Potential international reactions to a US-Russia nuclear conflict?

Discussion in 'Plot Development' started by JadeX, Mar 26, 2016.

  1. AdDIct

    AdDIct Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    198
    Location:
    Palmdale
    Yeah. I mean the biggest reason people DONT screw with America, especially nuclearly is because the moment they do, and especially on such a large scale, the earth is going to be freaking annihilated. You have to understand. With just lose 120 targets, there's a HIGH chance that probably every inch of American soil is going to be irradiated and next to inhospitable.

    Note bro that 16miles by itself from the initial blast zone shit's burning. Anything closer than that is next to vaporized.
    From there you have firestorms (which would potentially double the effected radius ) no oxygen nothing.NOTHING is alive in that zone and of course the radiation. And this is happening 12o times. That's A LOT of ground and ALOT of destruction.

    And also note that Russia actually had developed the worlds most powerful bomb back in like the Cold War at some point. Now if they have ANOTHER one of those no idea but the blast apparently could wipe out the state of Connecticut if they did have more.

    Also understand how America tends to react to things like this. They don't go "Oh we're not going to do anything because the rest of the world will be screwed" it'll be "Fuck y'all for blowing up my uncle, now ya'll eat nukes too"

    Not saying I agree with this outlook. But that's probably how it would be. Unless whoever is in charge of the states, has a very strong grasp of propaganda and can sway public opinion radically in another direction I don't see how there's a chance in this being "limited".

    My only suggestion would be to lower the amount of strikes. Or develop a different type of weapon that has the same destructive power but less of the environmentally harmful side effects. But eh like others have said. It's your story. It's just hard to see any way in which a nuclear strike of that magnitude could only result in "limited" war and not near apocalyptic fallout without divine intervention.

    I think though that if in some way this did go limited.

    Nato would back up the US.
    China would probably stay neutral and not get wrecked when it's just coming back in power.
    Korea North or South, would be pretty dumb to get too involved considering the size of their country and what a nuclear bomb could do to them.
    Japan I think would stay safe and only retaliate if a clear end was in sight or a visible threat directly to them.

    know nada bout the others
     
    Witchymama and Oscar Leigh like this.
  2. Samurai Jack

    Samurai Jack Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    102
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Ehhhhhhhhh. 120 actual nuclear detonations straight down the list of the 120 most populated cities in the United States, and at most 1/6th of the population is gone. Maybe closer to 1/10th. The more of those strikes diverted to military targets, to American nuclear sites, the less the destruction. Tragic, but not insurmountable.

    China gets to see how robust their economy is when the United States shifts back into an industrial and construction economy. My bet is they tank.

    NATO points everything conventional West, Russia points everything conventional East. Hope no one blinks, but it's doubtful Europe goes nuclear under the threat of looking like the United States.

    Ukraine and Venezuela sit on their hands.

    North Korea crosses the border in 3 minutes.

    2016 Japan already wants to get back into the thick of things. I say they row out and meat Russia head on.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  3. Oscar Leigh

    Oscar Leigh Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    8,496
    Likes Received:
    5,120
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    One small thing, I think the European parts of NATO wouldn't be happy with the large-scale use of nuclear weapons.
     
  4. jannert

    jannert Retired Mod Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Messages:
    17,674
    Likes Received:
    19,889
    Location:
    Scotland
    Glasgow would be GONE immediately ...thanks to its unwilling storage of Trident nuclear weapons at the Faslane base nearby. We'd be a primary target.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  5. Lewdog

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,676
    Likes Received:
    3,056
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY

    That's just it, if Russia was being smart, they would not only target the U.S. mainland, they would also target all the installations the U.S. has missiles set up throughout Europe and Asia, so in essence, they would be targeting a lot of other countries, and causing a true World War.
     
