Difference between revisions of "Nuclear war"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Strategic v. tactical: - More accuracy)
m (picture + minor addon)
 
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 
==Strategic v. tactical==
 
==Strategic v. tactical==
Nuclear weapons are divided according to destructive power, into strategic and tactical, the latter not causing as much destruction. During the Cold War, such weapons were also referred to as “battlefield” nuclear weapons.<ref>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1654273</ref> A war that would see the exchange of a smaller number of tactical weapons may not be considered a nuclear war in the classical sense. It is unclear whether this distinction would be meaningful in practice - or whether use of tactical weapons would lead to an escalation.<ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/myth-moderate-nuclear-war</ref><ref>https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-americas-b-61-12-nuclear-bomb-tempting-use-during-war-84921</ref><ref>https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/mini-nukes-still-a-bad-choice-for-the-united-states/</ref> In 2015 General [[James Cartwright]] stated that better accuracy had made small nuclear weapons “more useable”.<ref>https://fas.org/blogs/security/2015/11/b61-12_cartwright/</ref> In 2020 General [[Tod Wolters]] reported that he "is a fan of flexible first strike" as regards NATo's nuclear weapons.<ref>https://www.rt.com/op-ed/481959-nuclear-war-russia-nato/</ref>
+
Nuclear weapons are divided according to destructive power, into strategic and tactical, the latter not causing as much destruction. During the Cold War, such weapons were also referred to as “battlefield” nuclear weapons.<ref>https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2019.1654273</ref> A war that would see the exchange of a smaller number of tactical weapons may not be considered a nuclear war in the classical sense. It is unclear whether this distinction would be meaningful in practice - or whether use of tactical weapons would lead to an escalation.<ref>https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/myth-moderate-nuclear-war</ref><ref>https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-americas-b-61-12-nuclear-bomb-tempting-use-during-war-84921</ref><ref>https://thebulletin.org/2017/04/mini-nukes-still-a-bad-choice-for-the-united-states/</ref> In 2015 General [[James Cartwright]] stated that better accuracy had made small nuclear weapons “more useable”.<ref>https://fas.org/blogs/security/2015/11/b61-12_cartwright/</ref> In 2020 General [[Tod Wolters]] reported that he "is a fan of flexible [[first strike]]" as regards [[NATO]]'s nuclear weapons.<ref>https://www.rt.com/op-ed/481959-nuclear-war-russia-nato/</ref>
  
 
==Subterranean Ballistic Missiles==
 
==Subterranean Ballistic Missiles==
Line 16: Line 16:
  
 
===Iran===
 
===Iran===
In 2015 Iranian state television has broadcasted footage of underground tunnels with mobile launchers.<ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3272611/Iran-broadcasts-footage-underground-missile-base.html</ref><ref>https://youtu.be/WpIN1fdW-bw</ref>
+
[[image:Tunnel_Iran.jpg|thumbnail|350px|right|Underground missile facility of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.<ref>https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2016/01/05/963050/irgc-s-2nd-underground-missile-city-unveiled</ref>]]In 2015 Iranian state television has broadcasted footage of underground tunnels with mobile launchers.<ref>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3272611/Iran-broadcasts-footage-underground-missile-base.html</ref><ref>https://youtu.be/WpIN1fdW-bw</ref>
  
 
===China===
 
===China===
Line 22: Line 22:
  
 
==Nuclear Winter==
 
==Nuclear Winter==
Research has suggested that "surviving" a nuclear war may be a misnomer, since quite apart from the radiation of a nuclear exchange it may cause a "[[nuclear winter]]" that would attenuate sunlight to the point of eradicating a lot of life on earth, including food sources.
+
Research has suggested that "surviving" a nuclear war may be a misnomer, since quite apart from the radiation of a nuclear exchange it may cause a "[[nuclear winter]]" that would attenuate sunlight to the point of eradicating a lot of life on earth, including food sources.<ref>https://www.livescience.com/nuclear-winter-disaster.html</ref><ref>https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-how-nuclear-winter-would-affect-every-single-one-of-us-across-the-planet</ref>
 +
 
 
{{SMWDocs}}
 
{{SMWDocs}}
 
==References==
 
==References==
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{reflist}}

Latest revision as of 16:47, 26 March 2020

Concept.png Nuclear war 
(war)Rdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png
Nuclear War North America Soviet Union.png
Interest ofAlbert Wohlstetter

Nuclear war is a war in which nuclear weapons are used. Their destructive capacity is so extreme, their number so large that such a war could potentially the lives of not only the human species but perhaps a large proportion of other species on earth.

Strategic v. tactical

Nuclear weapons are divided according to destructive power, into strategic and tactical, the latter not causing as much destruction. During the Cold War, such weapons were also referred to as “battlefield” nuclear weapons.[1] A war that would see the exchange of a smaller number of tactical weapons may not be considered a nuclear war in the classical sense. It is unclear whether this distinction would be meaningful in practice - or whether use of tactical weapons would lead to an escalation.[2][3][4] In 2015 General James Cartwright stated that better accuracy had made small nuclear weapons “more useable”.[5] In 2020 General Tod Wolters reported that he "is a fan of flexible first strike" as regards NATO's nuclear weapons.[6]

Subterranean Ballistic Missiles

A tunnel boring machine (TBM) that will move a missile to the surface into firing position - Air Force Weapons Laboratory, document: AFWL-TR-79-120, Vol. I, Pt. 1

While the launching of nuclear missiles via silo, U-Boat or ground based mobile launchers is relatively well known, there is a concept of fighting nuclear war from tunnel systems which would hold mobile nuclear missiles and in case of a war, "drill out of the ground" via tunnel boring machine (TBM).[7][8] Prolonged nuclear war, one that carries on for months or years in exchanging missiles, would be possible.

United States

A now declassified project from the 1960s aimed to build a network of mobile nuclear missile launch sites under the ice in Greenland.[9] Another feasibility study from 1982 envision an underground system with 400 miles of tunnels: "Design and Construction of Deep Underground Basing Facilities for Strategic Missiles".[10]

Iran

Underground missile facility of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.[11]

In 2015 Iranian state television has broadcasted footage of underground tunnels with mobile launchers.[12][13]

China

China does have a large underground network.[14][15] There is increased focus from the US side at least from the Nuclear Posture Review of 2002 on, to develop: "improved earth penetrating weapons (EPWs) to counter the increased use by potential adversaries of hardened deeply buried facilities".[16] The NDAA of 2013 asks the United States Strategic Command to submit a report: "on the underground tunnel network used by the People’s Republic of China with respect to the capability of the United States to use conventional and nuclear forces to neutralize such tunnels and what is stored within such tunnels".[17]

Nuclear Winter

Research has suggested that "surviving" a nuclear war may be a misnomer, since quite apart from the radiation of a nuclear exchange it may cause a "nuclear winter" that would attenuate sunlight to the point of eradicating a lot of life on earth, including food sources.[18][19]



References