Oh that is nothing! But I really hope the search algorithms of various agencies take time spent on WF into account in relation to searched keywords I should probably not talk about the research I've had to do
Ah yes, people who write and their suspicious browser histories. I'm surprised any of us are allowed to fly.
First, I resent the notion that I "don't know anything about nuclear war" and "shouldn't write about it" - this is a subject I am very interested in and have done much thorough research on. I know plenty about nuclear war. What I don't know much about is infrastructure. The power grid, the cellular grid, internet infrastructure, gas distribution, radio communications, etc., that's what I'm asking about in this thread. There have been a couple mentions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The difference is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not cripple the national infrastructure of Japan; arguably, the firebombing of Tokyo had a greater effect of crippling the nation. What I think would be more relevant to this discussion are large-scale disasters such as hurricanes or earthquakes, where the local infrastructure was decimated, and how those areas recovered. The main matter here is not the type of attack, but the effects of the attack, primarily on infrastructure. So, basically, the main questions I have are: - How would the power grid suffer from this attack? Mostly intact, partially intact, or mostly destroyed? - How much of the country would experience blackouts as a result of the attacks? - Mount Weather, the FEMA HQ, is safe and was not hit; the POTUS and most of his cabinet also survived inside the mountain. How long before FEMA and other federal agencies could deploy, and what kind of help could they offer? - How much essential activity (eg, hospitals, government buildings, FEMA/Red Cross base camps) could be run solely off of generator power? What complications might there be in attempting to run that kind of activity on generators alone? - What areas might still have electricity? (that is *any* electricty, even if it is not enough) - How long to restore power via the actual power grid to areas that have lost it? - Cell phone towers; what would the attack have done to cellular service? How long until people can make cell pone calls? - Would landline phone service still work in most areas? Would it be easier to restore than cellular? - And further down the road, what timeframe might we be looking at to restore internet connection, even if it is limited to a small few exclusive places? (again, to re-iterate: I'm asking for the best-case scenario, and then I can work backwards from there, adding specific problems and delays where I need them.)
Also, about the targets: Almost all of the targets are strictly military, and the majority of the military targets are directly related to either Strategic Command or Missile Defense; in other words, targets directly linked to our nuclear capabilities. Some other major airbases were hit as well, especially those that host fighter squadrons or feature long runways suitable for bombers. However, even then, not all targets were hit, because not every warhead gets through - and the more important targets are, generally speaking, covered better by defense systems. This is why some targets were hit while other more obvious ones were not. New York City was mentioned specifically - there is no major military target in New York City, and especially not anything even remotely pertaining to our nuclear forces. My main consideration in picking targets was what value it is to our ability to wage a nuclear war. NYC has no value there; all the attackers would be doing is shamelessly murdering thousands, perhaps millions, of defenseless civilians with no strategic value - while Countervalue targets like NYC were a big fear in the Cold War, and while we fear nuclear terrorism hitting one of our big cities, I saw no value for this scenario. Civilian targets in general were mostly avoided wherever possible.
It's amazing how "Threads" has stuck in a few peoples minds. I saw it on the original broadcast and at the time it was very powerful. It actually made my sister physically ill. The one scene that I (sort of) recall is the woman in the street pissing herself when the siren goes off. Not sure how it would compare thirty years on but I can't bring myself to watch it, too scary lol.
Most of the electrical grid would be intact physically. The EMP would damage or burn out transformer hubs for hundreds, maybe thousands of miles, all which would need to be fixed or replaced. Same for any electronic systems in the area. In the blast radius obviously all would be gone, and rebuilding would take a long time considering the lack of other resources. This is the biggest challenge and I believe would take several years to complete at best. A bad forest fire can have people out of power for weeks, sometimes months, as it is. The places still with power would be the pockets with their own station, a non EMP impacted subnetwork and no physical damage. As most power stations still rely on fossil fuels, the transport and mining networks also need to remain intact. Once they're repaired and functional power can resume. Best case for that would be a few months, and a few more months if the transformer subnet gets repaired right away. There's also large scale hydro and turbine power, which I believe would remain largely unaffected and functional. But would generate power that was not always accessible. Your natural gas piplines would likely be ruptured all over the place and effectively wiped out for good. Here is the US Energy information on storm disruptions that shows you the power grid. It has a comprehensive interactive map showing vulnerabilities to disasters for the power network, gas network and more: http://www.eia.gov/special/disruptions/ You can also use the Smithsonian summary of that map: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/tour-the-countrys-energy-infrastructure-through-a-new-interactive-map-8844967/?no-ist Cellular service is another thing. Again, EMPs will knock out a massive amount of infrastructure. Considering it's the least important, as people can communicate via CB (or ham) radio, I'd say mobile services would not be restored for years. Because it works quite differently yo power, even fucntional towers are useless if the base servers of the network is destroyed. Depends on where these are housed. I'd suggest looking at the impact of Katrina on New Orleans.
I'm assuming they also try and strike the 10 carrier groups. Considering Nuclear subs are still operational and can launch a significant counter-attack you can't cripple the American nuclear response in a land based strike. It'd designed that way. It's got backup measures on backup measures that mean even if Russia hits first a decisive counter-strike is both possible and effective, regardless of wide-scale damage. Hell, that's why the internet was invented. If you're going to launch a nuclear strike, you aim to kill. New York is a financial and emotional center. It's a valuable military target for this very reason. Hitting it would pretty much cripple the US economy and destroy all morale. If you kick someone in the groin it's hard for them to fight, even though people don't fight with willies. Hell, if you have a few spare nukes, why wouldn't you hit it? Do you really think anyone launching a nuclear strike is trying to avoid civilian casualties? The Russians designed a cobalt bomb to emit enough radiation on detonation to wipe out all life on earth. I'm not suggesting you change your story. You haven't asked for opinions on the realism of the strike. That's cool. But this is just for you to keep in mind.
With the scenario you have setting this war off, this doesn't make sense. Russia wrongly believes it is on the receiving end of nuclear attack. Trying to stop it while it's in progress makes no sense, especially when they won't be able to destroy American nuclear submarines. Hitting military targets first is something you do in a first strike scenario, but that's not what this is. There's no winning this war. So they'd logically go with countervalue; make America pay for this apparent attack on them. I'll point out that I've never seen a nuclear war scenario between the U.S. and Russia/the Soviet Union that doesn't see New York nuked. It's a very juicy target. Think about the economic damage: I'm sure a recession, possibly a depression, would occur even if NYC was the only American city hit. Avoiding civilian casualties makes no sense in this scenario. From the Russian POV, America has no one but itself to blame for the civilian loss of life, as the Russians believe America is the one who let the nuclear genie out of the bottle in this conflict.
True. The Russian strategy (and US for that matter) for retaliation is the total deployment of the nuclear arsenal for the destruction of the enemy. It's hardly a dis-incentive to attack each other if that wasn't the case. But yeah, regardless of the nonsensical nature of the scenario, that's a side note. It's not the OPs question.
I'm still not certain on the cause of the war yet. The scenario you mention was just one idea I had. Here are my other ideas (minimizing them in spoiler tags so they don't take up a lot of room): Spoiler: Scenario A - Russian warships partaking in a massive wargame exercise drift into US territorial waters near Alaska. They are confronted by the US Coast Guard. The Russian ships push on in defiance of the Coast Guard. One Russian destroyer rams the side of a USCG cutter, capsizing it. The USCG responds with lethal force; the Russians briefly return fire but are decimated when the Alaskan Air National Guard provides supporting fire from the air. In this brief skirmish, 20 American Coast Guardsmen and over 100 Russian sailors are killed. - Russian Pacific wargames continue as the US Navy detects Russian fleets heading straight toward the US West Coast. As a show of force, the US Air Force conducts an unannounced Minuteman III ICBM launch. This launch is mistaken by the Russians as a live launch, and a retaliatory strike begins. Thousands of ship-launched conventional cruise missiles overwhelm missile defense systems on the US west coast to make way for a large multitude of nuclear cruise missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles launched simultaneously. - The US begins launching its ground-based ICBM fleet toward targets in Russia. Moments later, Russia responds in kind. Roughly 5 minutes after the initial assault on the US west coast ends, Russian ICBMs begin to strike targets on the east coast. With American ICBMs beginning to land in Russia, Russia has deployed bombers toward every US target within range anywhere in the world. - About half an hour after the attacks on the east coast, Russian bombers are now beginning to reach the west coast for a second strike. More naval units have arrived, and some carrier-borne light bomber aircraft are able to penetrate deep into the USA's crippled airspace. - Sporadic attacks from remaining Russian units continue irregularly throughout the evening. Shortly after midnight (Central Time) all conflict has subsided. Type: ACCIDENTAL, Mutual Responsibility Spoiler: Scenario B - Alaskan naval clash same as described above - Russian Pacific wargames continue as the US Navy detects Russian fleets heading straight toward the US West Coast. US Naval bases dispatch aircraft over the Pacific coast to monitor Russian ship movements. Helicopters circle around tracking the warships and carriers while P3 Orions hunt for submarines. - A Russian Tu-85 Bear carrying a live nuclear bomb is flying above the naval fleets below. The Tu-85 is ordered to descend, but the crew cannot see the American Blackhawk helicopter below; likewise, the Blackhawk crew cannot see the bomber above them. The two craft collide in mid-air. The bomb falls out of the bomb bay of the Tu-85. It becomes armed during its fall, and detonates above a Russian carrier fleet. - A couple of P3 Orions happen to pass over just a moment prior to the blast, so the Russian sailors who witness it mistake the propeller-driven planes for light bombers, and assume the Americans have just attacked the carrier fleet. In retaliation, the Russians begin unleashing their weapons toward the coast. Type: ACCIDENTAL, Mutual Responsibility Spoiler: Scenario C - In a period of very high tension between the US and Russia, Russia begins increasing its naval presence in the Arctic and the Pacific. As the new arms race begins to intensify, the Russians take a stand against aggressive US nuclear deployments in Europe. - In response, Russia militarizes the Bering Sea. In an unprecedented political statement, Russian forces seize Diomede Island, Alaska. There are no casualties in the takeover, but it is nonetheless a powerful and threatening statement. The US military mobilizes against the occupation of the island, and clashes begin to erupt in the Bering Sea. - Naval confrontations expand along the Aleutian Islands. The US military is on full alert with much on the country on edge with fears of an impending Russian invasion. - Russian naval fleets from Kamchatka surround US Navy and USCG ships in the waters around Alaska, cutting them off and allowing for more Russian fleets to depart from Vladivostok into the Pacific toward the US west coast. - Russian Pacific fleets launch nuclear attacks against Guam and Hawaii as they pass, pushing on through the Pacific with little resistance. - The US Navy dispatches as many warships and submarines as it can ready from the west coast to intercept the Russian Pacific fleets. They are nuclear-armed and given permission to fire if threatened. It is only a matter of time before the two navies meet and the nuclear naval combat begins in the Pacific; this is the first bilateral nuclear exchange in the war. - Because the Russians have the advantage of planning and superior numbers, roughly half of their Pacific fleet manages to survive after decimating the American response fleets. These ships continue on toward their targets on the west coast. - Once within range of the west coast, the Russian assault against the American mainland begins. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of nuclear-armed cruise missiles are launched at the same time as thousands of conventional cruise missiles. The conventional missiles are aimed at anti-ballistic missile defense sites, radar sites, and other defensive units in an "overkill" fashion in order to overwhelm and defeat them. Many of the conventional missiles act as decoys for their nuclear counterparts, as the two are impossible to distinguish. - The Russian ships surrounding Alaska begin unleashing nuclear fire upon radar stations and air force bases to soften America's defense against the ICBMs Russia is preparing to launch. - The Russia begins launching its ground-based ICBM fleet toward targets in the US. Moments later, the US responds in kind. Roughly 5 minutes after the initial assault on the US west coast ends, Russian ICBMs begin to strike targets on the east coast. With American ICBMs beginning to land in Russia, Russia has deployed bombers toward every US target within range anywhere in the world. - About half an hour after the attacks on the east coast, Russian bombers are now beginning to reach the west coast for a second strike. More naval units have arrived, and some carrier-borne light bomber aircraft are able to penetrate deep into the USA's crippled airspace. - Sporadic attacks from remaining Russian units continue irregularly throughout the evening. Shortly after midnight (Central Time) all conflict has subsided. Type: INTENTIONAL Aggressor: RUSSIA ...I also want to have a fourth scenario where it's America's fault, but I haven't written it yet. So, the cause of the war is not final, I can always adjust the story to fit. Nevertheless, anything we can come up with is all theoretical anyway. If you look at some real-life scenarios, such as this one leaked from China, you see that the targets are not always obvious. In that particular map I don't know what most of the targets are, but I notice that there are very few big cities marked. Point is, nobody really knows for sure what will be hit. Now, I agree the NYC is a likely target, and that nukes likely were targeted at the city, but that these nukes were intercepted by missile defenses (IIRC the east coast between Norfolk and Boston is the most heavily-defended). So, between defenses and a focus on nuclear-related targets, there is an off chance that NYC may be spared. Note, I said an "off chance", not that it's likely. Really, one of my main reasons in sparing NYC, aside from collateral damage, was the idea that it would become our new national capital, since the UN HQ is there and NYC was once our capital anyway. Then again, Philadelphia also used to be our capital, so if it's really that big a story-killer I suppose I can add at least one low-yield strike in NYC and just have Philly be the new capital.
Alright, so I did decide to take the advice that NYC should be a target. I've already given my reasons why I was initially against it. However, looking at the map from a layman's perspective instead of a strategic perspective, I can see how a lot of people may think NYC's survival is strange. So, I did some research, and I came up with a compromise. I did not want to hit Manhattan directly, so I did not. Instead, I discovered that JFK International Airport has two runways measuring in excess of 10,000 ft (which is basically the standard for large aircraft such as heavy bombers) - which does, in fact, give it some strategic value. So I focused the strike there, targeted at the longest runway at JFK. The strike yield was 3 megatons, plenty generous for such a target. Here's a map showing the effects of the blast: As you can see, Manhattan was left unharmed. It probably shattered every single window in the borough, but it didn't destroy it. Manhattan, the Bronx, and Staten Island remain intact. Most of the damage was in Queens and Brooklyn. Nonetheless, it did kill nearly a million people and injured more than 3 million more. While it may not be a direct hit in the heart of the city, New York City did take at least one nuke - which, if you look at some other cities, you see that this is a pattern I've already established, so it fits in quite well. (An example that comes to mind is Forth Worth - Naval Air Station Forth Worth was hit, but the city itself was not) So, New York City took a 3-megaton nuke. It didn't make it out unscathed like I had originally planned. How's that? Does that work a little better?
The US went to war over 3 000 deaths in 2001, even though they didn't have a clear enemy or target. The credibility issue, for me, isn't that the Russians didn't bomb NYC. It's that the US doesn't go full balls-to-the-wall nuclear in response. If you spend YOUR ENTIRE BOOK explaining the diplomacy and heroism and freakish good luck that keeps that from happening, I'm in - it would be fascinating. But if your book is mostly about something else and we're just supposed to accept that the US responded with moderation and temperance? I don't see it. At the very least I'd expect civil war/revolution/chaos as the citizens react against the government's refusal to take revenge...
I never said that the US didn't go "full balls-to-the-wall nuclear". As to that, I honestly don't know, but I imagine it isn't good. For all I know, Russia is now a smoldering grey radioactive wasteland from coast to coast. My story is about the recovery efforts here on the homefront. It doesn't matter to me how bad Russia got it, and there will be no explicit mention of that in my story. I'll leave that up to the reader's imagination. Imagine it to be as severe as you want it to be. All I can say for sure is that no, the US absolutely did not respond with "moderation and temperance".
But wouldn't Russia respond with more nukes once they knew the US had launched a full attack on them? I don't know, it seems like you're still working on the premise of a limited nuclear war. And I can see that happening with some other countries, but not with the US and Russia.
Y'know what, come to think of it - I now have 125 strikes against American targets. That's only successful strikes, too. That's not counting all those that malfunctioned, failed to detonate, or were intercepted by missile defenses. Once you factor all of that in, you're probably upwards of 500 nukes launched total, maybe even a thousand. So, yeah, it isn't exactly "limited". That was my original intent, but I ended up with way more targets than I planned and I didn't account for all the unsuccessful strikes. Really, as it stands now, it's only "limited" in that we didn't get hit by every single ~10K nukes that Russia has. That's the only way you can call it limited, honestly. Sure, Russia would respond with more, if they had any command and control left. Unfortunately for the Russians, their system is not near as spread out as ours is - most of it is centered around Moscow. Pepper Moscow with a handful of nukes, take out their major ICBM fields, and that cripples their ability to effectively execute a coordinated retaliation. This would be done fairly early on - Moscow is, by far, the #1 target. After that, all they have left is submarine-launched missiles and whatever can be carried by their handful of carrier-based bombers and fighters. These aircraft, most of them will be shot down. The US landscape near the coasts will probably be littered with the remains of Russian warplanes. I'm guessing about an hour, maybe two tops, of exchanges before Russia almost completely loses ability to carry out any form of coordinated retaliation.
