When things are investigated, knowledge is extended. When knowledge is extended, the will becomes sincere. When the will is sincere, the mind is correct. When the mind is correct, the self is cultivated. -- Confucius
Politically correct ideals are garbage: true wisdom comes from decades of deep thought and neutral observation. Only a so-called sociopath could ascertain wisdom from this crazy world in a neutral way. Cool thoughts- uncorrupted by modern politics, social norms, or societal ideals- are required for wisdom. Questioning everything, and going against the grain on all universally accepted norms is the path to true intelligence. The Gods notice this.


Who Would Win a Nuclear War?

Virtually all people who ask this question answer it the same way: “No one would win! It would mean human extinction! Mutually assured destruction! Nuclear winter! Ad nauseum!
But I was never one for political correctness. Who would really win? Is it inevitable that the whole planet would die? Why, says who; based upon what?
What first jumps out at me is the huge discrepancy (to put it mildly) in what Western and Eastern scientists have to say about a nuclear war's after effects. America and its ilk all are taken with this “nuclear winter” concept. They think the fallout will blot out the sun for so long that the whole planet will delve into a cold and sunless winter for decades, in which all life will perish. Few if any Westerners ever heard of the fact that Eastern scientists had a completely opposite conclusion. They think there will be a “nuclear summer”! They feel that after the nuclear winter abates, which may be brief, decaying organic matter that froze would thaw and release enough CO2 and methane that a greenhouse effect would occur and bake us. Though I link to them infrequently, wikipedia has a nice listing of theories about both. You will see that there are many ideas, back and forth, but nothing has been proven. So, there would likely be a winter scenario but for how long no one is sure. Then there may be a summer scenario next. Either way unprepared people will at least starve, and probably die of other causes as well. This includes heat, freezing, blast effects, debris, radiation poisoning, lack of water, no medical care (imagine no prescription pills for anyone- how long would most live?), and starvation. So no one knows for sure what may happen.
It is assured though that there will be no transportation, grocery stores or food supplies for extended periods, perhaps decades. Most all survivalists assume there will be armed groups out to steal their supplies, so they stockpile weaponry to kill one another with. We can only hope that the few remaining survivors will reach out to one another and be happy to find other living souls. Strife will not be needed.
Survivalists claim all you need are “the three B's”: bibles, band aids, and bullets. They fail to mention food, clothes, Geiger counters, and so many other things. Virtually all of them are so busy saving up hundreds of guns and millions of bullets that they forget to obtain a foot powered treadle sewing machine to darn clothes as they wear out- no food, no medicine, no clothes factories operating either! The problem with the few concerned citizens being left to their own devices and planning everything themselves is that they never think of important stuff like this. Paranoid people are rarely practical. Clothes wear out, all the wildlife is supposed to die-- what are people supposed to make new clothes from? I guess the leather from the other survivalists they skin??? Too bad the feds wouldn't stock some supplies for us in shelters that we could ride out the worst of it in.
Sadly, the american government decided to abandon its civil defense program and shelters in the '60's because of nuclear war protesters, who said shelters made it too easy to ignore the dangers of having these weapons. So the govt. said, 'it costs us too much anyway'. And that was that- it was dropped. The old shelters haven't been maintained nor resupplied in several decades. Everyone is on their own.{For interesting analysis and proof that nuclear war is survivable, and exactly how to do it, see this site and this video series.}
Of course I was talking about the situation in america. Switzerland has enough shelters for their entire population. So do Russia and China, or at least they are working on it. America only has shelters for its top politicians and the few survivalists that can afford to, and have bothered to, build their own. It is rumored that Beijing has an underground city of sorts built underneath it for a nuclear shelter. Plus China has made its subways nuclear and chemical attack safe. So any citizens out in the city can run to the subways for a massive shelter in case of attack (or natural disaster). Meanwhile, Russia has a supposed underground city as well, underneath Moscow. A multitude of articles on the net link to an RT piece (http://www.rt.com/news/prime-time/moscow-bomb-shelters-outskirts/) about new shelters being built for suburban Moscow, but the article was taken down with no explanation. Surviving alleged quotes from it say this:
Nearly 5,000 new emergency bomb shelters will be built in Moscow by 2012 to save people in case of potential attacks.Moscow authorities say the measure is urgent as the shelters currently available in the city can house no more that half of its population.In the last 20 years, the area of air-raid defense has been developed little, and the existing shelters have become outdated. Moreover, they are located mostly in the city center, which makes densely populated Moscow outskirts especially vulnerable in the event of a nuclear attack.In order to resolve the issue, the city has given architects a task to construct a typical model of an easy-to-build shelter that will be located all over the city 10 to 15 meters underneath apartment blocks, shopping centers, sport complexes and parks, as in case of attack people will need to reach the shelters within a minute.
The original article had an embedded video, which has also been removed. But thanks to someone re-uploading it, we know it was a real news story:

