Societal Collapse/ Extinction
Poll
 | 8 votes (36.36%) | ||
| | 10 votes (45.45%) | ||
| | 7 votes (31.81%) | ||
| | 3 votes (13.63%) | ||
| | 8 votes (36.36%) | ||
| | 4 votes (18.18%) | ||
| | 3 votes (13.63%) | ||
| | 5 votes (22.72%) | ||
| | 4 votes (18.18%) | ||
| | 3 votes (13.63%) |
22 members have voted
Quote: billryanQuote: GenoDRPhkQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanYahoo News today listed which cities would disappear in a nuclear exchange, and happily, I don't live near any of them—one less thing to worry about.
DC was first, followed by NYC and LA. San Francisco is surprisingly high on the list. Las Vegas was the fourteenth and last on the list.
link to original post
I saw that. Among the worst clickbait articles I've ever read.
I don't know, do you think a nuclear war enemy might have some interest in taking out Minot ND before the CNN building in Atlanta? Or all the Navy assets in San Diego before Hollywood? If they don't hit the counterattack capability first there will be nothing left of them after we launch our assets. Even DC isn't that big of a priority because our guys already know what to do and they don't need anything from DC to respond to a nuclear attack. And we don't keep any nukes there. The only thing worth striking in Vegas would be Nellis AFB and being that's mostly for training and research that's a low priority too, definitely not worth a nuke in an initial exchange.
link to original post
The article did state that the cities were considered necessary or US society/government to function, such as banking/financial sectors, manufacturing, military/civilian research centers etc. Not all targets have to be military bases. Take out population centers the enemy can't raise an army. Take out oil and NG fields in the middle of nowhere and he can't make fuel for his planes or surface ships or mechanized vehicles. Take out out his data centers and he can't send data communications. Take out his railway hubs and he can't move wounded out and medical supplies or troop reinforcements in.Quote:Even DC isn't that big of a priority because our guys already know what to do and they don't need anything from DC to respond to a nuclear attack.
There is no dead man switch on our nuclear button. There is no letter of last resort. There is no WORP computer like in Wargames. If the Ruskys or China nukes us, and we're caught flat footed and the National Command Authority goes bye-bye, then our nukes stay in their silos and our bombers stay on the ground. A nuclear first strike or counter strike requires a direct Presidential order in real time. Period. There is no standing order to launch if the Prez gets taken out.
link to original post
I think we had multiple submarines whose standing order in the event of a war is to go deep and do nothing. Unless they receive new orders, they will launch ICBMs a day or a week after the attack begins. They are,in effect, the dead man's switch.
The Soviets claimed that if their nukes lost communication for a specific period, all of their nuclear missiles would launch in one all-out attack. Most westerners don't believe they have such a capacity, but they have such a program.
link to original post
Not sure what the last part of this means, Speaker of the house?
Yes, the Vice President has a backup nuclear football with a military aide, which is carried to ensure nuclear launch authority in case the President is incapacitated or otherwise unable to act. This backup is a standard part of the continuity of government plan, as there are multiple footballs for the President, Vice President, and a designated survivor.
Quote: rxwineQuote: billryanQuote: GenoDRPhkQuote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: billryanYahoo News today listed which cities would disappear in a nuclear exchange, and happily, I don't live near any of them—one less thing to worry about.
DC was first, followed by NYC and LA. San Francisco is surprisingly high on the list. Las Vegas was the fourteenth and last on the list.
link to original post
I saw that. Among the worst clickbait articles I've ever read.
I don't know, do you think a nuclear war enemy might have some interest in taking out Minot ND before the CNN building in Atlanta? Or all the Navy assets in San Diego before Hollywood? If they don't hit the counterattack capability first there will be nothing left of them after we launch our assets. Even DC isn't that big of a priority because our guys already know what to do and they don't need anything from DC to respond to a nuclear attack. And we don't keep any nukes there. The only thing worth striking in Vegas would be Nellis AFB and being that's mostly for training and research that's a low priority too, definitely not worth a nuke in an initial exchange.
link to original post
The article did state that the cities were considered necessary or US society/government to function, such as banking/financial sectors, manufacturing, military/civilian research centers etc. Not all targets have to be military bases. Take out population centers the enemy can't raise an army. Take out oil and NG fields in the middle of nowhere and he can't make fuel for his planes or surface ships or mechanized vehicles. Take out out his data centers and he can't send data communications. Take out his railway hubs and he can't move wounded out and medical supplies or troop reinforcements in.Quote:Even DC isn't that big of a priority because our guys already know what to do and they don't need anything from DC to respond to a nuclear attack.
