Articles: "Nuclear Warfare 101".

[adam_grif]

Quite a while ago I came accross some articles that I found to be completely fascinating, on the topic of Nuclear war and the things immediately related to it. They're a bit too long to just directly post here (although they aren't really huge either), so:

Nuclear Warfare 101
Nuclear Warfare 102
Nuclear Warfare 103

I'd like to see what you all thought of them. Back in the day it blew my mind by introducing the concept of M.A.D. (which I hadn't heard of until I read them), but the guy makes quite a few claims that aren't easily and readily verifiable. There's also the vague references to him being involved in governmental and international wargaming, which again isn't something you could readily verify. So basically, does the guy seem legit? Is anything he is saying obvious bullshit? What are your thoughts on it, generally?

[loomer]

That's our very own Stuart, I believe.

[Kuroji]

It agrees with most of the reputable things that I've read and in fact goes into more detail about some of them, though most of what I've seen doesn't get into the post-nuke society, usually. I imagine it's kind of a crapshoot as to what technologies are left intact afterward and what are not, though.

[adam_grif]

That's our very own Stuart, I believe.

Haha, oh wow. I never realized. It does say "Stuart Slade" is the author, but I never connected the dots.

[Starglider]

That reminds me of a question I wanted to ask Stuart; based purely on technical merit, the optimal strategic warhead size is in the low hundreds of kilotons, with a small number of megaton class devices for hard targets. However nuclear arms limitation treaties focus on the number of warheads and launchers; AFAIK we haven't seen throw weight limitations since START 1. Certainly anti-nuclear politicians and the popular press focus on the reducing the number of warheads, not the total yield. Will the reduction in warhead counts towards/below the minimum for a secure deterrent create an incentive to increase average warhead yield, to maintain target coverage by averaging more destroyed per initiation?

[JointStrikeFighter]

Warheads are more accurate now as well remember.

[Starglider]

Warheads are more accurate now as well remember.

That doesn't help much when the CND brigade get your arsenal cut to 200 devices. If you're forced to download your missiles from eight to three RVs, it seems logical to try and get some capability back by using the biggest devices that will fit. Although that does assume the political will to actually produce new devices, which seems to be absent in most of the older nuclear powers.

[adam_grif]

Is America even developing any new warheads or delivery systems? I know about that new(ish) Russian SLBM system (Bulasomethingsomething) that is supposedly designed to counter near-term ABM systems, but I haven't heard about anything else. Then there's all those news articles about how the blah agreement is cutting America's nuclear arsenal by however thousand warheads.

I'm starting to get concerned that these morons are going to slash the US strategic arsenal down to a level where it's no-longer a real deterence, all because they think that not having nukes makes things more peaceful or some shit.

[Starglider]

I'm starting to get concerned that these morons are going to slash the US strategic arsenal down to a level where it's no-longer a real deterence, all because they think that not having nukes makes things more peaceful or some shit.

The danger point comes when the arsenal is sufficient to destroy the other country when used in a first strike, but insufficient when used for a second strike following a counter-force strike. The result being an increased motivation for carrying out a first strike in a crisis. This is (AFAIK) what causes SLBMs to be retained disproportionately over silo and bomber weapons when arsenals are cut; they're less vulnerable to pre-emption. It's also an argument for Safeguard-style ABM, in that point defense of the silos would make land-based ICBM more survivable.

[The Grim Squeaker]

It's a shame Stuart's articles lack proper academic references, I'd really like to use his ideas on "top dog" hegemony (his little "school yard bully" model) for a paper i'm writting .

[Ace Pace]

It's a shame Stuart's articles lack proper academic references, I'd really like to use his ideas on "top dog" hegemony (his little "school yard bully" model) for a paper i'm writting .

You could always, you know, read the professional literature on the subject, and not just essays written by these people.
Theres no lack of pol sci books.

[The Grim Squeaker]

It's a shame Stuart's articles lack proper academic references, I'd really like to use his ideas on "top dog" hegemony (his little "school yard bully" model) for a paper i'm writting .

You could always, you know, read the professional literature on the subject, and not just essays written by these people.
Theres no lack of pol sci books.

Oh, I am reading.

It's just that it'd save some work if Stuart's essays had links to academic works he based himself on, serving as a quick primer for starting proper research on those specific themes. Nothing doing .

[Seggybop]

It's a shame Stuart's articles lack proper academic references, I'd really like to use his ideas on "top dog" hegemony (his little "school yard bully" model) for a paper i'm writting .

You could always, you know, read the professional literature on the subject, and not just essays written by these people.
Theres no lack of pol sci books.

Oh, I am reading.

It's just that it'd save some work if Stuart's essays had links to academic works he based himself on, serving as a quick primer for starting proper research on those specific themes. Nothing doing .