So, despite Western propaganda, Russia does not censor news, at least not nearly as much as the westerners do. How interesting that this article was taken down. Though owned by the private media company of Russia Today, and not an official govt. news site such as Tass, it is still telling that a seemingly innocuous piece would be removed.
So if both Russia and China have shelters emplaced for their populations, what does this mean? That they may know nuclear war would be terrible, but they also intend to try and survive it. In america, the politicians intend to survive and emerge to a dead constituency while the populace simply plans to die without a whimper. The exception will be the survivalist freaks whose plan is- banally- to shoot everyone they encounter and increase the death tolls. This is apparent from their obsessive hoarding of guns and ammunition. (Most american households have at least one gun, and the average survivalist generally has around 200. The standard rule of theirs is to keep at least 1,000 rounds on hand for every gun.)
Assuming that Russia and China have some kind of shelters, we can predict that in the event of a nuclear war they will have people to emerge and try to forge on. America will have nothing really- nothing but a few scattered paranoid republicans armed to the teeth...
The submarines seem to be the wild card in all this, as they can pop up anywhere to shoot off some SLBMs. It is far less known what anti-submarine measures there are- neither side likes to talk about it. Though it is known that Russia and China both have more attack subs- smaller ones designed to hunt down the big ones with nukes in them. They also both have more mine laying ships and patrol boats. Worst of all for america, Russia has special helicopters to destroy subs with called the Mi-14. These massive choppers can drop small nuclear bombs into an area suspected of having an enemy sub lurking in it. The blast can destroy any sub within a large radius. That, plus sea mines, submarine nets, and the new Sea Wolf contraptions will create a death knell for subs worldwide, on both sides. So they can be defended against, though it's more complicated.
While america has been criticized for years for letting its nuclear arsenal become so outdated that it can no longer afford to modernize- much less replace- its 1960s era missiles, Russia and China have both been modernizing theirs on a large scale.
An even better question is, who will get nuked at all? Because guess what- america has no real defense against nuclear warheads screaming in from the edges of the atmosphere at incredible speeds. By the time they are detected, and the air raid sirens go off, there would be little time to do anything, even go into a basement. Most would assume the sirens were yet another test or drill like they do monthly for tornadoes. Few would even bat an eye. The radars and electronic fence of NORAD would see them alright, but how soon, and more importantly what could they do about it?? There are no effective anti-missile defense systems operated by the West. All they have is the joke they call the Patriot, which has a very low success rate. It is junk, and it is all they got. (Various estimates rate the Patriot missile systems' performance at 70%, 40%, 10%, and even 0! As opposed to the old S-300s with a rating of 93%..) It barely bears mentioning, though in fairness will do so briefly, that the USA has two other air defense systems. One is the older AEGIS, which is more of a combined control system for all of the various defense weapons on their naval ships. While it has a ballistic missile defense version, it is designed at best for intermediate range- not intercontinental- missiles, and is thereby good for defense of flotillas, not land targets, and not from ICBMs. The newer THAAD system has similar capabilities while being mainly land based, and is basically a revamped Patriot system with a dismal test history. They have lately been trumpeting their "Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system", which was recently adapted to intercept the fictional "threat" of non-existent Iranian and North Korean mid-range nukes. Despite all the funding and posturing, the govt. announced recently that it does not work anyway. Besides the official 53% hit rate in tests, there are only 30 of these interceptor missiles. Since Russia has well over 1,650 actively deployed warheads, a full onslaught would permit at least 1,520 nukes to get to their targets. (Overview in this article, actual govt. report here). In reality it would be a much larger number, as none of these could defend America from a south-originated SLBM attack, the new hypersonic ICBM warheads (faster than mach 5- cannot be shot down), missiles with circumterrestrial targeting (have sufficient range to be launched in any direction- even going over the south pole. this would nullify north-facing anti-missile defenses based almost entirely in Alaska), nor from cruise missiles dropped from bombers already over the mainland. Meanwhile, the pentagon continues to waste billions ($9.9 billion so far) on useless ideas that end up not working (including the 'airborne laser', 'multiple kill vehicle', 'kinetic energy interceptor', and 'sea based X-band radar').  
So how many Russian nuclear warheads would get to their targets? Pretty close to 100%.
As opposed to an attack on the Russian territory: they have three things that america does not have-
1. Non-targetable nukes. Russia has nuclear missiles mounted on mobile launchers (giant trucks) which can be anywhere anytime. Usually the Siberian forests. How do you target a mobile missile that can go anywhere at a moment's notice? You don't. So retaliation is a guarantee. This is not to mention the missiles they are placing into train cars. Any train on any rail line anywhere could have one or more nukes on it. There is also no way to target these.
2. An impenetrable air defense. Russian armed forces recently reshuffled their departments and came up with an aerospace command. It comprises land SAM units, air force, and ICBM capabilities to protect them from any air assaults including drones, jets, missiles, nukes, and satellites. This includes the much vaunted S-300, S-350, S-400, and S-500 systems which are considered to be excellent air defense systems by any measure. Add on the low altitude defense systems called TOR and the coastal systems called Bastion, not to mention the all around BUK- and you have extreme defense from air assault. {See this article to get an idea of their array of air defenses}. Russian land based ICBM silos will be safe regardless, as they are protected by the Mozyr systems. These comprise 100 synchronized artillery units which literally create a wall of ordnance against any incoming objects. 
3. Different tactics. The Topol and Yars type missiles have evasion programs, decoys, and low orbit launching, which will make them exceedingly hard to detect- much less destroy. While america boasts of a “triad” of air, sea, and land silo launched missiles, Russia has a "pentagon" of sorts: land silo, sea, air, truck, and train launchers.
So how many american nukes would really get through? And, if they did- the Russian population would be relatively safe in their shelters anyway.

It is similar for China though they have a different military situation. China has land, sea, and air launchers as well, plus extensive underground railroad tunnels throughout their country to move around missiles in secret. They have less impressive air defenses, though they are about to buy S-400 systems from Russia, which at least will protect their major cities. And they have fewer nukes, but the ones they do have are more powerful than either Russian or american nukes.

This all means that a large portion of their populations would survive- or at least try to. Americans will all die because they simply would not even try. It speaks of their characters: Russia and China consider themselves each to be unique civilizations; america thinks of itself as a new Roman empire- and we all know what happened to them. 

See Also: Strategic Air Defense and Nuclear Deterrence: Is America Doomed? 

(C) james platt  do not copy or repost

No comments:

Post a Comment

constructive comments appreciated. name calling and links deleted.