to the Iranians that the US might sponsor another invasion of their country. It’s called trying to get inside your enemy’s head.

“But Israel’s neighbors don’t want to wipe out the Jews. That’s just absurd.“
Says Pocahantas to Powhatan, “But the English don’t want to wipe out the Powhatan nation“
right… I wondered how that turned out?…
You also say “No one is going to invade Israel now.” yeah, sure “Now”, but what about 10, 20, 30 years from now? Should Israel give up its nukes for a promise to “never invade.” Well, the land for peace deal is working wonders for them, isn’t it?
Nations have defense (not just Israel) because war is inevitable (be it by force of arms, or other means) and peace is not.

Baron -

It’s funny how you’re trying to turn Israel’s neighbors into Nazis, intent on destroying every Jew in the world. Their beef is with Israelis, not Jews anywhere in the world. What they want is a little land for the Palestinians.

And, hey, thanks for providing Iran with an ironclad argument for getting nuclear weapons. Who cares if they have no need for them now? They MIGHT need them in 30 years, so there! Give’em to us!

Really, come on. You’re not even trying to think at this point.

President Barack Obama was discussed by Thorbjorn Jagland, Chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Mr. Jagland said that basically Obama was given the prize because he reached out to the Arab world and made inroads into reducing the tensions that might spark more war ( and I add to that: or the need for more nukes). Only creating peace will reduce war. Building more nukes will make nuclear war more likely, not less. I think MAD is a dead issue and the only real issue is whether or not a rogue state can get their hands on nukes.

Last I looked North Korea was a rogue state with their hands on nukes. And arguably, so is Pakistan. I am far more worried about them than I am about Iran.

Because we have no real working media in the US and Balloon Boy and Tea-Baggers trump actual news, it comes as no surprise that the only ones surprised were our ill informed public.

Daniel Russ

“Only creating peace will reduce war” Wow how profound (sarcasm alert) There is only ONE WAY to insure peace tomorrow SURRENDER!

I say you put your brilliant statement on a sign and walk around Western Pakistan. Once they see how much sense you make they will throw down their weapons and it will be utopia.

Folks, Iran MUST be prevented from getting a nuke(s), even if we have to have our client-state, Isreal, “do it” FOR us(–Bomb, Bomb, Bomb,–Bomb-bomb Iran). If Iran gets a nuke, THAT development will start an ARMS RACE, because the SUNNI-states of Egypt, Saudi-Arabia, etc., will HAVE… to ALSO… have nukes to COUNTER-ACT… the Iranian-SHIA-nuke. Brian & Niall must be the defense-contractors,–if a nuke arms-race starts, ALL the arab states are going to end-up with nukes, except Jordan & Lebanon(-owned by Syria). The USA (–and even the Globalist F–ks…) don’t want that. Even Putin, rattling his “anti-rocket” measures, and having recently up-graded… Iranian air defense, doesn’t want…a Nuclear Iran! Also, we simply can’t AFFORD…to fight another war (–unless Red China gives us its “blessing”)! Well over half of our Govt.-paper is held…by Red China! PS. Check-out what was flown from the White House, on Sept. 20th of this year. The Flag of the PRC, Red China! The Reds probably KILLED 60+million of its own since 1949, plus the O’Bamunists ARE… in Fascistic-Hegonomy, @ home.

How sure are you of your facts? There could be large numbers of missles and nuclear devices in secret bunkers here and there ready to go at any minute and there could be SSBNs belonging to China, Russia, even N. Korea that no one knows anything about until they start flying. Don’t be too sure of yourself. Are you in possesion of a Top Secret clearance? If not, then all you know is the facts that have been PUBLISHED.

Moron…maybe you missed out on the reading of the Hamas, Hezbullah charters, or all those death to Israel marches/chants? I mean it’s pretty disgusting. They pretty much say death to Israel when they have nothing else to say.

I think just we reached Godwin’s law.
I was just saying that war will come to them would go to war eventually as it comes to any one else. So why would Israel give up any of its weapons (conventional or nuclear)? It is much better for them to keep everything on the table and keep everyone guessing.

In any case, the Palestinians already have land, it is called “Jordan.” The land currently called Israel has changed hands dozens of times over the last couple millenia. So big deal if the Palestinians want their land back. The land was taken fair and square by UK in WWI from the Ottoman’s (and divided into Jordan, Israel, Syria etc) who had taken it from someone else before that. And a thousands of years from now someone else will own it, maybe space aliens, and us humans will want it back.
Also, Iran does have a right to get nuclear arms just like any other “sovereign country.” It is rather hypocritical to say “no, you can’t have nukes” meanwhile, we have thousands ready to go. So let them get nukes if they want, it will be their funeral. If Iran is dumb enough to use one on Israel, then Israel will be obliged to wipe Iran off the map.
On a side note, Argumentum Ad Hominem does not progress your argument.

Clearly you have never translated any pronouncement by the Palestinian leadership. WHy don’t you take a look at MEMRI​.org and enlighten your non– Arabic speaking naive self.

I agree with Conner. Why would we invade Iran? Bomb it, maybe. Invade, No.
We have millions of tons of ordnance that are burning a hole in our pocket. what ever should we do with all of them? I’m sure we’ll find some use for them some day.

That’s a bit like saying, “The Jews already have land, it is called Florida”.

And what would I learn, Diyasus?

