About when did a US/CCCP war become suicidal?

In article ,
(Gareth B) wrote:

If you can point to an official statement from either the whitehouse
or the kremlin that MAD was a "policy", I'd be very interested. My
understanding, from it being beaten into my skull by someone in the US
thinktank industry, is that MAD was NOT a policy, it was a highly
abbraviated expression of the consequences of a large scale nuclear
exchange.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war.../mcnamara.dete
rrence/

Pretty much an official summation of "assured destruction," later called
"Mutual Assured Destruction." Not just an acknowledgement of
consequences, but a statement of policy.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"james_anatidae" wrote in message
...
I was wondering at about what point that the United States going to war
with
the Soviet Union become an almost certain act of mutual destruction. I'm
assuming it sometime in 1960's or 70's, since what I've seen of the Soviet
nuclear capability before that point doesn't seem to be all that
threatening. It looks like they would have been really bad for us
Americans, but not unsurvivable.

The US was never in a condition to suffer more than 20% casulties;
unthinkable enough.

"james_anatidae" wrote in message ...
I was wondering at about what point that the United States going to war with
the Soviet Union become an almost certain act of mutual destruction. I'm
assuming it sometime in 1960's or 70's, since what I've seen of the Soviet
nuclear capability before that point doesn't seem to be all that
threatening. It looks like they would have been really bad for us
Americans, but not unsurvivable.

The war with the CCCP became suicidal, about
40 years before nuclear weapons were even invented,
in about 1900.
Since we been telling both the idiot Russian
Soviet leaders, and the equally moronic
US Congress since that time, that the
US war in Europe has nothing to do with either
nuclear weapons, tanks, AK-47s or survival.

It simply concerns the conditions of survival.

"ZZBunker" wrote in message .

The war with the CCCP became suicidal, about
40 years before nuclear weapons were even invented,
in about 1900.

So...almost a decade before the Soviet Union existed....An interesting
viewpont.

Nick P. Norwood

"Nick P. Norwood" wrote in message news:HzA_b.143$44.130@newsfe1-win...
"ZZBunker" wrote in message .

The war with the CCCP became suicidal, about
40 years before nuclear weapons were even invented,
in about 1900.

So...almost a decade before the Soviet Union existed....An interesting
viewpont.

The Soviet Union was nothing but a moronic
European Spy Ring and Political legality
created by retatded Russian Lawyers and Josef Stalin.

The CCCP was created by Lenin et al.




Nick P. Norwood

"james_anatidae" wrote in message ...
I was wondering at about what point that the United States going to war with
the Soviet Union become an almost certain act of mutual destruction. I'm
assuming it sometime in 1960's or 70's, since what I've seen of the Soviet
nuclear capability before that point doesn't seem to be all that
threatening. It looks like they would have been really bad for us
Americans, but not unsurvivable.

Even now it is survivable. According to different esimates
some 10-20% of population of each country have some chances
to survive even in full scale nuclear war. But the damage
is simply unacceptable for both sides. As far as I understand
even one bomb explosion in center of a big city in US or Russia
is totaly unacceptable for any side.

Michael

"james_anatidae" wrote in message ...
I was wondering at about what point that the United States going to war with
the Soviet Union become an almost certain act of mutual destruction. I'm
assuming it sometime in 1960's or 70's, since what I've seen of the Soviet
nuclear capability before that point doesn't seem to be all that
threatening. It looks like they would have been really bad for us
Americans, but not unsurvivable.

Depends on where you are. Much of the WWII doctrine carried over into
the Cold War, the Soviets seeing nuclear weapons as a way of clearing
the enemy out of a retricted front area without all that probing
necessary under the conventional weapons useage. It was only after
about 20 years that they realized that sword was not singled edged,
those who survived would want to strike back. The Soviets stationed a
large number of SS-11s at Tatishchevo in an attempt to create a
theater force until the road mobile SS-20s and follow-ons were
available. We countered with Pershing IIs.

The Soviets believe that a conventional war in Europe might escalate
to the nuclear level despite their oft-repeated commitment to no
first-use of nuclear weapons, the Soviets have developed extensive
plans either to preempt a NATO nuclear strike by launching a massive
attack, or to launch a massive first strike against prime NATO targets
should their conventional operations falter.

"james_anatidae" wrote in message ...
I was wondering at about what point that the United States going to war with
the Soviet Union become an almost certain act of mutual destruction. I'm
assuming it sometime in 1960's or 70's, since what I've seen of the Soviet
nuclear capability before that point doesn't seem to be all that
threatening. It looks like they would have been really bad for us
Americans, but not unsurvivable.

I think October 23, 1961 is a watershed date. That is the day that
the Soviet Union exploded the Tsar Bomba, the largest bomb ever
exploded.

Note that the yield of this bomb did not represent the technical limit
on the yield of a hydrogen bomb. It is my understanding that there is
no known limit. Instead, the Tsar Bomba represents a kind of
political limit in a historical context. After the Tsar Bomba, the
politicians on both side put on the brakes.

"Tom Adams" wrote in message
om...
"james_anatidae" wrote in message
...
I was wondering at about what point that the United States going to war
with
the Soviet Union become an almost certain act of mutual destruction.
I'm
assuming it sometime in 1960's or 70's, since what I've seen of the
Soviet
nuclear capability before that point doesn't seem to be all that
threatening. It looks like they would have been really bad for us
Americans, but not unsurvivable.

I think October 23, 1961 is a watershed date. That is the day that
the Soviet Union exploded the Tsar Bomba, the largest bomb ever
exploded.

Note that the yield of this bomb did not represent the technical limit
on the yield of a hydrogen bomb. It is my understanding that there is
no known limit. Instead, the Tsar Bomba represents a kind of
political limit in a historical context. After the Tsar Bomba, the
politicians on both side put on the brakes.

The Tsar bomb is blamed for an ozone hole. Maximizing a hydrogen bomb and
detonating it might be game over for us all.

Comments:
1) It is true that there is no theoretical limit to the size of a TNW.
The practical limit is when the bomb vents to space rather than
expanding across the surface of the earth. Big bombs are impractical
since they blow the hell out of the hypocenter (spot directly under
the bomb) but the radius of destruction increases as the cube root of
the bomb's yield. One could take the same amount of critical material
and make numerous smaller bombs and achieve a much greater area of
destruction by carefully distributing them over the target zone.

2) I should think doctrine on the possible use of nuclear weapons took
a serious hit when a real sober look was taken of the two nuclear
accidents the USSR experienced - Chelyabinsk and Chernobyl. The USSR
never ever achieved the capability to feed all its people from its own
resources and what fallout from numerous nuclear weapons would do to
the arable lands of the Ukraine really doesn't bear thinking about.

3) FWIW I spent those Cold War years in Air Defense Command as an 86D,
102 and 104 pilot on active air defense alert, usually every third
day, from 1954 through 1967, when I went to TAC and the F4. One got a
real serious attitude about the Air Defense mission back then.

Walt BJ