There is no dead man switch on our nuclear button. There is no letter of last resort. There is no WORP computer like in Wargames. If the Ruskys or China nukes us, and we're caught flat footed and the National Command Authority goes bye-bye, then our nukes stay in their silos and our bombers stay on the ground. A nuclear first strike or counter strike requires a direct Presidential order in real time. Period. There is no standing order to launch if the Prez gets taken out.
link to original post
I think we had multiple submarines whose standing order in the event of a war is to go deep and do nothing. Unless they receive new orders, they will launch ICBMs a day or a week after the attack begins. They are,in effect, the dead man's switch.
The Soviets claimed that if their nukes lost communication for a specific period, all of their nuclear missiles would launch in one all-out attack. Most westerners don't believe they have such a capacity, but they have such a program.
link to original post
Not sure what the last part of this means, Speaker of the house?
Yes, the Vice President has a backup nuclear football with a military aide, which is carried to ensure nuclear launch authority in case the President is incapacitated or otherwise unable to act. This backup is a standard part of the continuity of government plan, as there are multiple footballs for the President, Vice President, and a designated survivor.
link to original post
Whenever the President, the VP, and all the bigwigs are gathered in one place, one Cabinet member is designated not to attend. He is placed in a secure location in the event the Administration is wiped out.
There is a television series about this. Kiefer Sutherland was a minor cabinet member exiled to a secret location for the State of the Union speech when a bomb destroyed the Capitol, and the country's leadership was wiped out.
Quote:Even DC isn't that big of a priority because our guys already know what to do and they don't need anything from DC to respond to a nuclear attack.
There is no dead man switch on our nuclear button. There is no letter of last resort. There is no WORP computer like in Wargames. If the Ruskys or China nukes us, and we're caught flat footed and the National Command Authority goes bye-bye, then our nukes stay in their silos and our bombers stay on the ground. A nuclear first strike or counter strike requires a direct Presidential order in real time. Period. There is no standing order to launch if the Prez gets taken out.
link to original post
Quote:I think we had multiple submarines whose standing order in the event of a war is to go deep and do nothing. Unless they receive new orders, they will launch ICBMs a day or a week after the attack begins. They are,in effect, the dead man's switch.
The Soviets claimed that if their nukes lost communication for a specific period, all of their nuclear missiles would launch in one all-out attack. Most westerners don't believe they have such a capacity, but they have such a program.
link to original post
You think wrongly. The US never ever had a nuclear fail safe or dead man/dead hand nuclear order, submarine or otherwise. How would that work? The launch keys and authentication codes are kept under combination lock and key on board a sub. The captain doesn't know the combinations. The executive officer doesn't know the combinations. The combinations are transmitted with the launch orders, This is designed to help prevent a captain from launching without a direct order, which can only be given by the President and via his authentication code.How can a sub captain with the XO launch his missiles unless he has the combination to his safe and the XO has the combination to his safe?
Nuclear missile submarines are indeed given orders to go deep and do nothing...and wait a direct order to launch. The US never had a dead hand order. The Ruskys did and still do.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyFor reasons that should be obvious, none of us know what the precise protocols are for launching nuclear weapons or what it would take to prevent such a launch. I do know that there were two times in the nuclear era, once in 1963 and once in 1981, when the US President was incapacitated and unable to give orders, there was no warning and thus no opportunity to transfer the power to give nuclear orders, the whole world knew about it instantly, and nobody thought that might be a good time to launch nukes at us.
link to original post
The exact protocols are actually widely available, and have been for decades. They are not a secret. In 1963, there was a US President giving orders at all times. I agree that there was dysfunction and confusion in 1983, and unnecessarily so.