    Witchymama and Oscar Leigh like this.
  6. JadeX

    JadeX Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Ohio, U.S. of A.
    No offense, but I can tell you know little to nothing about nuclear weapons if you're trying to pass those exact figures off as some kind of concrete universal fact. LOLOLOLOL, the effects vary WIDELY with yield. Not to mention, "firestorms" are largely a myth. There is no evidence of firestorms having ever occurred at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and if they did, it would only be because most Japanese residences at the time were constructed mostly of wood, bamboo, straw, and essentially paper.
    Sorry, it's just that I've done a ton of research on nuclear weapons for a very long time, and nobody is going to tell me any concrete numbers like "16 miles" without making me laugh. That's like saying a hurricane will kill a million people - you can't give concrete numbers, it varies so much, you just can't do that.

    Civilian targets are largely avoided, with only a few exceptions. Most targets are military, and most of the strikes are relatively low-yield. I've already simulated the strikes against American targets - there are 10.6 million fatalities and 18.1 million injuries - so it's more like 3% - 5% of the population.
     
  7. Lewdog

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,676
    Likes Received:
    3,056
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY
    Have you watched the news lately? The world literally goes bonkers over the death of like 100 people from a terrorist attack, and you just said 10.6 MILLION people killed and 18.1 MILLION people injured...and you think it would be limited? Dude...really?
     
    Witchymama and AdDIct like this.
  8. AdDIct

    AdDIct Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    198
    Location:
    Palmdale
    I am aware that it depends on yield. And I'm not trying to pass it off as universal. I'm merely speculating since personally, if you're going to be stupid enough to nuke a place I think it'd make more sense to actually do significant damage. Especially if it's a country like the US, who is DEFINITELY going to strike back. And not kindly. I mean even if it was low yield. It was a nuke. Radiation isn't fun for anyone. And the US has HUGE amounts of media coverage and can easily make it seem like they're the attacked and not the aggressor Obviously that was an assumption on my part.

    If you're using low yield weapons then yes the impact is going to be less. That's common sense. It follows more in line with the "have a bunch of little nukes to shoot at people then one giant nuke". Still I quote my previous statement in "It's your story, do what you want." Maybe you can spin it in a way that I can actual feel it's plausible that the world isnt left in a nuclear fallout. You don't want to hear anything about that I can see from other posts so I'm just gonna take my leave now. I left my opinion on what the other powers would do so yep.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  9. JadeX

    JadeX Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Ohio, U.S. of A.
    Keep in mind that, like I've said, these 124 strikes do no occur all at once.

    It's not like there's a massive launching of missiles all at the same time - if that were the case, then yes, both sides would launch everything they have, but that's not what happens. This situation develops slowly, and takes the form of a series of small counterstrikes spanning the course of 2 days.

    Then there is Scenario B, which I have not yet mentioned, but it involves a more extensive exchange. In Scenario B, there are ~226 strikes, which hit many major civilian populations and almost every state capital. Scenario B would be more in line with such an "all-out" exchange, accounting for interceptions by anti-ballistic missile defences.

    Scenario B may be more realistic, but the reason I did not choose it is because the higher level of disruption it would cause would greatly hinder the recovery efforts upon which my story focuses. You see, I wanted to leave a bit more intact of infrastructure and society, with some remnants of local government being able to help out, but Scenario B would make that a bit more difficult.

    I have not yet simulated Scenario B, so I do not have casualty figures for it. According to my fallout projections, Scenario B would place over 80% of the country's landmass under the path of fallout (as opposed to 40% to 50% in Scenario A).

    All-in-all, Scenario B would be quite a bit more severe, and would likely be equally severe across Europe and Russia if not more so.

    I had wanted to avoid Scenario B, but now that I see how many people take issue with the "limited" aspect of Scenario A, I now wonder if perhaps the less-limited Scenario B may be my best (more realistic) option?
     
  10. AdDIct

    AdDIct Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2015
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    198
    Location:
    Palmdale
    I think Scenario B at the bare bones makes more sense. The biggest issue I have is the "Why?" You don't just nuke a country for no reason. So from my standpoint it's hard for me to judge because it just doesn't make that much sense in general if Russia and the US have been on relatively neutral terms. Why mess with a good or at the very least a not bad thing. So make sure you have that in place and make sure it's not something like some dickhead just wanting to spew chaos for no other reason than a deep seeded hatred for the country cause that's not going to really fly. From a literary standpoint to me that just seems kind of weak.

