Why were Cold War nuclear arsenals so big ?

[sarevok2]

I have seen the assertion that nuking several hundred biggest cities will end USA as a country. A few hundred ICBM delivered nukes are all you need. Yet Cold War arsenal numbered in tens of thousands of weapons. Many of them were strategic weapons. Why were so many nukes necessary ?

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm hardly an expert, but I'd guess because some of the weapons might not work or get shot down and because they had to be able to fire at every NATO/allied country, not just the US (or in America's case, at Russia and every one of its allies).

[Darth Nostril]

Because they weren't very accurate, plus not all of them were expected to even reach their targets especially the bomber deployed ones.

[FTeik]

You also had to make sure to get all your targets to at least somewhat prevent the strike back.

[Purple]

Several reasons:
1. Each side wanted to ensure second strike capability. That is to say, if they got nuked by surprise and the enemy specifically targeted their atomic arsenal they still wanted to have enough missiles and warheads that the enemy just can't kill them all. This is important because failure to ensure it makes a first strike appealing to the opposing side.

2. Each side wanted to ensure first strike capability. That is to say, if they nuked the enemy by surprise and specifically targeted their atomic arsenal they wanted to make sure they have enough missiles and warheads to flatten as much of it as they can thus preventing retaliation.

3. Nukes aren't magical superweapons. They are just big bombs. Some modern missiles are quite accurate, but that means less than you'd think. A single warhead is not going to demolish cities. In fact, you need many warheads per city. And that's before we get into targeting military installations, airfields and the like which require ground bursts. So even if you have perfect accuracy and all your missiles get through uninterrupted you still need thousands in order to devastate your enemy to the point where they are no more.

[Zixinus]

Part of the reason was also political: politicians wanted to have a bigger than strictly necessary arsenal for the sake of having one.

[dragon]

As several have pointed out accuracy was poor.

The soviet SS-9 ICBM had an accuracy of a mile but had a yield of estimated at 24 megatons. So you had to use bigger bombs or multiple smaller ones.
link

Modern ones such the Tomahawk BGM-109 which uses a GPS delivery system gives good accuracy especially the Block IV.
According to Ratheon the sea launch version has a range of a 1000 miles, uses a 2 way satellite data link allowing the missile to be redirected in flight and can circle thew target for hours.

link

According to Ratheon it has an accuracy of 80 meters.

link

Tomahawk missiles can carry nuclear or conventional warheads.

Now tomahawk are less accurate than laser guided bombs or JDAM which is a guidance kit, as seen in the gulf war videos of them dropping bombs down air shafts.

Now smart bombs nuckes such as the B61 nuke with a tail-kit assembly that is compatible with the F-35 and future long range bombers. Making for a very accurate nuke.

link

[TimothyC]

I have seen the assertion that nuking several hundred biggest cities will end USA as a country. A few hundred ICBM delivered nukes are all you need. Yet Cold War arsenal numbered in tens of thousands of weapons. Many of them were strategic weapons. Why were so many nukes necessary ?

Because you're not targeting cities directly, you're targeting things such as missile sites, air fields (both those that are military and those that can be used as dispersal/diversion fields). You're targeting infrastructure such as large dams that power industrial sites, the facilities that produce parts for weapons of war, ect.

To go down a cursory target list in south west Ohio (an admittedly target rich area) you find:

• The Lima Tank Plant
• Dayton International Airport
• Springfield–Beckley Airport (a joint civil-military field)
• Wilmington/Airborne Air Park
• The Mound (a nuclear materials processing center)
• Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (Both areas, separated by a ridge line)
• National Cash Register's offices and Research area, Dayton
• GM-Inland (North of Dayton, nearly co-located with DAY)
• GM-Moraine
• Various large industrial factories north of Dayton
• GE Aviation, Cincinnati
• Cincinnati Rail Yards (Near The Hall of Justice)
• The Bridges over the Ohio River
• P&G's and other factories north of Cincinnati

Each one of those requires at least one strike, and because of the need to use ground bursts to dig out the rail yards and air strips, several will need more than one (Wright-Patterson will need at least three to eliminate). Oh, and the only two targets that are close enough that a single strike can remove both are the Dayton Airport and GM-Inland.

I'd ballpark at least 15 devices for one small (but admittedly target rich) area. Start multiplying that out by an entire nation, and start accounting for the fact that some of your weapons won't work, and the large arsenals make a lot of sense.

[Sea Skimmer]

Because most of them would never get to the target.

Forget about yield or accuracy, nukes plus the fusing plus the delivery system plus the storage (few sites allowed in peacetime, relative to other sorts of weapons, meaning fewer targets for say, special forces with a SADM that goes off 1 minute into the war) and command and control systems turn into most of them would never do a damn thing. They'd be destroyed before firing, and the longer a war lasted before going nuclear the more and more likely heavy attrition became.

ICBMs were expected to have reliability rates rumored as low as 30% working end to end. Many would never get out of the tubes. ICBM silos operate with the missiles hot at all times for reliability, but this also meant a large number are down for repairs at any given time, and well, the very fact that this was required points to the iffy reliability involved just for the missile guidance. Never mind the bus or anything on the warhead. Even before you add in nuclear radiation effects.

Accuracy was also a factor, but generally yield and accuracy were tied together, and few targets ever existed which could survive offensive weapons of comparable date except for ICBM silos prior to the late 1970s. Simply everyone used huge warheads to make up for inaccuracy. This was expensive, but that stopped nobody. It just meant everyone had a huge surplus of U-235 later. Superheavy command bunkers were always vulnerable to concentrated attacks; as not enough of them ever existed to make it implausible for the enemy to just waste a whole regiment or squadron of ICBMs on them. Which is why they largely stopped building built. The US built Cheyanne mountain, but not the SAC command post, or the NORAD Super SAGE centers, or the proposed bunker under DC. The first and last of those bunkers were to withstand 100 megaton ground bursts. But they would have died in the face of a realistic earth penetration weapon. Far as I can tell the only reason Russia began building a couple late in the cold war is because they actually didn't have any early on. Ironically the drop off in US weapon yields is what made it appealing to build a few later.

As it was though even the peak of stockpiles were only a fraction of what was originally estimated as to be required to fight a true WW2 style unending mass nuclear war in the 1950s, when the US managed to come up with a number of IIRC 423,000 devices. Though that was also before it was clear thermonuclear warheads could be highly miniaturized and thus delivered in large numbers by single launch platforms, or hard to defeat systems like compact cruise missiles, as opposed to something like Hound Dog.

Had nuclear SAMs and nuclear ABM been fully deployed though virtual attrition would have demanded much higher numbers of weapons. But that's also why both sides backed off those sorts of weapon.

[Simon_Jester]

To clarify one thing: "Virtual attrition" is when the existence of a defense system (or something else your enemy does) reduces the effectiveness of your forces, in such a way that in effect your ability to do harm is decreased, even if you haven't actually lost any fighting units.

For example, if the enemy builds a defensive missile network capable of shooting down five thousand of your missiles, then however many missile hits you need to win the war... well, if you needed X before, now you need X+5000. Five thousand of your missiles have been taken out of play by virtual attrition before you fire a shot.

[Did I get that right?]

[Tribble]

I'm also quite certain that both sides have biological/chemical weapons which can wipe out most of the human population on their own. Not to mention livestock and crops. You don't need as many nukes if you have completely independent backup WMDs.

[Mr Bean]

I'm also quite certain that both sides have biological/chemical weapons which can wipe out most of the human population on their own. Not to mention livestock and crops. You don't need as many nukes if you have completely independent backup WMDs.

No one likes or trusts Biological or Chemical Weapons. Chemical weapons because it is possible for the enemy via MOPP gear to become fully immune to your Chemical agent and Bioweapns are always double edged weapons.

Any bioweapon strong enough to do the job is also strong enough to move right back across the border to you. Both are great weapons for killing large numbers of civilians and possibly yourself, but not so good at hitting the bunker of the foreign leader.

[Darth Nostril]

Also chemical weapons are persistent, you've got to send people in MOPP gear in to very thoroughly decontaminate every inch of ground. And underside of fences, underside of benches and all other street furniture .... in short everywhere that chemical agents could adhere but where rain won't wash them away.

[Nephtys]

This book here goes into excruciating detail regarding how unstable the early (1950s-early60s) Atomic arsenals were: http://www.amazon.com/Command-Control-D ... 0143125788

It's a very fascinating read with insights in early nuclear strategy when nobody knew what they were doing, and especially a focus on the poor safety record and general lack of safety features for nuclear weapons up until the 80s.

A large chunk of why arsenals got so large was due to the shoddiness of detection systems up until the 80s, which necessitated a massive second strike capability. It's also why the airborne alerts (as popularized in Dr. Strangelove) were such a big deal: Those were some of your few 'assured' second strike weapons, as SLBMs of that era had horrible limitations and reliability problems.

In fact, one of the 'nuclear war detectors' was a B-52 or similar plane permanently on station orbiting key sites, so that if the site got nuked, the B-52 could radio other bases that war had started. In such a scenario, it stands to reason that you need enough deliverable weapons that even if a tenth of your stockpile survived the first strike, you could destroy the other side with what's left.

Another item was how actually poorly planned the US's atomic war strategy was well until the 80s. It was in general, one single plan of 'When nuclear war breaks out with the USSR, we bomb EVERYTHING RED", with a large number of redundancies plus blowing up big parts of China for the hell of it. It lead to a huge explosion of number of weapons needed, plus their backups.

[sarevok2]

Thank you for the informative response TimothyC and Sea Skimmer. So it appears that nukes are used to target specific high value targets such as tank of aircraft factories,railway junctions , naval yards etc. So the number of targets add up fast in a big country like USA or Russia. Some military targets like command centers or silos are also hardened.

Now here is the thing. Can you enforce MAD without going after these targets ? I believe the technical term is countervalue. Just target the cities. Don't bother to hit all the military bases, industrial plants, transportation hubs etc. If few hundred of the biggest American cities get hit by megaton yield nukes would it not end the USA as a country ? It would not matter that military bases and some infrastructure was not hit.

[Purple]

No, you can't. Not really. The point of MAD is that it's not meant to bloody your opponents nose but to curbstomp him. That's why its called Mutually Assured Destruction. You can of course provide some level of deterrence without that. But it ain't MAD.

[Sea Skimmer]

Now here is the thing. Can you enforce MAD without going after these targets ?

Why would you 'enforce' MAD? MAD is not policy of anyone ever. You are not trying to assure both sides are destroyed, you are trying to destroy the enemy with as little loss as possible. Assuring your own destruction is lunacy.

I believe the technical term is countervalue. Just target the cities. Don't bother to hit all the military bases, industrial plants, transportation hubs etc. If few hundred of the biggest American cities get hit by megaton yield nukes would it not end the USA as a country ? It would not matter that military bases and some infrastructure was not hit.

[/quote][/quote]

So kill a bunch of people, but leave the enemy forces free to fight back? That's a horrible plan. Such plans were seen s deterrents against enemy plans to do the same. And they ignore the fact that it wasn't just US vs USSR but NATO vs the Warsaw Pact with some other bonus factors involved. It would be rather bad if the US blew up all the cities in the Soviet Union, but then Soviet ground forces occupy all of western Europe and then imported the surviving Soviet civilian population into a new home.

Military targets are the only targets you can't ignore in any plausible war planning. Nuclear attacks on cities could cripple an enemy for a long time, but they won't destroy them. Using small numbers of large warheads also makes the attack plan more vulnerable to enemy defenses. Today warhead counts are way down, but they still suffice to cover

[Tribble]

I'm also quite certain that both sides have biological/chemical weapons which can wipe out most of the human population on their own. Not to mention livestock and crops. You don't need as many nukes if you have completely independent backup WMDs.

No one likes or trusts Biological or Chemical Weapons. Chemical weapons because it is possible for the enemy via MOPP gear to become fully immune to your Chemical agent and Bioweapns are always double edged weapons.

Any bioweapon strong enough to do the job is also strong enough to move right back across the border to you. Both are great weapons for killing large numbers of civilians and possibly yourself, but not so good at hitting the bunker of the foreign leader.

Which is a lovely sentiment, but do you think that actually stopped the production of said weapons? That they completely destroyed every single one of them? Or do you think it's more likely that they are kept under lock and key, just in case? Mutally Assured Destruction doesn't have to involve just nukes.

[K. A. Pital]

Actually planning on murdering enemy civilians is the only option if your deterrent is tiny, Sea Skimmer. You only want the enemy to seriously think before starting a nuclear war with you, not assure that it will be destroyed even as a postnuclear society. Not everyone can afford US or USSR-like arsenals.

[Channel72]

Why would you 'enforce' MAD? MAD is not policy of anyone ever. You are not trying to assure both sides are destroyed, you are trying to destroy the enemy with as little loss as possible. Assuring your own destruction is lunacy.

What do you mean? As far as I knew, MAD was more or less a part of official US policy and military doctrine. Obviously, American military strategists were always more interested in survival than total destruction, but the idea of MAD was to ensure that any initial Soviet strike would at best result in the mutual destruction of both the US and USSR, meaning that there should be no plausible scenario where an initial Soviet first-strike would produce any kind of desirable outcome for Moscow.

[TimothyC]

Why would you 'enforce' MAD? MAD is not policy of anyone ever. You are not trying to assure both sides are destroyed, you are trying to destroy the enemy with as little loss as possible. Assuring your own destruction is lunacy.

What do you mean? As far as I knew, MAD was more or less a part of official US policy and military doctrine.

No, US doctrine was Massive Retaliation, not MAD. "MAD" may have been a result of this, but it was never a part of doctrine or policy.

[KroLazuxy_87]

Thank you for the informative response TimothyC and Sea Skimmer. So it appears that nukes are used to target specific high value targets such as tank of aircraft factories,railway junctions , naval yards etc. So the number of targets add up fast in a big country like USA or Russia. Some military targets like command centers or silos are also hardened.

Now here is the thing. Can you enforce MAD without going after these targets ? I believe the technical term is countervalue. Just target the cities. Don't bother to hit all the military bases, industrial plants, transportation hubs etc. If few hundred of the biggest American cities get hit by megaton yield nukes would it not end the USA as a country ? It would not matter that military bases and some infrastructure was not hit.

The Soviets developed a system called Dead Hand (also known as Perimeter) that could automatically initiate a second strike even if the entirety of their leadership was wiped out. Knocking out those launch silos is pretty important.


On a side note: I grew up about an hour outside a major US city. Within a 15 minute drive further from the city were decommissioned (or so we were told, lol) underground launch silos. Basically just 6 huge mounds of grass and dirt over the concrete hatches. These weren't associated with any military base, air field, or civilian population. The closest thing to these silos that existed in large numbers were cows. Middle-of-nowhere launch sites like this helped ensure second strike capability.

[FedRebel]

I have seen the assertion that nuking several hundred biggest cities will end USA as a country. A few hundred ICBM delivered nukes are all you need. Yet Cold War arsenal numbered in tens of thousands of weapons. Many of them were strategic weapons. Why were so many nukes necessary ?

Losses were expected

In the 1960's, The Strategic Air Command expected 60% of it's ICBM's to FAIL

Through out the Cold War the maintenance of a massive bomber fleet was deemed necessary to prevent nuclear strike ability from being compromised (at any given time 33% of the bomber fleet was ready to deliver nuclear hellfire in 15 minutes, that was the portion deemed the minimum to 'win'. The remaining 67% were either on leave, in training, or undergoing overhaul.)

Capping things off on the whole, a glutenous surplus of nuclear weapons makes negating a response impossible...and that is why it's called a "Deterrent". For the Aggressor, the math will never add up favorably. Every silo hit...a dozen more have fired, every bomber shotdown...a "Heavy Aerospace Wing" (basically what the entirety of Global Strike Command is now) will avenge it...assuming the bomber didn't become a zombie (Special Weapons Emergency Separation System.)

No matter how many warheads you have, you'll never have enough.

[TimothyC]

On a side note: I grew up about an hour outside a major US city. Within a 15 minute drive further from the city were decommissioned (or so we were told, lol) underground launch silos. Basically just 6 huge mounds of grass and dirt over the concrete hatches. These weren't associated with any military base, air field, or civilian population. The closest thing to these silos that existed in large numbers were cows. Middle-of-nowhere launch sites like this helped ensure second strike capability.

Those were probably part of the NIKE launch sites. They were the furthest extent of active civil defense the US had.

[KroLazuxy_87]

On a side note: I grew up about an hour outside a major US city. Within a 15 minute drive further from the city were decommissioned (or so we were told, lol) underground launch silos. Basically just 6 huge mounds of grass and dirt over the concrete hatches. These weren't associated with any military base, air field, or civilian population. The closest thing to these silos that existed in large numbers were cows. Middle-of-nowhere launch sites like this helped ensure second strike capability.

Those were probably part of the NIKE launch sites. They were the furthest extent of active civil defense the US had.

That may be true as I haven't laid eyes on them in years. The list has a Nike site close-ish to the location of the silos I mentioned, but it's still a good ways off.

I think it's more likely that the silos held Minuteman Missiles. Here's a story about how they were hidden pretty much everywhere.