Limited nuclear exchange?

Post new mods and scenarios here.

Moderator: MOD_Command

mikeCK
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 3:26 pm

Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by mikeCK »

Does anyone know of a scenario dealing with a limited nuclear exchange between the US and USSR or Russia?
User avatar
Patmanaut
Posts: 203
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:30 pm

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by Patmanaut »

You can read the classic "World War III, August 1985" By Brig. Gen. Sir John Hackett.
Unfortunately is not available in Kindle, but cheap used copies are on Amazon.

Saludos

P
mikeCK
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 3:26 pm

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by mikeCK »

No, I'm not talking about books. I mean are there any scenarios for the game that deal with a limited nuclear exchange. I've tied to make one myself but it's not turning out well
mikmykWS
Posts: 7185
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:34 pm

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by mikmykWS »

Something we can help with?

Mike
mikeCK
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 3:26 pm

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by mikeCK »

No, just didn't have the time to do it right. Was hoping there were some out there
greatTop
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:10 am

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by greatTop »

I do have a question on the subject, please define "limited". Cause I'm having a hard time figuring out how can a nuclear war not be total. That's all the point of the MAD theory, right ? If one side start using nukes even in small amount, the other side won't have any alternative then to retaliate. And so on until there is one side or nobody left... Especially if we are speaking of the USA vs USSR/Russia !

Cheers,
User avatar
Feltan
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:47 am
Location: Kansas

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by Feltan »

In terms of scenario generation, this could be "controlled" by how many nuclear munitions a side is given.  It would have to make sense in terms of scenario description, but it can be done.
 
Regards,
Feltan
User avatar
Schr75
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:14 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by Schr75 »

The scenario "The fourth of July" comes to mind.

It is NATO vs Soviets in central Germany in 1989. NATO is tasked to stop a massive Soviet armoured assault with, among other things, tactical nukes. The key to the scen is to prevent escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange.

It is a great scen.

Søren
User avatar
ultradave
Posts: 1622
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:01 pm
Location: Rhode Island, USA

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by ultradave »

ORIGINAL: greatTop

I do have a question on the subject, please define "limited". Cause I'm having a hard time figuring out how can a nuclear war not be total. That's all the point of the MAD theory, right ? If one side start using nukes even in small amount, the other side won't have any alternative then to retaliate. And so on until there is one side or nobody left... Especially if we are speaking of the USA vs USSR/Russia !

Cheers,

Yes. This was the driving force behind the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. It was felt that if the INF included units, also called Theater Nuclear Weapons at the time, were used, the exchange would very quickly escalate to a full nuclear exchange. The temptation to use short range nuclear missiles for some tactical or grand tactical advantage was considered much too risky when at the time the US and USSR possessed some 70,000 nuclear weapons total. The INF treaty eliminated them all.

We've come a long way since then. And the scenario description envisions just such a situation. Tactical nuclear weapons exchange. It's telling that it was felt so dangerous that both the US and USSR agreed to eliminate all "battlefield" nuclear weapons due to the danger.
----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"
User avatar
ultradave
Posts: 1622
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:01 pm
Location: Rhode Island, USA

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by ultradave »

I should add that that's not intended as a criticism of the scenario idea at all, just an answer to the question.
----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"
mikeCK
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 3:26 pm

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by mikeCK »

ORIGINAL: greatTop

I do have a question on the subject, please define "limited". Cause I'm having a hard time figuring out how can a nuclear war not be total. That's all the point of the MAD theory, right ? If one side start using nukes even in small amount, the other side won't have any alternative then to retaliate. And so on until there is one side or nobody left... Especially if we are speaking of the USA vs USSR/Russia !

Cheers,

A tactical nuclear exchange would be limited. If they were only a dozen or so ICBMs launched at valuable targets and not cities would be limited. There are a number of scenarios where sides may decide to only use a dozen or so nuclear weapons either strategic or tactical without unlimited attacks on the enemy's cities. So I was hoping for a scenario where each side had some tactical nuclear weapons to use to take out airbases or fleets of ships or what not

"4th of July" scenario sounds good. I will check that out thank you
User avatar
Gunner98
Posts: 5880
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:49 am
Location: The Great White North!
Contact:

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by Gunner98 »

The INF went into effect in 87/88 so there is plenty of room earlier than that to build a limited exchange scenario. The thought (probably wrong) was that if only tactical Nuc's were used (sub 5 KTon, <30K range) than it would remain an exchange on the battlefield with military targets bearing the brunt of the casualties, and that it would stay that way. The INF was a realization that the theory was probably false; however the timing of it is interesting. It was a victory for Reagan and gave his administration a validation point for the massive military spending - and Gorbachev no doubt saw the writing on the wall by then and realized that he was losing the Cold War.