    Still in my opinion as said before option B makes more sense, because as stated earlier, if you're going to nuke a place that's... that's serious. And if you're going to be that serious then you better actively try to hinder your opponent. Limited or not you're going to incur major political upset and a response that you're probably not going to like for the people of your country. Remember strongest military force in the world. You just nuked them. Combine this with typical terrorist hysteria, and you've got a recipe for destruction of some form. Expect them to be trigger happy.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  11. Lewdog

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,676
    Likes Received:
    3,056
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY
    If the missiles were fired intermittently, then there would be an even higher probability they would get shot down before they reached U.S. mainland. You do realize that at NORAD they know almost instantly from the time the rocket is fired that it is coming?
     
  12. JadeX

    JadeX Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Ohio, U.S. of A.
    Yes, most of the ICBM launches are intercepted. Only a small fraction of ICBM warheads actually reach their targets (and considering each ICBM is likely to carry several warheads, yeah, a majority of ICBM warheads do not reach their intended targets).

    A majority of the successful strikes are from:
    - Submarine-launched ballistic missiles
    (advantage: submarines can be brought close to shore, perhaps even directly into ports, and fired at nearby targets, giving very little warning and response time)​
    - Nuclear-tipped cruise missiles launched from the decks of ships
    (advantage: cruise missiles are much more diffcult to detect and intercept than ballistic missiles, due to their small small size and reduced radar cross-section; thus, they can be used effectively against air defense systems, softening the airspace for further aerial attacks - furthermore, conventional-armed cruise missiles can be launched simultaneously, making it impossible to differentiate them)​
    - Air-to-surface nuclear missiles fired from fast-moving fighter jets/multi-role attacker aircraft
    (advantage: fast-moving jets can penetrate into hostile airspace, and carry countermeasures to defend against air defences (which can be assisted by the pilots' flying skills), and launch missiles from a stand-off range; such attacks would become even easier with the help of the aforementioned cruise missiles)​

    I'm still working on how exactly the war begins, but the essence of it is this:
    In the near future, following an ever-growing "new arms race" (which is already beginning IRL), tensions between the two countries rise. Russia undertakes a huge, massive naval exercise in the Pacific Ocean, putting the Americans on edge. Russian warships, whether by accident or intent, venture into American territorial waters off the coast of Alaska - the Coast Guard responds; basically, a Russian ship rams a USCG ship and capsizes it, and the USCG opens fire, sinking several Russian ships, and when it's all over there are more than 200 dead Russian sailors and over 50 dead Coast Guardsmen.

    Now things have begun to get hot, and both sides are more tense and paranoid than ever. The US Navy sends a ton of ships and planes out to the Pacific to monitor the situation, placing them in dangerously close proximity, raising the potential for an accident. I have 2 main ideas for where it goes from here:
    A) The US decides to deliver a "show of force" by launching an unannounced ICBM test from Vandenberg AFB, which the Russians mistake for a live launch and retaliate
    B) A mid-air collision between a Russian bomber and a US helicopter causes a bomb to fall from the plane and detonate above a Russian naval unit, making them think they've been attacked - an unlucky coincidence, but not exactly unprecedented.

    Those are just two ideas I have, and I'm open to any other suggestions on a separate thread.

    TL;DR: There's already a strong undercurrent of tension, worsened by a deadly naval clash, and an unfortunate accident causes things to go hot.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2016
  13. Lewdog

    Lewdog Come ova here and give me kisses! Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,676
    Likes Received:
    3,056
    Location:
    Williamsburg, KY
    Problem with the submarine one is that the U.S. would see it coming. They can track submarines all over the world. They were one of the first to report that the North Korean submarine had sank, because it had gone off the grid. The same thing is true with ships. The U.S. would go on high alert of a Russian ship came close enough to shore to be able to fire a cruise missile at it. In all likelihood the ship would be intercepted and if it did not turn around, there would be a fire fight right there.