Even if what you say is true in practice, it’s still not a desire to kill all the Jews. Just Israelis. ANd I suppose, if we listen to the hyper-racist policies of Avigdor Lieberman, who wants to expel all non-Jews from Israel, we would have to conclude that Hamas and Hizbullah have a legitimate struggle against Israel.


Oh, and by the way, you are aware that Israel itself helped fund and set up Hamas in the 90s? How exactly does that square with your “Israel under threat of extinction by Hamas!”. Read some history my friend before you put your foot in your mouth.

I don’t want to see Iran get nukes. But we’re more likely to convince Iran of this if we (a) stop sponsoring invasions of their country, (b) remove our troops from their eastern and western borders, and © if Israel divests itself of its own illegal nuclear weapons. Because otherwise we’re saying Israel has carte blanche to violate any non-proliferation treaty and law, but Iran somehow must stick to the letter of both.

Byron skinner,

The US may have taken over 1100 nuclear hits, but none of those were intended to harm people. All thoseblast were test, not nuclear stikes and didnt happen all at once. If you were to launch nuclear weapons at the US you could cripple it. You dont have to kill everyone to do that, all you have to do is cause a widespread panic buy blowing up major population centers. its not the weapons itself that cause the crippling, its the reaction people have afterward. Now as you pointed out that is highly unlikely, but still doable. now as for a suitcase bomb you dont need it that small. More then likely it will be the size of a truck, something that is easy to build. Most likely though if someone got nuclear material they would just build a dirty bomb since it doesnt take a rocket scientist to build, and cause panic that way.

Ditto what William said but I would worry more about a container ship nuke. Byron, factor in that it was not 1,100 tests in the mainland. Many were in the Pacific and most others in the U.S. were underground. Few occurred in close time proximity, and none were near urban centers. I was surprised to learn that two underground tests occurred near Hattiesburg, MS, and other test happened outside Nevada.


Looks like about 317 tests occurred prior to the above ground test ban treaty. Out of those about 100+ were in the Pacific. So that leaves around 200 above ground tests in Nevada. I didn’t realize I had been exposed to radiation from “Sedan” that was supposed to be a test of peaceful utility of underground nukes for mining, etc. Radiation escaped and got fallout in Iowa where I lived as a kid. I recall that the nuns were teaching us to hide under desks. But they forgot to tell us not to breathe and to stay indoors.

I pray that day will not come. But I always agree in preparedness. I believe in self defense and diplomacy.

Get real: All of you! It has already been proven that it only requires 100 to 200 (max) nuclear explosions of the scale that exists today to put the Earth into a Nuclear Winter. 2 to 3 weeks of near complete sun blockage, killing off most plant life (no sun, no photosynthesis) and for years partial blockage that might as well be no sun at all, because temperatures would drop to winter-like over most of the planet…thus, within a few months ALL (or most) living creatures would be extinct (primarily land dwellers) and those that survive would soon exhaust all the scavengable resources to eat, and then will soon turn their taste buds on each other! And there are TENS of THOUSANDs of Nukes active today! Any of you took the time to read THE ROAD or seen the movie that is out now? THERE IS NO STRATEGY other than getting rid of all of them…“I have become death, the destroyer of worlds”- Oppenheimer

If WE humans (ALL of us) including the middle east, don’t get rid of nukes…and, start living sustainably with energy on the earth as well, and wake up from the consensus trance that modern civilization has put us all in…WE FREAKIN’ all DESERVE TO DIE! We can’t live without the Earth, but the Earth can certainly live without us…

Nuclear war is winnable for the Russians and Chinese. They can use EMPs and a combination of other techniques such as disabling US nuclear silos. There may be a few nuclear explosions, however in the end as long as China and Russia get political control in the end they will do it. China will go through hell and back for Taiwan. The corrupted spoiled Americans have no idea what they are in for. China and Russia are destined to defeat America, read golitsyn it will happen. Although, I believed that once the Russians do defeat America, they themselves may collapse under political duress. The Chinese CCP on the other hand has firm control over China.

While civilians communication systems would be heavily effected. U.S. strategic systems are hardened against EMP

Don’t kid yourself about Russia not being a threat still. Russia has always loved authoritarian leaders. And authoritarians have a tendency to be very unpredictable and feed on nationalistic pride. And Don’t count on the smaller countries giving up their nukes. To them having Nukes gives them protection from the U.S. or their neighbors.

do you really think U.S. nuke subs would just sit back? the subs alone have the power to take out around 4032 cities. that’s using all 14 missile subs we currently have (we did have 18 subs) if they all carry the trident 2 with 12 mirv warheads on each missile. that many nukes going off along with what the enemy used will pretty much poison the earth with lethal radiation. In other words extinction level event.……

Also hate to break it to you but U.S. strategic systems are HARDENED AGIANST EMP.

This is dangerous. Iran and its allies could be unstopable from creating and firing a Nuclear weapon on another country. And it could be dangerous to the infrastructure of earth. It could be the start of WWIII, a nuclear war or the end of this world. I pray this event will not happen.

go back to your cave hippie

Also in the event a nuclear war will happen and pray this will not happen, how will the government protect its population from a nuclear attack? Will the Missle shield protect us 100% from a nuclear attack? Maybe we need to construct an underground — nuclear proof for each state beforfe it happens.

The scale that exists today? Nuclear weapons have gotten smaller since in yield since the cold war. We no longer need 10mt nuclear devices to accomplish our strategic goals.

Best quote of 2009…

Honestly nukes aren’t going away anytime soon, get used to it.

Wow! what an notion ! What a concept ! Attractive .. Incredible …


NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.