JNiemczyk wrote:
A mixture of cost issues (Polaris was supposed to be cheaper) and a worry that our QRA aircraft would not be able to scramble before Soviet IRBMs hit their airfields.
Standing Airborne Patrol anyone?
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
trekaddict |
|||
|
Posts: 863 ( 4-May-2008 21:09:19) |
JNiemczyk wrote: Standing Airborne Patrol anyone?
Bond: Do you expect me to talk? Goldfinger: No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die! There's nothing about you that I don't already know!
|
||
JNiemczyk |
|||
|
Posts: 6310 ( 4-May-2008 21:25:59) |
Examined, but seen as too expensive and SAC experience suggested that there was too much risk of a BROKEN ARROW.
|
||
trekaddict |
|||
|
Posts: 864 ( 4-May-2008 23:08:49) |
I have a job-related conversation tomorrow that I am not exactly looking forward to, and to ease my mind of things I came up with this grandiose scheme: Base
the Bombers in Canada! They can train with SAC and have time to take of when the crap hits the fan.
Bond: Do you expect me to talk? Goldfinger: No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die! There's nothing about you that I don't already know!
|
||
JNiemczyk |
|||
|
Posts: 6312 ( 4-May-2008 23:17:25) |
Ah, but then they are vulnerable to ICBMs coming over the Pole, which would hit them well before they hit SAC bases.
We'd also be dependent on the Canadians not throwing a wobbly and deciding
that they don't want nuclear weapons on their soil.
We could always have based them in Australia I suppose. |
||
mikey1983 |
|||
|
Posts: 28 ( 5-May-2008 00:22:57) |
Forgive me for asking a dumb question, but how long has the war been going on now? I'm asking this because I'm curious as to why the nukes aren't
already flying. It's always been my understanding that in a war scenario between NATO and the Warsaw Pact (or U.S. and U.S.S.R., to be frank) there would
be a period of tension (like the Cuban Missile Crisis), followed by someone on the ground screwing up and starting a battle(like a ship being sunk), followed
by heavier escalation until someone panics and starts lobbing tactical nukes. Which would then be followed by one or both sides pushing the button and
launching their nukes. And I've heard of the "if one flies, they all fly" idea, meaning that in such a situation, every nuclear power on Earth
would launch their nukes.
I'm asking this because I've recently read an interesting and believable alt.history version of the Cuban Missile Crisis on alternatehistory.com. Basically in that scenario, the U.S., Britain and Western and Eastern Europe are heavily damaged, whereas the Soviet Union loses something like 75 % of its population and for all practical purposes ceases to exist. Of course, TLW is set in this decade, so the Soviets are truly capable of MAD in this case. Which begs my next question. When the nukes eventually fly (as they surely will), will it be MAD or will it be a limited nuclear war? Is a limited nuclear war even possible? It has always seemed to me that the Soviets in particular were paranoid about the West's intentions and their own security, no doubt because of the trauma of having their country invaded twice in the space of 25 years and suffering heavy losses. I'm sure everyone knows about Stanislav Petrov and the near miss with Able Archer back in 1983. It seems to me that if the Soviets were staring at nuclear war in the face, they would go with everything they got, rather than use a part of their armament and risk the rest being destroyed in the U.S. counter-attack (or pre-emptive attack). Just some thoughts. Regards, Mikey |
||
James1978 |
TacNukes | ||
|
Posts: 611 ( 5-May-2008 00:36:38) |
You need to read the factfile on the Theater Weapons Treaty over on the Yahoo! group archive site. That should clear a few things up.
|
||
EdwardEddie |
|||
|
Posts: 5 ( 5-May-2008 00:49:27) |
Good story so far. The 7100-kg bomb is not good, JNiemcyzk. Not good at all. This will escalate the war, especially if one of the bombers succeeds (or,
failing, drops the bomb in a civilian area).
|
||
marshalx |
|||
|
Posts: 78 ( 5-May-2008 01:18:14) |
EdwardEddie wrote: why would a conventional 7100kg bomb escalate much? |
||
Roller007 |
|||
|
Posts: 1174 ( 5-May-2008 03:53:50) |
because if it has the yield they say it does its 44kt's, that's twice Hiroshima......
|
||
JNiemczyk |
|||
|
Posts: 6313 ( 5-May-2008 04:22:41) |
AFAIK the FOAB is supposed to have a blast radius of 300m, so yes it is pretty powerful.
|
||