    Now, the same is going to be said about aircraft as I said above, with the exception maybe being of Alaska where Russian planes violate airspace all the time. Any other places in the U.S. especially mainland, like Montana and North Dakota where the majority of the U.S. nuclear ICBM silos are, would never be touched by a missile or bomb fired from an aircraft.
     
  14. JadeX

    JadeX Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Ohio, U.S. of A.
    In theory, you're 100% right.

    ...but, you'd be surprised how things can really fall apart under the stress of a real-life crisis. For example, throughout the year 2000, NORAD had a 100% interception record in training exercises, but on September 11, 2001, when it really mattered, they fell flat on their face - because of all the conflicting information, people in command not knowing if the attack was real or a test, communications failures, communication lines being overloaded, etc. Everything that could go wrong did go wrong, and I can only imagine how a nuclear assault would multiply these problems exponentially.
    (particularly if command & control facilities are among the first targets, which they likely would be)

    As far as the Russian submarines and navy ships are concerned - yeah, not all of them that are capable of launching will get the chance to, and those that do launch probably won't get the chance to do it again. Naval combat would be fierce, and both sides would suffer great losses.
     
  15. Jack Asher

    Jack Asher Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    3,545
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Location:
    Denver
    Dude, you were three when the towers were hit. The planes weren't brought down because they were civilian planes, and at the time no one was sure why they were out of communication. It was not a case of murphy's law, it was a case of "why are these planes not responding, is something wrong with them?" As you might imagine brass didn't scramble fighters to potentially kill 300 civilians over what might have just been radio trouble.

    A nuclear strike doesn't come with the same amount of ambiguity. There's no reason NORAD would blink in the face of a nuclear strike, and you have nothing to back that up with.
     
    Witchymama likes this.
  16. matwoolf

    matwoolf Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    Messages:
    6,631
    Likes Received:
    10,135
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Lots of people missing the 'fiction' element on here:

    'I can tell you THAT that would NOT, and it would never happen.'

    Definitely it, and things, do need to happen, in a fiction story, after all...

    [hide this one under bushel a while, can see my own chuckle here, creeps me, out.]

    For pleasure's sake, enjoy a good Armageddon, make it a Christmas Eve when NATO malfunctions, a drunken NATO consists, in Brussels, that December 24th of three security guys, a chauffeur, they manage world affairs, send UK troops, the bulwark to Finland, somehow bombs, on the way, Canada due to a fog conspiracy, massacres Innuit. The president of Canada immediately is on to Twitter, Quietist coup overwhelms Norway, a tidal wave washes Latvia out to sea, random, and chance. The US pacific fleet administrators order agricultural kerosene for the diesel engines of their vessels (or somfing, somfing), ships drift into Chinese islands, orphans are drowned by Americans seeking lifebuoys. President Donald Trump is captured el flagrente with Mrs Vladimir Putinova during a secret Korean holiday, his knob flashed/ and Xhamster pics go viral, he will do anything to get his knob pics back, he trades nuclear secrets, then is blackmailed by Vermont students probably, loses US nuclear codes on subway sandwich, ehmm, Trump places grandson in White House, retires to Tijuana, earthquakes are in Tijuana, a worldwide bacterial epidemic is blamed on Jesus, Ohio, a town somewhere - hence first strike is mid-west, or somewhere American with a Biblical name, Godton, the same place 120 times, and bombers get through every time, how come they don't like that place at all? You will find out much later, Venezuela carpet bombs Texas in cocaine, it is retribution. There is party. END
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2016
    JadeX likes this.
  17. Oscar Leigh

    Oscar Leigh Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    8,496
    Likes Received:
    5,120
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    The thing is here you get some leeway with it being fiction, but it seems like you want to be realistic, so you need to consider stuff here. I think a key thing no-ones mentioned is storytelling. If you can tell the details in a believable, engaging and entertaining account of things, it won't matter if it's a bit far-fetched.
     