Still - it was very sobering when I did my Nuclear Fire planning course in 89. Very glad it all went away.

B
Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
User avatar
Randomizer
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by Randomizer »

The Soviets never saw a nuclear exchange in limited terms. American nuclear war planners made the error of not understanding or not bothering to understand how the USSR planned to fight with nuclear weapons. The Soviets saw SAC as a first strike weapon, they never bothered with a counterforce doctrine, at least for the CONUS and until the end of the Cold War most of the heavyweight ICBM's lacked the CEP to reliably hit anything that was not a city. Knowing of America's predilection for counterforce it is most probable that the Soviet response would be to empty the RSVN long ranged missiles at the CONUS and turn Europe into a radioactive wasteland with the medium range arsenal and gravity bombs.

The American analysts thought that their Soviet counterparts would reach similar conclusions to those of US think tanks and respond accordingly but the latter had determined that once the nuclear threshold was crossed, everything flies. This accounts for the SSBN bastions and Perimetr Defence System (aka The Dead Hand), which would result in the Soviet nuclear arsenal being released in the event of an American countervailing strike, one aimed to decapitate the Soviet leadership: a popular (and publicized) SAC planning option and the Politbureau's worst nightmare nuclear scenario.

Here's the link to Part-1 of a four-hour declassified documentary produced by the Sandia National Laboratory, creators of quality nuclear weapons for the AEC/DOE. As you watch it note how in virtually every case the analysts are assuming that the Soviets will respond in a specific manner that corresponds to their own preconceptions without accounting for the military, historical, political and cultural characteristics of the USSR.

US Strategic Nuclear Policy

The silly and dangerous concept of Limited Nuclear War had about as much potential for success as would a unicorn hunt.

-C
danlongman
Posts: 584
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: Over the hills and far away

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by danlongman »

ORIGINAL: Randomizer



The American analysts thought that their Soviet counterparts would reach similar conclusions to those of US think tanks and respond accordingly ..... As you watch it note how in virtually every case the analysts are assuming that the Soviets will respond in a specific manner that corresponds to their own preconceptions without accounting for the military, historical, political and cultural characteristics of the USSR.



The silly and dangerous concept of Limited Nuclear War had about as much potential for success as would a unicorn hunt.

-C


This explains a huge part of what has been so amazing American strategic thinking...planning in the other guy's responses based on American assumptions. It is not just an American flaw, it is a human one, but Washington has dominated Western Defensive strategy since 1944. It has been a fundamental error with incredible consequences already felt and yet to be felt in the modern world. It certainly gives me a veritable banquet of food for thought.
Imagine if NATO had known that the USSR never seriously planned a surprise attack on Western Europe? It probably would have made it more likely to happen in the long run...but who knows?

"Patriotism: Your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Feltan
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 6:47 am
Location: Kansas

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by Feltan »

ORIGINAL: Randomizer

The Soviets never saw a nuclear exchange in limited terms. American nuclear war planners made the error of not understanding or not bothering to understand how the USSR planned to fight with nuclear weapons. The Soviets saw SAC as a first strike weapon, they never bothered with a counterforce doctrine, at least for the CONUS and until the end of the Cold War most of the heavyweight ICBM's lacked the CEP to reliably hit anything that was not a city. Knowing of America's predilection for counterforce it is most probable that the Soviet response would be to empty the RSVN long ranged missiles at the CONUS and turn Europe into a radioactive wasteland with the medium range arsenal and gravity bombs.

The American analysts thought that their Soviet counterparts would reach similar conclusions to those of US think tanks and respond accordingly but the latter had determined that once the nuclear threshold was crossed, everything flies. This accounts for the SSBN bastions and Perimetr Defence System (aka The Dead Hand), which would result in the Soviet nuclear arsenal being released in the event of an American countervailing strike, one aimed to decapitate the Soviet leadership: a popular (and publicized) SAC planning option and the Politbureau's worst nightmare nuclear scenario.

Here's the link to Part-1 of a four-hour declassified documentary produced by the Sandia National Laboratory, creators of quality nuclear weapons for the AEC/DOE. As you watch it note how in virtually every case the analysts are assuming that the Soviets will respond in a specific manner that corresponds to their own preconceptions without accounting for the military, historical, political and cultural characteristics of the USSR.

US Strategic Nuclear Policy

The silly and dangerous concept of Limited Nuclear War had about as much potential for success as would a unicorn hunt.

-C

+1

Exactly correct.

Regards,
Feltan
User avatar
Randomizer
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by Randomizer »

This explains a huge part of what has been so amazing American strategic thinking...planning in the other guy's responses based on American assumptions. It is not just an American flaw, it is a human one, but Washington has dominated Western Defensive strategy since 1944.
This is true and it was not my intention to pick on the USA in isolation. Many national foreign policies and strategic planning forecasts are couched in wishful thinking or conferring one's own prejudices upon the other side's options rather than examining the problem from the other side.

However in the Cold War NATO vs. Soviet Union nuclear confrontation (as the nations of the Warsaw Pact never had access to nuclear weapons in the manner of NATO countries), the nuclear strategy of the United States was really all that mattered.

There is remarkably little evidence that the Soviets ever planned a first strike or even first use in the event of a general war in Europe whereas Washington continually updated the public triggers for a NATO nuclear escalation. Likewise there is little evidence that the Soviet generals saw a nice, neat line between "tactical" and "strategic" nuclear weapons as did their NATO counterparts. Moscow saw nuclear weapons as political and strategic with their use to be avoided unless as counters to NATO first use. The appearance of the first NATO weapons on a battlefield would have seen the USSR slip into the Massive Retaliation mode and there is pretty much no published evidence from the Soviet side that the Kremlin even recognised the concept of "Flexible Response", the cornerstone of the NATO Limited War chimera.

-C
mikeCK
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 3:26 pm

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by mikeCK »

Well that presents an interesting dilemma. Since the Soviets intended (from what I understand) to use chemical weapons as a conventional aid to any attack (and considered them conventional weapons) and NATO threatened to respond to the use of chemical/bio weapons with nuclear weapons...was there any way to expect a European war to end any other way than full blown nuclear war?

By the way, I can't find the "Fourth of July" scenario. Anyone have a link?
User avatar
Randomizer
Posts: 1497
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 pm

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by Randomizer »

Since the Soviets intended (from what I understand) to use chemical weapons as a conventional aid to any attack
Sadly, the best source for this seems to be American-authored Cold War techno-thrillers. We may have believed that this was true at the time but it would seem that the record no longer really supports the premise. The Soviet Union certainly had massive quantities of chemical weapons (as did NATO) and since the Soviet military doctrine was oriented away from fighting on the defensive and towards fighting offensively on foreign soil, it is not too great a leap to infer that chemical weapons would be automatically employed when (not if) they attacked the West.

Any idea what country suffered the most gas casualties in the Great War? Russia; something that the Red Army never forgot so even in the inter-war period chemical warfare defence was a priority. But that just means that they were preparing to operate in a chemical environment and not that escalation to offensive chemical warfare use was automatic and doctrinal.

There's not much evidence for planned Soviet first-use of either chemical or nuclear weapons in the available post-Soviet era information however. We can be fairly sure that the feared and anticipated Warsaw Pact Sunday-Morning Bolt-From-The-Blue attack was never really in the cards and the USSR leadership was probably more scared of us for most of the Cold War than we were of them. And for much of the period we were very scared of them for what seemed like reasonable causes at the time. 20/20 hindsight suggests otherwise so I try not to judge those in charge who may not have known or were driven by the ideological or political imperatives of the era.

Having spent the last six-months or so immersed in Cold War nuclear strategies for a non-game related project I would recommend as minimal essential reading: Inside the Kremlin's Cold War by Constantine Pleshakov & Vladislov Zubok and Arsenals of Folly by Richard Rhodes. There is a vast amount of scholarship on the subject that's come out since the Wall came down that pretty much brackets the political spectrum and these two, one by Russian's and the other by an American are reasonable places to start.

-C
User avatar
ultradave
Posts: 1622
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:01 pm
Location: Rhode Island, USA

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by ultradave »

Thanks for the book recommendations. I work at a state university - they are both on hand at the library so I'll go find them today.

EDIT - checked out both books this morning (literally). Started reading Inside the Kremlin's Cold War at lunch. Looks pretty interesting. Thanks again. Always looking for good books to read.
----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"
User avatar
DeltaIV
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 4:11 pm
Location: EUCCP

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Post by DeltaIV »

Chemical weapons were not included in any of the WP warplans against the NATO. During the height of cold war, tactical nukes were the main weapon to secure the victory of advancing land forces. Recently, i just finished reading memories of Czechoslovakian army general, which describe the 60's WP attack doctrine against NATO. Full attack against the west in Europe (along the Czechoslovakian and GDR border) was to be carried out by all available land/air WP assets that were designated and trained for such task. Notable thing to mention, that ~160 tactical nukes were to be launched on the first day of conflict, mostly from aircraft (Sukhoi 7BM). That was the plan for the army, but we can only guess what were the intentions of strategic missile forces on both sides.

EDIT: I dislike the term "Limited nuclear exchange". Last time it happened, it was indeed limited - because the weapon was available to only one belligerent. Today's world is, sadly, different.
Post Reply

Return to “Mods and Scenarios”