Causes, Procedures and Aftermath of Nuclear War
For Achih of Mercer Island High School
Achih from Mercer Island High School reached out to me to answer some questions about the Causes, Procedures, and aftermath of Nuclear War. Answers to his questions are below:
1. What events do you believe could trigger a nuclear first strike, and how could the ongoing war in Ukraine specifically spark an exchange?
I think there are two scenarios. First would be a tactical strike on a Ukrainian unit that has broken through Russian lines. Although I think this would only happen if Russian lines were collapsing. The second would be if Russia wanted to breakthrough Ukrainian lines. Using a nuclear weapon to attrit forces before an attack was practiced by the US in the 1950s and the Soviets had similar tactics. Also remember that precision guided munitions have capabilities we could only dream of back in the 1950's. Back then you might use a nuclear weapon on a bridge because bridges are so hard to destroy. Today use a few PGMs and call it a day. So in some senses, nuclear weapons are less useful, though they could be used in tactical attack or defense, or for destroying underground bunkers or naval targets like carriers.
2. Are there any known or believed Russian plans/procedures for a nuclear first strike outside of those outlined in the Army's Opposing Force Tactics from 2011 (attached below)?
We don't really know,. It can be assumed that they would use nuclear weapons for the above reason.
3. What parts of the United States, if any, would be the most likely to survive in a nuclear war?
The FEMA Map from 2015 shows a good example of likely targets.:
Although I don't see a full strike as a possibility. Remember you have two purposes to a nuclear strike - counter force and counter value.
Counter force attrits your enemy's capability to fight. Counter-value attrits the economic ability of a country to wage war.
I could see a single nuclear weapon being used on a target like WalMart's headquarters or datacenter. Or perhaps a port facility like New Orleans or Long Beach to snarl gas or shipping. Would the US respond in kind to one first strike? Maybe. But I don't see total commitment.
4. What are some commonly held beliefs or misinformation surrounding the possibility of a nuclear war?
I think the first is that nuclear war means total commitment. That might not necessarily be true. It is possible that nuclear weapons may be used on a tactical level in a limited capacity. Second, one nuclear bomb does not mean that the world will end. We've detonated 2100 nuclear weapons since the Trinity test and we're still here. Third, radiation is not the boogieman people make it out to be. For every 7 fold increase in time there is a 10 fold decrease in radiation. It would be safe to go outside for short periods after a few days. Fourth is EMP. People look at EMP like it is a world-ending weapon... but the truth is that we really don't know. The modern electrical grid deals with EMP all the time - it's called lightning and we are still around.
Watch my video on How Nuclear Weapons Work:
Watch my video on how a ten warhead strike on the UK could play out:
Let me add a bit more about the use. It's been widely reported that Putin has been told clearly what the end result of his tactical use of a nuke in Ukraine will be. It is believed by former US generals that the black sea fleet and his troops on Ukraine soil will all be destroyed. Probably in less than a week and by purely conventional means.
The US/NATO doesn't have to respond with nuclear weapons. Precision and intel defeats mass. A handful of F35s could wipe out all Black Sea fleet surface ships in a day or two. Russia has shown its hand in terms of air defense. It's not a good hand.
I also believe that a "nuke tax" would be placed on ALL TRADE into and out of Russia. Even China would be forced to appear if it would participate. India would freely participate. It would be in the world's interests, all of it, to appear as though Russia had committed an unforgiveable sin.
I say "appear" because China and a few more would continue black market trade trying to evade sanctions.
Russia's economy would be in free fall. No amount currency and bank manipulation would save it.
The gloves would come off for Ukraine as well. They would take Belgorod in a week. Swing around the front lines where Russia has no defense or mines and destroy Russia from the rear.
I say all of this to make this point... Russia isn't ever going to use a nuke. There is NO upside.
I live just a few miles away from Offutt AFB in Bellevue, NE (just South of Omaha) which is part of the StratCom structure which controls the delivery of nukes. It has one of those underground command centers similar to what you see in the movie War Games. It's also a communications hub. It's where GW Bush went on 9/11 so he'd have reliable comms as I understand it. So if a full strike happens, however unlikely, as I like to joke, I won't feel a thing. As the saying goes, the lucky one die first.