If you wanted to cite him somewhere, is it not acceptable for you to consider him a primary source, given his position?
(I'm also curious about this for my own future work)

[The Grim Squeaker]

If you wanted to cite him somewhere, is it not acceptable for you to consider him a primary source, given his position?
(I'm also curious about this for my own future work)

Are you seriously asking whether a post on an internet bbs board by an anonymous poster using no outside references is valid as an academic reference/source?
...


Dude, I'm studying biology and I still know that would be laughed out of the door in even the most mediocre English class, let alone an International Relations seminarion.

[Ritterin Sophia]

If you wanted to cite him somewhere, is it not acceptable for you to consider him a primary source, given his position?
(I'm also curious about this for my own future work)

Are you seriously asking whether a post on an internet bbs board by an anonymous poster using no outside references is valid as an academic reference/source?
...


Dude, I'm studying biology and I still know that would be laughed out of the door in even the most mediocre English class, let alone an International Relations seminarion.

Hardly anonymous...

[Steel]

Why does the destruction of the US equate to the total destruction of the entire world? Why would survivors favour living in the 1600s in post apocalyptic USA when they could instead step back only 30 years and move to Mexico or Canada?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Why does the destruction of the US equate to the total destruction of the entire world? Why would survivors favour living in the 1600s in post apocalyptic USA when they could instead step back only 30 years and move to Mexico or Canada?

Because Canada is a member of NATO. Every ally with a mutual defense pact regarding the US is getting hit in a nuclear exchange as well.

[Steel]

Why does the destruction of the US equate to the total destruction of the entire world? Why would survivors favour living in the 1600s in post apocalyptic USA when they could instead step back only 30 years and move to Mexico or Canada?

Because Canada is a member of NATO. Every ally with a mutual defense pact regarding the US is getting hit in a nuclear exchange as well.

How? Where are all the missiles coming from? Given how hard it is to take out one country with all the virtual attrition from abm etc who has missiles to waste on Canada and Mexico when the US is still a big place with targets to spare?

[The Vortex Empire]

Because if you don't hit every advanced country, they'll be able to take over after the nuclear exchange. The point is to knock everybody out so nobody is left more powerful than you, so hopefully you can recover after the war and be dominant.

[Ritterin Sophia]

How? Where are all the missiles coming from? Given how hard it is to take out one country with all the virtual attrition from abm etc who has missiles to waste on Canada and Mexico when the US is still a big place with targets to spare?

That's why things are the way they are, even if you have enough nukes to knock off the US you still have to deal with every other member of NATO, the Philippines, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea. Any enemy who doesn't want to deal with them has to have enough devices to reliably knock them out as well.

[adam_grif]

Are there even enough nuclear weapons in the world to knock out Europe, Asia, Aus/NZ, Indonesia, parts of Africa and North America?

[Keevan_Colton]

Are you seriously asking whether a post on an internet bbs board by an anonymous poster using no outside references is valid as an academic reference/source?
...


Dude, I'm studying biology and I still know that would be laughed out of the door in even the most mediocre English class, let alone an International Relations seminarion.

Perhaps you aren't aware but there is a proper academic citation form for an instant messenger conversation, nevermind for a bbs post...

[The Grim Squeaker]

Are you seriously asking whether a post on an internet bbs board by an anonymous poster using no outside references is valid as an academic reference/source?
...


Dude, I'm studying biology and I still know that would be laughed out of the door in even the most mediocre English class, let alone an International Relations seminarion.

Perhaps you aren't aware but there is a proper academic citation form for an instant messenger conversation, nevermind for a bbs post...

Actaully, no I wasn't aware of that . Still, there existing a form for something, and it being usable as an actual verifiable source for a work are different things...

[adam_grif]

There's also one for letters, and conversations. That said, if you use, say, the propper academic referencing for a website, but that website is Wikipedia, nobody will take it seriously and if you're doing it for a University assignment, you will be penalized for it. Not just Wikipedia, either. Our biology teacher made it very clear that the ONLY acceptable sources were reputable journals, and any deviation from the standards they set would result in harsh penalizations.

It's generally good form to abstain from using internet sources except for electronic journals, and "this conversation I had with this guy" is not the most respected of sources, nor is "this essay from some guy on his site who claims to be an expert."

[Seggybop]

Sources always have varying levels of reliability, and it's up to you to determine if one is sufficient to be used for whatever purpose you're engaged in, and if necessary provide supporting evidence for the level of credibility you assign them. Interviews with experts are generally considered legitimate sources, with the presumption that you can account for whatever biases they may have and back up that the person you've been conversing with is in fact an expert (that's up to you to decide if you can effectively do this). Certainly in some cases you'll be writing for an audience that will never accept such a source, but that's hardly universal.