    AdDIct and JadeX like this.
  18. JadeX

    JadeX Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Ohio, U.S. of A.
    About damned time someone said it!
     
    AdDIct likes this.
  19. JadeX

    JadeX Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Ohio, U.S. of A.
    Also, change of plans: I'm not going to write this story. This thread has absolutely killed all interest and enthusiasm I ever had in the idea. (Thanks, guys.)

    It was only supposed to be a short story to begin with, which I already wrote, so I'll just leave it at that and forget about continuing with any sequels or expansions.

    Fuck it, I'll just write kid's stories or something, some shit about kittens and puppies maybe, I dunno, just... fuck it.

    Pretty clear I've worn out my welcome on these forums, though.
     
  20. BayView

    BayView Huh. Interesting. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,462
    Likes Received:
    11,689
    Yup. If anyone disagrees with your ideas, that means they don't like you and want you to go away. That's exactly how it works.

    When you ask a question, everyone should realize you don't actually want a discussion. If they try to discuss things, that means you've worn out your welcome on the forums. Yup.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  21. matwoolf

    matwoolf Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    Messages:
    6,631
    Likes Received:
    10,135
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Pull yourself together, calm down, write it good.
     
    Matt E, Oscar Leigh and BayView like this.
  22. JadeX

    JadeX Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Ohio, U.S. of A.
    Every. Single. Time. Every time I start a thread, it goes to hell in a handbasket in a heartbeat. Nothing I ever come up with is good enough for anybody. I listen to feedback, I take suggestions, I offer up my newer refined ideas, and what do I get? "Nah, it still sucks, this will never work."

    Yeah, I get the message, the same one that's been repeated to me ever since I first showed up on this site: "Your ideas all have something wrong with them. No, no, no, NO, don't try to explain or justify anything, shut the fuck up, your ideas are just plain bad, period. There is nothing you can do about it. Nothing you come up with makes any sense, why do you even try?"
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2016
  23. BayView

    BayView Huh. Interesting. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,462
    Likes Received:
    11,689
    Okay - this might be important. Even if you leave this site, it might be important if you try to be part of a writers' community somewhere else.

    So ask yourself - how many of the words you typed up there in italics were actually said to you? Any of them? Or are they all your interpretations and exaggerations of what was actually said?

    I think they're all from you, aren't they? So ask yourself why you're doing that. Why are you exaggerating things people say and twisting them into something that will be much more hurtful, to you, than what was actually said?

    Being a writer is pretty hard, and we take lots of criticism. We take enough real criticism that I really don't think it's healthy, or a good idea in general, to let ourselves amplify the negative.

    What I saw in this thread was people disagreeing with one of your premises. You asked people to discuss your scenario, and they did. You didn't like what they said? Okay, yeah, that can be discouraging. But better to get reader reaction now rather than after you've put a lot of time into writing a scenario that, rightly or wrongly, a lot of people aren't going to accept. Right?

    You're always free to ignore everyone's opinions - this is your story, so write it like you want. But for your own sake - if you don't want opinions, don't ask for them, and if you do get opinions that disagree with your own, focus on the ideas, and don't let your brain exaggerate the negativity in order to make things worse than they actually are.
     
  24. matwoolf

    matwoolf Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2012
    Messages:
    6,631
    Likes Received:
    10,135
    Location:
    Yorkshire
    Your story idea is exciting, excited a huge cross-section to tap up our own two-penneth - so you see, people like those kind of stories.
    ...
    When we get this reaction on the writer forum, I/we forget people are not confident, get distressed, get freaked out in bedrooms, get angry?

    I'll be more cautious in future - young guys want to 'world build' with words, make friends, find other guys into the same sorts of thing.

    In future I won't address a point directly, fool arounds so freely, I suppose it is un-nerving. We should look after young people, emm.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.
  25. Samurai Jack

    Samurai Jack Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    102
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    I completely buy that. I'm against the side of this thread that thinks 120 nuclear strikes is world annihilation. I do see the number and think that seems a but high, but I also see it and think its entirely plausable to conduct that kind of war.
     
    Oscar Leigh likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice