I think if you wrote your story well, then a lot of people wouldn't sit their questioning whether limited nuclear strikes were a believable scenario. As a reader I'm happy to not worry about such things and absorb the writer's scenario. But you weren't inviting us to consume this as readers, you were asking us to contribute our own ideas and thinking to building up your scenario for you. You do that to a bunch of writers, then suddenly you've turned our world building brains on. People will start analysing the scenario as a whole and start applying their own theories and beliefs to the original premise. Try not to take it personally, it's just a bunch of creatives enjoying speculation about nuclear war.
From the responses I've read, it's not so much that we think 120 strikes is world destroying, but that the casualties they cause and even just the sight of them incoming would trigger a more forceful response that would spiral into a civilization destroying conflict, even if it was only the U.S. and Russia that cease to function as nation states.
Absolutely don't abandon the story just because you ran into some negativity. I wasn't trying to be negative, just honest in the fact that it somewhat pushes what is or might be realistic. Hey, that's what writers do.
Or, the tactical nature of the strikes, the actual minimal loss of life considering nuclear war, will allow both the United States and Russia to walk away as functioning states. Retaliatory strikes by Europe will invite nuclear strikes on them, so their only reaction is conventional. There's no threat of invasion of either the United States or Russia. The scenario could flash up, and in a day be over.
However, I do mean a bit, you only get some leeway. And I said, this seems to be trying to be more realistic maybe, so realism threshold should be higher.
And you think people are going to accept 10 million killed and almost double that injured without destroying the nation responsible? Sure it's small as far as nuclear war goes, but that's not saying much. Remember that such casualties would be greater than all of America's wars up to the present combined. People will be howling for Russian blood, especially if the strikes are intermittent and they can see the figures climbing. It might start out tactical, but this is a situation ripe for spiraling out of control.
Overall, it doesn't really matter what happens to Russia. My story isn't from the POV of any government or military officials or anything, so the war itself is not the main focus here. Rather, my story is from the POV of average civilians in the US who have to deal with this situation. Any details about the war will likely be vague second-hand information they hear on the radio. I think that's what we're losing sight of here, everyone's talking about how Russia would be annihilated, but I don't think it matters as long as no further strikes happen against the mainland US. When I say I prefer a "limited" scenario, I mean as far as America is concerned - and preferably Europe as well, since international aid would likely be required for recovery, but Russia? Russia can crawl into a crater and die of dysentery for all I care, my story's not about them. (not to imply I hold any animosity toward Russians IRL, I don't, it's just that it wouldn't really affect my story all too much whether Russia, as a nation, survives this or not) When I think of how this story is going to go, I envision people huddling together in fallout shelters, emerging after a few days to decontaminate their communities, local/state governments striving to restore order, the National Guard distributing rations, eventually getting telephone service restored, and just generally seeking a return to "normalcy" in a world that's been changed forever. That's the focus here, really - it's not about warfare, it's about rebuilding; average people coping with day-to-day life in the aftermath.
I don't think anyone really knows that would happen in this scenario for certain. NATO countries would be required under article 5 to join in the conflict, but would probably lift mountains to avoid get tangling into it, especially if the war was limited in nature. Neither the US nor Russia would want to get into this type of war, also. World leaders don't have their fingers on the button as much as during the Cold War. Right now, nations compete, but they rarely try to annihilate each other. As someone who works in the industry, I think you're over-estimating the US capability. It's very advanced, but the PR from the Missile Defense Agency, etc. is going to overestimate the capability, both so people won't try and test it, and so that they can keep securing funding. Ballistic missiles are very, very hard to intercept. I doubt any modern intercept system could handle a full-out attack from a modern nuclear power. @JadeX: I guess there are a lot of opinions here. But ultimately: write what you want to write. Have you read Alas Babylon? To me, it's the definitive book on nuclear war aftermath, and may provide some inspiration. Although, it's also based off of a more cold war type scenario, where there isn't a national guard to hand out rations because of the extent of the damage. Your scenario may be quite different.
We can't even get one of them in a test. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/06/us/missile-defense-interceptor-misses-target-in-test.html?_r=0
That article is old. They were successful in 2014 intercepting one. They also were recently successful in testing in Israel testing theirs which was a U.S./Israel collaboration. If I remember correctly, they plan on doing another test later this year.
These systems are tested very frequently. One of the main purposes of a test is to see how a change to the system effects its ability to intercept a target. If a large-scale strike was launched, some, but not all, incoming targets would probably be intercepted. That's just the nature of the game. If any one nation had a perfect ABM capability, then the world would be much less stable because of it.
Even the old Patriot Missile defense system that was sent by the U.S. to Israel, has had a 90-95% success rate over the years intercepting SCUD missiles from Iraq and mortar rounds fired from Palestine. That's not bad for an old system from the 90s.
If I recall correctly, most SCUD missiles that were used during the Gulf Wars were very poorly made, and wouldn't have hit their targets even without Patriot. Intercepting an ICBM is much more challenging than a TBM such as a SCUD or projectiles such as mortars. Modern ICBMs will have multiple delivery vehicles and penetration aids that are designed to confuse intercept systems.
North Korea bellicose atm, diplomats were very, very serious about this ICBM issue last night on TV, Newsnight, the UK. ... But the fun in writing, for me, is often to subvert accepted norms with plausible craziness. I wrote one story about the Olympics 2012 - where security was threatened by remote helicopters and a guy who pissed in the pool. Later, I discovered this was just commonplace, and general practice among all Olympic swimmers, destroyed my chances of publication.
Harry Turtledove wrote Bombs Away, the first of what is supposed to be a series about the Korean War turning nuclear. The United States uses them, Russia responds with attacks against European capitals, the United States responds against major Russian cities, Russia hits every west coast city their bombers can reach. The attacks themselves are not the focus, rather the stories of the individuals at or near the attacks, a few key politicians. It's really a shit book, but that's exactly the scenario I envision if an actual nuclear war broke out. NATO being REQUIRED to respond is like saying my apartment lease REQUIRES me to pay rent. Sure, right up until I decide I don't want to and walk away. Consequences abound, certainly, but I have a feeling when France, Germany, England, Italy, Spain, etc., all see D.C. and Moscow wiped off the map, they'll issue stern condemnations, throw up patrols, but stay far, far away from actual aggression. Any other response than a limited tactical one risks the end of the world. I have about 4% faith in my American elected officials, but 2% of that is the strength of will to prevent that end.
Does the conflict absolutely have to be between the U.S. and Russia? From a survivability standpoint, China and the U.S. might work better, since China has a relatively small arsenal, but one big enough to do major damage. And with your inciting event being naval clashes in the Pacific, you could make it an outgrowth of the rising tensions over China's island building in the South China Sea. China has a no first use policy, but as described in your other thread a misinterpreted missile test might give them what they need to launch their own weapons. You'd need a little worldbuilding to loosen the economic ties between the two, but it doesn't strike me as a huge leap.
Your story could work. But here is what I think would happen. After the attacks, Russia would be condemned. The US would receive some sympathy, but not much. This would be the second time we have used weapons of mass destruction. I imagine with your scale, US and Russia not only nuked cities, but also did there best to weaken each others fighting capabilities. With this, China, the Middle East, Korea would all attack Russia. Nato would also attack, but all attacks would be conventional against Russia. Russia would be invaded and taken over by China, the Middle East, and Nato. They would be disarmed and basically turned into a third world country overnight. Now the US will start its rebuilding. At the most they would have less than five years before Mexico, Korea, and China would invade. They cannot let the US get back to power. Nato will back down its support for the US. The US would be destroyed and divided up by the invaders. The US and Russia would not ever be allowed back into power. Your rebuilding will seem to work for a little while. It would just be for nothing as other countries would never let this slide.
Uh, @Raven484, North Korea couldn't realistically defeat South Korea, China couldn't hold the South China Sea if ANYBODY cared to stop them, and Mexico is two steps away from civil war at any given moment. They're invading who now? The actual United States? How exactly do China and North Korea plan on getting here? Southwest Airlines? Does the Middle East suddenly decide they no longer hate each other? ISIS is Muslim against Muslim. Once Russia has a problem are they really gonna be like 'lol, jk everyone, head North.'?
I agree with @Samurai Jack that an invasion over an ocean (either the Atlantic or Pacific) is extremely difficult to mount without extensive preparation time and excellent logistics. Even after the country's invaded, you need supply lines. And it takes a lot of transports to get enough tanks over the English Channel (like in Operation Overlord), let alone across an entire ocean. If the two Koreas fought a war without assistance from either the US or China, I'd call it a toss-up in South Korea's favor. The South has far better hardware, but the North has one of the largest armies in the world. Still, their army isn't terribly professional, and they're starving, so would be severely strapped to come up with the resources to mount a long term campaign. Why do you say China couldn't hold the South China Sea? I'm not familiar with the strength of their navy, but I understand it to be a respectable one. The US navy is probably much better, but I imagine they're far better than most of their neighbors (India, the Koreas, etc.).
China is 10 years into a blue water navy buildup, the actual ability to project power over an ocean, but what they have is over the counter Russian technology. Their missile systems are top notch (again, Russian), so they could probably sink anything in the sea, but they couldn't put anything there we couldn't sink, and they would have a hard time reaching our assets to prevent getting sunk. Right now their biggest contender is Vietnam, but China is doing its level best to piss off Japan, and India is starting to remotely care. The Vietnamese are more than willing to admit an actual confrontation with China will be short lived, but they're also a proud, warrior people, willing to make the interaction an expensive one for China. Japan is ending their pacifism, looking to put together an offensive land and sea force again. The country's attitude is, more or less, confrontation with China is inevitable, but probably not going to happen tomorrow.
What I am saying that there will be coalitions against both Russia and the US. If the posters scenario took place, Russia and US militaries would be seriously depleted. They would strike Russia first. Then they would come for us. Nato will not support us for using wmd's for a second time. Everything here is hypothetical, this is just my opinion.
A big assumption, especially considering we're talking about the US using nuclear weapons in self-defense. Any other nuclear power would do the same in a similar situation.
Countries will always be more likely to act in self interest rather than based off of any kind of moral outrage. If the US and Russia got into a major conflict, then smaller countries would support one side if they thought they could win or gain an advantage by doing so, but I think they'd most likely try to bail on the entire conflict if given the opportunity. They might speak out in moral outrage, but I'd expect it to be more of an excuse than anything else. By taking moral objection to the conflict, they would be taking advantage of an excellent excuse not to get mired down in it. In terms of land grabs (smaller countries banding together to take land from the crippled US or Russia), I would only expect that in the case of very valuable natural resources. Countries might invade one another to secure key gas fields or mineral deposits, but not empty Siberian tundra. In this scenario, natural resources would be critically important. Russia is a very large supplier of gas to Europe, which I imagine would be interrupted by a nuclear conflict. The europeans might have trouble securing that gas so could take extreme measures to get ahold of it. The saudis, and other huge suppliers of oil, would probably take advantage of the situation by ramping prices up. @Samurai Jack: I think I agree. The US might not be a big player in the region though after a nuclear conflict. I'm not sure what our naval assets in the area would do. It's not really the epicenter of the conflict, although the Russians might do their best to sink our carriers in the region. Interestingly enough, the only countries in the region that currently maintain aircraft carriers are the US (a total of 10 worldwide; no idea how many are in the pacific), India (2), China (1), and Thailand (1). In terms of submarines, South Korea has 14, Japan 16, India 17, Russia 63, China 69, The US 72, and North Korea 78, at least according to this source. That's actually a lot for the North Koreans, although I highly doubt that those submarines are worth much. A submarine is only as valuable as it is quiet after all. Those numbers seem to imply that the US has the best hardware in the region, followed by China, Russia, India, North Korea, Japan, South Korea, and Thailand, probably in that order.
I look at Nato as a total failure. What have they done with the situation in the Ukraine? All they ever do is sit back and watch. They are good at putting some ground troops in and are very helpful with humanitarian missions. But they show no real power. How many countries have nuclear capabilities now? They have done nothing to stop any country from developing nuclear power. Korea and Iran just basically laugh in their faces. They are pretty spineless when it comes to confrontation. Without the US, they probably would not exist.
I started something similar in the 80s but one of my survivors was ten year old girl who wound up too much like my daughter. Also, the next year, the Wall came down, so I never kept going with it. What my survivors knew about the catastrophe was what they had gotten from the news in the build up of tensions preceding, a tit-for-tat single weapon strike against purely military targets, everyone scrambling to negotiate a stand down between the US and USSR, then a third party got involved (narrated how it was done, because none of the characters knew anything about this) and all hell broke loose. The point is most of your characters won't know much about why/how it started, just that it did, and that will give you a lot of flexibility to build a credible survival scenario (which is where the story will be!) without having to lay out much detail for a credible attack that could and would be challenged. BTW the French have the only other nuclear-powered carrier in the world, the Charles de Gaulle, with a full-size flight deck capable of accommodating US aircraft, and at 850 ft/42K tons, just a bit smaller than a 1092 ft/100K ton Nimitz class