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: AutomaticMonkeyFor reasons that should be obvious, none of us know what the precise protocols are for launching nuclear weapons or what it would take to prevent such a launch. I do know that there were two times in the nuclear era, once in 1963 and once in 1981, when the US President was incapacitated and unable to give orders, there was no warning and thus no opportunity to transfer the power to give nuclear orders, the whole world knew about it instantly, and nobody thought that might be a good time to launch nukes at us.
link to original post
The exact protocols are actually widely available, and have been for decades. They are not a secret. In 1963, there was a US President giving orders at all times. I agree that there was dysfunction and confusion in 1983, and unnecessarily so.
link to original post
Seriously? No. Very little about our nuclear program is not classified. What is publicly revealed in any aspect of warfare is incomplete, misleading, or serves the purposes of propaganda.
"How difficult it would be to launch our weapons" was something floated out there in our media to allay domestic fears of an accidental or unauthorized launch and take that card away from those who use those fears for political purposes.
Quote: AutomaticMonkeyQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: AutomaticMonkeyFor reasons that should be obvious, none of us know what the precise protocols are for launching nuclear weapons or what it would take to prevent such a launch. I do know that there were two times in the nuclear era, once in 1963 and once in 1981, when the US President was incapacitated and unable to give orders, there was no warning and thus no opportunity to transfer the power to give nuclear orders, the whole world knew about it instantly, and nobody thought that might be a good time to launch nukes at us.
link to original post
The exact protocols are actually widely available, and have been for decades. They are not a secret. In 1963, there was a US President giving orders at all times. I agree that there was dysfunction and confusion in 1983, and unnecessarily so.
link to original post
Seriously? No. Very little about our nuclear program is not classified. What is publicly revealed in any aspect of warfare is incomplete, misleading, or serves the purposes of propaganda.
"How difficult it would be to launch our weapons" was something floated out there in our media to allay domestic fears of an accidental or unauthorized launch and take that card away from those who use those fears for political purposes.
link to original post
The intellectually unlazy disagree with you.
Missiles loaded. Drone photos.
Quote: billryan
I think we had multiple submarines whose standing order in the event of a war is to go deep and do nothing. Unless they receive new orders, they will launch ICBMs a day or a week after the attack begins. They are,in effect, the dead man's switch.
The Soviets claimed that if their nukes lost communication for a specific period, all of their nuclear missiles would launch in one all-out attack. Most westerners don't believe they have such a capacity, but they have such a program.
Russia claims to have a "Dead Hand" switch meaning that even if the order to launch is not given by anyone it will launch if it determines it is under nuclear attack (even if everybody is already dead). The U.S. method would still require someone to give the order to stay low and launch at some future time.
Quote: DRichQuote: billryan
I think we had multiple submarines whose standing order in the event of a war is to go deep and do nothing. Unless they receive new orders, they will launch ICBMs a day or a week after the attack begins. They are,in effect, the dead man's switch.
The Soviets claimed that if their nukes lost communication for a specific period, all of their nuclear missiles would launch in one all-out attack. Most westerners don't believe they have such a capacity, but they have such a program.
Russia claims to have a "Dead Hand" switch meaning that even if the order to launch is not given by anyone it will launch if it determines it is under nuclear attack (even if everybody is already dead). The U.S. method would still require someone to give the order to stay low and launch at some future time.
link to original post
This claim goes back to "Dr Strangeglove." I have to think even the Russians with all the cheap shortcuts they use would not risk this.
Quote: AZDuffman
This claim goes back to "Dr Strangeglove." I have to think even the Russians with all the cheap shortcuts they use would not risk this.
link to original post
"it can initiate the launch of the Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) by sending a pre-entered highest-authority order from the General Staff of the Armed Forces, Strategic Missile Force Management to command posts and individual silos if a nuclear strike is detected by seismic, light, radioactivity, and pressure sensors even with the commanding elements fully destroyed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand
I don't know if you are familiar with the author Annie Jacobson. She has written a bunch on geopolitics and war and claims that it exists today. Her writing is fascinating but she can also be found on Youtube interviews that are also very informative.
Her latest book is excellent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War:_A_Scenario
Quote: billryanICBMs are incredibly high-maintenance. With the state of the Russian economy and its outsized spending on the Ukraine war, I doubt they have been able to maintain them as well as the West has.
link to original post
Maybe not "as well as the West has", but they only need to maintain them "well enough".
Quote: DRichQuote: billryan
I think we had multiple submarines whose standing order in the event of a war is to go deep and do nothing. Unless they receive new orders, they will launch ICBMs a day or a week after the attack begins. They are,in effect, the dead man's switch.
The Soviets claimed that if their nukes lost communication for a specific period, all of their nuclear missiles would launch in one all-out attack. Most westerners don't believe they have such a capacity, but they have such a program.
Russia claims to have a "Dead Hand" switch meaning that even if the order to launch is not given by anyone it will launch if it determines it is under nuclear attack (even if everybody is already dead). The U.S. method would still require someone to give the order to stay low and launch at some future time.
link to original post
There is a plethora of publicly available info on US command and control of nukes, including-surprisingly enough- pre-delegation.
The first F117 stealth plane existed for about 10 years before the public found out about it when used in Panama.
Of course, other projects have leaked like in Pentagon budgets that leaks some unintended details. I think it’s even harder now to conceal things. Google map searches have revealed the B2 flying across the landscape even though it was already known.
There were once some interesting maps of the Air Force test range. Interesting in the fact that they showed a series of large power line towers going out in the middle of nowhere, and then just end in nothing.
Being the cause of a modern war is far more likely to be internal political reasons than external military reasons- deceiving, assuaging, enraging, and distracting your own people is just as much a part of your secrecy policies as protection from a foreign enemy. Be they Eurasia or Eastasia.
Quote: rxwine\
The first F117 stealth plane existed for about 10 years before the public found out about it when used in Panama.
Of course, other projects have leaked like in Pentagon budgets that leaks some unintended details. I think it’s even harder now to conceal things. Google map searches have revealed the B2 flying across the landscape even though it was already known.
There were once some interesting maps of the Air Force test range. Interesting in the fact that they showed a series of large power line towers going out in the middle of nowhere, and then just end in nothing.
link to original post
I can't even imagine what DARPA currently has as technologies. Most people believe they have technology that may already be be 20-50 years ahead of what we can imagine.
Quote: DRichQuote: rxwine\
The first F117 stealth plane existed for about 10 years before the public found out about it when used in Panama.
Of course, other projects have leaked like in Pentagon budgets that leaks some unintended details. I think it’s even harder now to conceal things. Google map searches have revealed the B2 flying across the landscape even though it was already known.
There were once some interesting maps of the Air Force test range. Interesting in the fact that they showed a series of large power line towers going out in the middle of nowhere, and then just end in nothing.
link to original post
I can't even imagine what DARPA currently has as technologies. Most people believe they have technology that may already be be 20-50 years ahead of what we can imagine.
link to original post
I have managed part of a national lab that wrote proposals to DARPA and worked for them. There are many, many DARPA progarms that go nowhere and for a long time they were not a major player in military R&D (they funded futuristic ideas through early-stage research). The real impressive technology development is done by military contractors for the intelligence agencies and DOD. Drone technology. Satellite-based systems. Signal processing and communications. Computation. Robotics. And now AI. And probably other stuff that I know nothing about.
Quote: gordonm888Quote: DRich
I can't even imagine what DARPA currently has as technologies. Most people believe they have technology that may already be be 20-50 years ahead of what we can imagine.
link to original post
I have managed part of a national lab that wrote proposals to DARPA and worked for them. There are many, many DARPA progarms that go nowhere and for a long time they were not a major player in military R&D (they funded futuristic ideas through early-stage research). The real impressive technology development is done by military contractors for the intelligence agencies and DOD. Drone technology. Satellite-based systems. Signal processing and communications. Computation. Robotics. And now AI. And probably other stuff that I know nothing about.
link to original post
My impression has always been that DARPA creates the science/technologies that the DOD contractors implement years later.
Quote: DRichQuote: gordonm888Quote: DRich
I can't even imagine what DARPA currently has as technologies. Most people believe they have technology that may already be be 20-50 years ahead of what we can imagine.
link to original post
I have managed part of a national lab that wrote proposals to DARPA and worked for them. There are many, many DARPA progarms that go nowhere and for a long time they were not a major player in military R&D (they funded futuristic ideas through early-stage research). The real impressive technology development is done by military contractors for the intelligence agencies and DOD. Drone technology. Satellite-based systems. Signal processing and communications. Computation. Robotics. And now AI. And probably other stuff that I know nothing about.
link to original post
My impression has always been that DARPA creates the science/technologies that the DOD contractors implement years later.
link to original post
That is close to their mission statement: at its best moments DARPA does early-stage research on technologies (not basic science research) that can lead to applied research and development of military capabilities. But that's like giving a government agency the mission of making sure that people fornicate in the missionary position. Technologies are being developed everywhere for large physics experiments (colliders, systems for imaging and monitoring the universe, undersea exploration), for medical systems (diagnostics, robotic procedures and prosthetics), for transportation, industry and commerce and for telecommunications. And DOD and Intelligence contractors do their own early-stage research on technologies.
TECHNOLOGY is like LIFE - it will out. It will find a way to emerge. From the damned cracks in the concrete of the inner city.
I remember, years ago, when DARPA was investing in early-stage research to make portable, pop-up hospital spaces for the battlefield. Before the DARPA bureaucrats could pull their pants down and take a dump similar portable pop-up medical facilities were already appearing on NFL sidelines. So maybe DARPA pioneered research on the use of more rugged materials and the ability to function on various kinds of terrain. And then did a rather embarrassed victory lap.
DARPA is part of a much larger "technology eco-system."
Quote: GenoDRPhQuote: billryanICBMs are incredibly high-maintenance. With the state of the Russian economy and its outsized spending on the Ukraine war, I doubt they have been able to maintain them as well as the West has.
link to original post
Maybe not "as well as the West has", but they only need to maintain them "well enough".
link to original post
After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 the United States was allowed into Russia to inspect their nuclear arsenal and what they found was incredible. Something like 80 to 90% of it was totally unusable because of neglect. Silos were flooded with water, nuclear weapons were leaking radiation. Why would you think it's any different now. The Russians are well known for their lack of upkeep on their own equipment. There's too many drunks in every facet of Russian society including the military, especially the military. I read a few years ago that in a typical Russian factory 40% of the workers are legally drunk at any given time. By legally drunk I mean they're so wasted they wouldn't be allowed to drive a car.
Quote: EvenBobQuote: GenoDRPhQuote: billryanICBMs are incredibly high-maintenance. With the state of the Russian economy and its outsized spending on the Ukraine war, I doubt they have been able to maintain them as well as the West has.
link to original post
Maybe not "as well as the West has", but they only need to maintain them "well enough".
link to original post
After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 the United States was allowed into Russia to inspect their nuclear arsenal and what they found was incredible. Something like 80 to 90% of it was totally unusable because of neglect. Silos were flooded with water, nuclear weapons were leaking radiation. Why would you think it's any different now. The Russians are well known for their lack of upkeep on their own equipment. There's too many drunks in every facet of Russian society including the military, especially the military. I read a few years ago that in a typical Russian factory 40% of the workers are legally drunk at any given time. By legally drunk I mean they're so wasted they wouldn't be allowed to drive a car.
link to original post
It was reported that during the transition following the fall of the USSR, workers would just walk off jobs and some railroad workers abandoned a train with a nuclear weapon on a track. Now these weapons can be detected from space and the US is watching them just as closely as anyone else, so our guys called up their guys and told them that they might have something on a railroad track that needs to be secured. Despite the Cold War rhetoric the two sides could be cooperative with one another, down on the levels where things are being handled by sane and intelligent people on both sides rather than politicians.
Quote: gordonm888But that's like giving a government agency the mission of making sure that people fornicate in the missionary position.
Is there a new position that I am not familiar with?
Quote: DRichQuote: gordonm888But that's like giving a government agency the mission of making sure that people fornicate in the missionary position.
Is there a new position that I am not familiar with?
link to original post
Reminds me of a joke! Told in a Jokes thread.
